Homeland Security Seizes Spanish Domain Name That Had Already Been Declared Legal

from the international-incident dept

Tue, Feb 1st 2011 11:05am — Mike Masnick

It appears that Homeland Security's Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) division, and their incredibly sloppy domain seizure operations, have moved on to the next phase -- as was promised by both ICE boss, John Morton, and IP Enforcement Coordinator, Victoria Espinel. The timing on this one is particularly bizarre -- and politically stupid.

That's because the the domain seizure is for the Spanish streaming site Rojadirecta. Yes, ICE seized the domain name of a foreign company. And it gets worse. Rojadirecta is not just some fly-by-night operation run out of someone's basement or something. It's run by a legitimate company in Spain, and the site's legality has been tested in the Spanish courts... and the site was declared legal. The court noted that since Rojadirecta does not host any material itself, it does not infringe.

So, a full-on trial and legal process that took three years in a foreign country, and involved a series of appeals leading to a final judgment.... all totally ignored by a bunch of US customs agents.

You might think some folks in Spain would have a pretty serious issue with this move.

And the timing is especially ridiculous, given that the US has been pushing very, very hard for Spain to implement a new copyright law, driven in large part by Hollywood. With many in Spain already furious about US meddling in their own copyright laws, I can't imagine that having US customs agents reaching across the Atlantic to just out and out seize a Spanish company's domain name is going to go over very well.

Imagine if a Spanish law enforcement agency did that to a US company? How quickly would we see American politicians screaming about this "international incident." Yet, here we have Homeland Security reaching out to seize the domain name of a foreign company that has been explicitly declared legal, after going through a lengthy trial and appeals process in its native country. And, in typical Homeland Security fashion, no one bothered to contact the company and let them know or express its concerns. Instead, it just seized the domain.

I would imagine that doing so may upset Spanish citizenry even more than the attempt to rewrite copyright laws in Hollywood's favor.

And of course, it appears that, despite the serious questions raised about the last domain seizures, in particular of blogs with substantial non-infringing uses, ICE has also seized another blog, called StrikeGently, which appears to have included lots of other content. Yes, it did also include some links to downloads hosted on other sites, but did not host any content directly itself, and appears to have included plenty of other content beyond the links to downloads. Once again, no one is saying that the site is clearly legal. It may, in fact, be liable for inducement. However, that's something that's supposed to be determined at trial, and not after the government steps in with no notice whatsoever and takes the domain name away.

Apparently, Homeland Security and ICE have decided that the mistakes it made last time are so minor that it will repeat them again and again, even if it involves shutting down protected speech and interfering in international relations.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: copyright, domain names, homeland security, ice, seizures, spain
Companies: rojadirecta

274 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

The eejit (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 11:02am

OH boy, these nutjobs are just begging for another war that Aerica doesn't need. It's just begging for a major pushback.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 1 Feb 2011 @ 12:36pm
  
  Re:
  OH boy, these nutjobs are just begging for another war that Aerica doesn't need.
  
  Nah, wars are like lawyers: you can never have too many. Wars are how the US justifies huge deficit spending. Besides, wars are entertaining to the American public. So, does little Spain want a war? Bring it on!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jay (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 12:42pm
  
  Re:
  Yep, ICE has some 'splainin' to do...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Marcus Carab (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 11:09am

This is the beginning of the end of the domain name system as we know it. There is no way the world is going to stand for America controlling access to the majority of the internet. Bring on the alternatives!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Hephaestus (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 12:36pm
  
  Re:
  Agreed. HomeSec-ICE will get slapped down because of the prior restraint issue as soon as this goes before a judge, and the talk of distributed DNS and the working groups that have formed around D-DNS, this tactic is only a short term win for them. It will make their jobs in the future (1-3 yrs +) much harder, if not impossible.
  
  This is a totally self defeating move on RIAA and MPAA's part. I think I am going to have to shorten how long the labels and studios have, before they fail, yet again because of this.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - lux (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 4:53pm
    
    Re: Re:
    This will change nothing. There is no movement.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Feb 2011 @ 11:18am

Roja has 6 servers hosted here (in Canada) and we have not heard a single thing... they're really just trying to bust the domain names.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Feb 2011 @ 11:18am

that's something that's supposed to be determined at trial

Says who?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Marcus Carab (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 11:27am
  
  Re:
  Ummm perhaps you did not read the full statement:
  
  "It may, in fact, be liable for inducement. However, that's something that's supposed to be determined at trial"
  
  That's quite true. An entity cannot be found legally liable for copyright inducement without a trial. Is that clear now?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 1 Feb 2011 @ 11:31am
    
    Re: Re:
    No, it's not.
    
    If cop catches you speeding, are you innocent till you get a trial?
    
    Show me where it says there must be a trial for this.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 1 Feb 2011 @ 11:34am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Umm, yes, you are. Is this really so difficult?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 1 Feb 2011 @ 11:50am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Well, you could contest it, I guess. Very few do, tho.
        
        I imagine they could contest these seizures too.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        blah, 1 Feb 2011 @ 12:21pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The difference is, the cop giving you the ticket doesn't take anything away from you between the time you allegedly broke the law, and when you are declared guilty.
        
        You are not required to pay your fine up front, and fight to get it back later.
        
        I almost always go to court when I get a ticket, at the very least, I get to declare my side of the story, and often times the judge reduces the fine (even when I admit guilt) or even throws it out entirely (if the cop doesn't show up).
        
        People who simply "pay up" and are too lazy to represent themselves are the ones losing out.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PRMan, 1 Feb 2011 @ 12:35pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Not all of us are lazy. Some of us would just lose more money fighting the ticket than we would save succeeding.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        known coward, 2 Feb 2011 @ 12:46pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The initial point still stands, when you get a ticket you are not guilty until you plead guilty by sending in the fine money or being declared so by a judge,
        
        Now if he was buying drugs with his car in NY, and the car was seized during the bust. He would not get the car back and it would be impounded immediately. But of course that is to �protect the children� which of course is more important than any constitutional guarantee. But the law, in this country (USA) is suppose to work as said above. Innocent until proven guilty unless drugs or children may be involved.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        known coward, 2 Feb 2011 @ 12:46pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The initial point still stands, when you get a ticket you are not guilty until you plead guilty by sending in the fine money or being declared so by a judge,
        
        Now if he was buying drugs with his car in NY, and the car was seized during the bust. He would not get the car back and it would be impounded immediately. But of course that is to �protect the children� which of course is more important than any constitutional guarantee. But the law, in this country (USA) is suppose to work as said above. Innocent until proven guilty unless drugs or children may be involved.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Ron Rezendes (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 12:26pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I imagine you have oatmeal for brains based on your last three posts. No need to reply, I have determined it to be so and you are hereby dismissed summarily. Good day!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - DCL, 1 Feb 2011 @ 12:04pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I believe that the ticket states (where you sign) that you can forgo the trial by paying the fine (and plead guilty), but that you have the right to go to go in front of a judge.
      
      If you do not sign it they can arrest you, but then you will either have to be released within 24 hours or be charged with something. Even if changed you have the right to a reasonable bail (the deposit of money to 'secure' you coming back for a trial).
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Berenerd (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 12:23pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        actually, you sign it to note that you got the ticket which is actually a notice to appear in court. if you do not sign it you are detained until a court date is set (in VT it seems to take 8 months for a "speedy trial"). Signing the ticket doesn't say you are guilty but that you got the ticket so you can't say later "I never got no ticket" yes, if you are caught speeding it is generally difficult to prove yourself innocent. I have done it and I have seen it done. I showed to the court that 4 days after the violation I had my speedometer checked and fixed. i was caught doing 65 in a 55. (I was actually doing 75) and it showed my speedometer was 8.5 MPH off. The case got thrown out. (waiting 8 months for my court date sucked though)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - PRMan, 1 Feb 2011 @ 12:36pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Actually, people signing tickets is so common that there's a box for the officer to check saying, "Violator did not sign". Nobody gets arrested for not signing.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PRMan, 1 Feb 2011 @ 12:36pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        This is for CA and NV. Other states may vary.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2011 @ 1:18am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "This is for CA and NV. Other states may vary."
        
        Indeed they do. Never in my life have I ever had to pull out a pen and sign anything when receiving a ticket. Here they just point out when the court date is if you want to contest it and send you on your way.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        BearGriz72 (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 2:41am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Ditto for me (I'm in Oregon BTW), never signed a ticket. The ticket is essentially an indictment, you still have to be arraigned & possibly go to court. The initial court date on the ticket is for your arraignment, you can then plead 'Guilty', 'Nolo contendere' (AKA no-contest), or 'Not-guilty'. For the first two of those they are effectively the same, you usually get a fine and move on. The third option is 'Not-guilty', once you enter your plea it moves to the trial phase, same as in any criminal court, where the state has to prove their case and you have the opportunity to defend yourself.
        
        I have not had many tickets(4 or 5 in ~20 years driving I think) so my experience may differ from some. The one ticket I got that I was not guilty of (the cop said I was doing 80 in a 55, I was doing 58) I fought and won because the cop could not show proper calibration of the radar gun (the judge actually tossed a couple of other tickets written by that cop because I brought it up), for the others, I was speeding, I got caught, I talked to the judge & paid the fine. No big deal.
        
        The point here is that in ANY criminal proceeding, from a lowly traffic ticket to the largest capital murder case, you ABSOLUTELY ARE innocent till you get a trial and are found guilty, or enter a plea (other than Not-guilty) and accept responsibility. This is what due process is about and these domain seizures (without a trial or EVEN a warrant) are without a doubt in my mind violations of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as First Amendment free speech protections.
        1st Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
        
        14th Amendment (Excerpted):"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"
        
        Now as to the specific case of this Spanish company, it is not necessarily a case of Constitutional protection as much as a jurisdictional problem. Exactly what where these people thinking? Exactly how do they justify this? A United States Federal Agency has no jurisdiction in Spain, and as much as they might like to believe otherwise, The United States of America DOES NOT own The Internet.
        
        {/RANT}
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gabriel Tane (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 12:54pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No, the signature is in no way a statement of guilt or innocence... it's only a verification that you received the ticket itself. At least, that's how it is in Florida.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - blah, 1 Feb 2011 @ 12:16pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      If cop catches you speeding, are you innocent till you get a trial? Show me where it says there must be a trial for this. Assuming you're talking about the U.S.: You mean the part where you sign the ticket only to assure them you will appear in court, and that the signature is not an admission of guilt? It's not like the cop sits there and requests you pay the fine directly to him - that would declaring guilty and punishing you without due process. You always get the opportunity to plead your case in court, but they also allow you to just plead guilty and pay a fine if you're not willing to make a case for yourself. Now, if you're determined to be recklessly driving, or DUI, then they may put you in jail as you're declared a danger to others, where you can then post bail and go to court to declare your innocence from there. I'm surprised you have such a weak notion of your own rights.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 1 Feb 2011 @ 12:17pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      when you get pulled over you are still 'innocent'. the officer will fill out the ticket with your information and at the end present it to you for signature. this is NOT an admission of guilt, but rather acknowledgement that you have recieved and understood the citation.
      
      at that point you have two options (IANAL, and YMMV)
      1. you plead "guilty" by mailing in the fine on the ticket
      2. you go to traffic court where it is treated like a normal trial (so you have to plead, enter evidence, etc etc)
      
      this is important. it is important that even in this minor interaction with the police/court system that 'innocent until proven guilty' is still adhered to.
      
      parking tickets are another matter and give me the rage.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 1 Feb 2011 @ 12:19pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Can I show you Amir instead?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Cowardly Anon, 1 Feb 2011 @ 12:25pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Actually, yes you are. You have the right to flight the ticket and have your day in court. Most people just choose to pay the ticket instead.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - DougN (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 12:31pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Yes, when you are given a ticket, be it for parking, an accident or some moving violation (e.g. speeding), you **always** have the right to take it to court. However, if you decide to do so, and are found guilty, you often end up paying more (not including the fees for your lawyer, if you decided to hire one). Indeed, when you pay a ticket without fighting it, you are not pleading "Not Guilty" or "No contest", but you are in fact pleading "Guilty", which could be used against you in a civil case. While IANAL, I have this on very good authority from a friend of mine, who has 30 years as a criminal lawyer, and like 10+ as a prosecutor.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - DH's Love Child (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 1:10pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      If cop catches you speeding, are you innocent till you get a trial?
      
      Show me where it says there must be a trial for this.
      
      Um. yes you are. You have an opportunity to go to court to dispute the ticket. You are not actually guitly of speeding until you either plead guilty and pay the ticket or are found guilty by a judge in court.
      
      You have either never got a ticket, or have never actually read the ticket.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - LM, 1 Feb 2011 @ 2:01pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      you do have a trial,
      that is why you are given a court date on your ticket.
      Also why you are presumed innocent until proven guilty in the court of law. If you fail to present yourself at court you are found guilty.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - A Gould, 1 Feb 2011 @ 2:14pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "If cop catches you speeding, are you innocent till you get a trial? Show me where it says there must be a trial for this."
      
      Yes, you are. Everything is a bit fast-tracked for things like this, but you can choose not to pay the ticket and stand in front of the judge and have your day in court. When you pay the ticket, you're waiving those rights and pleading guilty.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - cxxc, 1 Feb 2011 @ 3:08pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      yes you are innocent because you have the ability to contest. not doing so is what admits liability
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Isochronous (profile), 3 Feb 2011 @ 1:17pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Actually, yes, you are. You plead guilty by default if you just mail in the payment. If you go to court you have the option to plead guilty or not guilty. If you plead not guilty you have the option to be tried by a jury of your peers.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - average_joe (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 11:55am
    
    Re: Re:
    That's quite true. An entity cannot be found legally liable for copyright inducement without a trial. Is that clear now?
    
    Just because they haven't been found liable at trial does not mean that the purported instrumentalities of their crimes can't be seized first. Such seizures happen all of the time.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - DCL, 1 Feb 2011 @ 12:12pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Seizures are supposed to be to prevent evidence from being destroyed, not to stop a business from operating.
      
      Just seizing the domain name is like telling a restaurant to remove the sign off the door but it can continue to serve food. If there was just cause that pointed to food prep issues then they can use procedures to lock the doors (by revoking your license that you pre-agreed to), but that isn't trivial to accomplish.
      
      If the restaurant was suspected of money laundering then the authorities could raid and take all the machines and books to prevent evidence from being destroyed. but the owners could open the next day as a cash only service.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 1 Feb 2011 @ 12:22pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Sounds to me more like the cop taking your license when you're busted for speeding.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        DCL, 1 Feb 2011 @ 12:34pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I like your comment better then mine. I have comment envy.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - average_joe (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 12:23pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Seizures are supposed to be to prevent evidence from being destroyed, not to stop a business from operating.
        
        The statute that provides for these seizures (18 U.S.C. 2323) says nothing of a requirement of preserving evidence.
        
        Just seizing the domain name is like telling a restaurant to remove the sign off the door but it can continue to serve food. If there was just cause that pointed to food prep issues then they can use procedures to lock the doors (by revoking your license that you pre-agreed to), but that isn't trivial to accomplish.
        
        If the restaurant was suspected of money laundering then the authorities could raid and take all the machines and books to prevent evidence from being destroyed. but the owners could open the next day as a cash only service.
        
        I agree with your analogy that the domain name is like the sign on the door. The "restaurant" is the server, and if the server isn't in the U.S., there isn't much the U.S. can do about that. They're seizing the only thing they can.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Berenerd (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 12:31pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Well here is another question, since when does a Spanish company that has nothing in the US need to obey US laws when they have no real ties to the US. its not like a US company with offices in Spain or a Spain company with offices in the US. its all in Spain.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        pixelpusher220 (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 2:08pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "its all in Spain."
        
        All except that domain name server record that they seized anyway...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        average_joe (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 3:44pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Well here is another question, since when does a Spanish company that has nothing in the US need to obey US laws when they have no real ties to the US. its not like a US company with offices in Spain or a Spain company with offices in the US. its all in Spain.
        
        The U.S. government can seize property that is used to break U.S. criminal laws if that property is in the U.S. It doesn't matter if that property is foreign-owned.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Any Mouse (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 6:44pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I would argue that the domain names reside in international space, not US soil. The US retained control of the DNS servers by international agreement, and current actions are going to cause the international community to review that decision. If the current DNS scheme is to stay as it is, the US is going to lose control. Otherwise, expect changes to be made that the US cannot control.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        average_joe (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 6:58pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I would argue that the domain names reside in international space, not US soil. The US retained control of the DNS servers by international agreement, and current actions are going to cause the international community to review that decision. If the current DNS scheme is to stay as it is, the US is going to lose control. Otherwise, expect changes to be made that the US cannot control.
        
        You can argue that, but I think you just made it up. Care to cite any authority for the proposition that "domain names reside in international space"?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Karl (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 9:12pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        (re: "I would argue that the domain names reside in international space, not US soil.")
        
        You can argue that, but I think you just made it up.
        
        You should probably look into ICANN. Its board members are multinational, and it's ultimately responsible for coordinating all gTLD's. It's officially located in America, but only through the approval of the international community - kind of like the United Nations.
        
        You may be particularly interested in these links:
        http://www.icann.org/en/topics/verisign-settlement.htm
        http://www.icann.org/en/udrp/
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Joseph, 15 Apr 2011 @ 5:41am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Actually ICANN was created at the behest of the U.S. Government, and ICANN's authority derives from its IANA contract it signed with the U.S. Government.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Feb 2011 @ 8:50pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "The statute that provides for these seizures (18 U.S.C. 2323) says nothing of a requirement of preserving evidence."
        
        The case law that you provided the other day said that. The statute that provides for these seizures is only applicable if a judge decides that they are. People have a right to a trial, the government can't simply take anything just because it wants to before a trial.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Feb 2011 @ 8:57pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Here is a link to that case law, in case you missed it.
        
        http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110121/16003912772/karls-favorite-techdirt-posts-week.shtm l#c894
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Feb 2011 @ 11:17pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The statute that provides for these seizures (18 U.S.C. 2323) says nothing of a requirement of preserving evidence.
        
        I see nothing in that statute that would provide for these seizures.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        average_joe (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 6:19am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I see nothing in that statute that would provide for these seizures.
        
        18 U.S.C. 2323 provides:
        
        "(1) Property subject to forfeiture.�
        The following property is subject to forfeiture to the United States Government:
        (A) Any article, the making or trafficking of which is, prohibited under section 506 of title 17 . . . .
        (B) Any property used, or intended to be used, in any manner or part to commit or facilitate the commission of an offense referred to in subparagraph (A)."
        
        Section 506 of Title 17 is criminal copyright infringement. The statute says that "any property used, or intended to be used, in any manner or part to commit or facilitate the commission of" criminal copyright infringement can be forfeited. The domain name is such property.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2011 @ 10:02am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "any property used, or intended to be used, in any manner or part to commit or facilitate the commission of" criminal copyright infringement can be forfeited.
        
        Which isn't the case here. Therefore, it doesn't apply.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 12:12pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      One, they have been threw trial and the website has been deemed legal.
      
      Two, didn't we already go over how this is not a seizure that happens during an investigation. This is outside of search and seizure laws and is probably illegal. Plus, there isn't an investigation.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - average_joe (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 12:26pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        One, they have been threw trial and the website has been deemed legal.
        
        Legal in Spain, sure. Legal in the U.S., not necessarily.
        
        Two, didn't we already go over how this is not a seizure that happens during an investigation. This is outside of search and seizure laws and is probably illegal. Plus, there isn't an investigation.
        
        There is an investigation. ICE investigates these sites and determines that there is probable cause that they are being used to commit crimes. The agent presents this evidence to a judge who signs off on the warrant. I have no idea how you think there is no investigation.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Feb 2011 @ 8:53pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You're being deliberately misleading here. Yes, there is an investigation, the point is that the seizures are not intended to facilitate the investigation.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        average_joe (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 7:18am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You're being deliberately misleading here. Yes, there is an investigation, the point is that the seizures are not intended to facilitate the investigation.
        
        I don't follow you. The seizure is the culmination of the investigation.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 1 Feb 2011 @ 12:24pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Please seize Chinese websites that are legal in that country and see where this will lead you.
      
      Please seize a Russian website that is legal there and see what happens.
      
      Please seize a German website that is legal and see if they will not complain.
      
      Heck seize a French website and see what they will do to all American websites.
      
      I don't think you grasp the gravity of the situation.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous, 1 Feb 2011 @ 5:01pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Careful what you wish for. Seems pretty likely that'll happen sooner than you think.
        
        Easy solution: Don't break the law.
        
        US or WIPO.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        techflaws.org (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 1:49am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Easier solution: Register TLDs elsewhere (.es or so) and tell them to shove it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Marcus Carab (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 12:39pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Yes, I'm not saying that this automatically makes the seizures unlawful (though obviously I still believe they are)
      
      I was just contesting the commenter's ridiculous response to the true statement that contributory infringement must be proven in court.
      
      "Says who?"
      
      Says everyone.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - btr1701 (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 4:47pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      > Just because they haven't been found liable at
      > trial does not mean that the purported
      > instrumentalities of their crimes can't be seized
      > first.
      
      Yes, but in this case, there's already *been* a trial and the company was found to be operating perfectly legally.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 1 Feb 2011 @ 5:04pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yes, but in this case, there's already *been* a trial and the company was found to be operating perfectly legally.
        
        So? Follow the reasoning here: Things can be seized without a trial in the first place. But without a trial in the first place, they may well have been used legally. In fact, until a court finds otherwise, things are presumed to be legal. Therefore, it's OK to seize even things that are being used legally. And if it's OK to seize even things that are being used legally, then the results of a trial are irrelevant.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - average_joe (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 5:15pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yes, but in this case, there's already *been* a trial and the company was found to be operating perfectly legally.
        
        There was a trial in Spain applying Spanish law. What's that got to do with the U.S.?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        techflaws.org (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 1:50am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Same that a server in spain run by a spanish company and deemed legal by spanish law has to do with the US obvously.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        average_joe (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 7:21am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Same that a server in spain run by a spanish company and deemed legal by spanish law has to do with the US obvously.
        
        I've said it over and over in this thread, but apparently since no one wants to hear it, it doesn't get heard.
        
        If a Spanish website violates U.S. law, that website has to answer to the U.S. Most of the time the U.S. can't do anything about it. But when that illegal website happens to have property located in the U.S., the U.S. can do something about it.
        
        You guys seem to think that how you think things should be is how they actually are. Ever thought about learning about how things actually are? It would make you look smarter to girls.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Richard (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 7:56am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        the U.S. can do something about it.
        
        But of course that "something" could be subject to retaliation by the Spanish government or a ruling by the GATT. Once another country is involved the US can't act unilaterally with impunity.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        AJ, 2 Feb 2011 @ 8:08am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "But of course that "something" could be subject to retaliation by the Spanish government or a ruling by the GATT. Once another country is involved the US can't act unilaterally with impunity."
        
        Well said... a fine example of "just because you can, doesn't mean you should"
        
        That was my point as well, not quite as clearly put, but the same idea.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2011 @ 10:32am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        If a Spanish website violates U.S. law, that website has to answer to the U.S. Most of the time the U.S. can't do anything about it. But when that illegal website happens to have property located in the U.S., the U.S. can do something about it.
        
        Actually, they can, they just don't. If someone in a foreign country country violates U.S. law and that country won't send them to the U.S., the U.S. can go get them. Either by force (that's what the military is for), or by stealth (that's what the C.I.A. is for). U.S. law applies world-wide. It's just a question of when it's worth enforcing.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Any Mouse (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 11:27am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        By that logic the laws of Iran, Iraq and China are equally enforcable the world around, and yet we call such actions terrorism. Care to try, again? Because I sure as hell am NOT bound by the laws of a country I am not in, let alone a citizen of.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        average_joe (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 11:33am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Because I sure as hell am NOT bound by the laws of a country I am not in, let alone a citizen of.
        
        Sit in your home, pick up the phone, call a foreign country, threaten to kill their leader, travel to that country, and then let us know how it goes.
        
        Are you incapable of understanding, or do you just choose not to?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Pip, 4 Feb 2011 @ 7:00am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Joe? From Lowell? Man, you suck everywhere!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 1 Feb 2011 @ 11:30am
  
  Re:
  Says the Founding Fathers of our nation.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 1 Feb 2011 @ 4:21pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Says the Founding Fathers of our nation.
    
    You mean that bunch of traitors?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - known coward, 2 Feb 2011 @ 12:56pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Terrorists, king george called the terrorists.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Aerilus, 1 Feb 2011 @ 11:21am

got to look like their doing something
After 911 homeland security was created and got to wear the big boy pants they pretty much have no oversight and get to do what ever they want including pushing the fbi and intelligence agencies around. they have to look like there doing something to justify the billion sin tax dollars they are getting and why not take a leaf out of obama's book and suck at the teat of big media.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
HothMonster, 1 Feb 2011 @ 11:26am

Cheers to Rojdirecta. They are already(still?) up under 6 other domain names as they explain here: http://www.rojadirecta.com/

More proof that not only is ICE stupid and acting beyond their rights but what they are doing is completely ineffective at stopping anything.

Here is to hoping ICE is stupid and ballsy enough to start taking down the other domains, so this blows up in their face even more.

John Morton I know times are tough but the McDonald's store by me just put up a help wanted sign, I know your under qualified but they would probably be willing to train you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 11:36am
  
  Re:
  Even better, it says that it's all the DHS' fault on the website. Where's a failscreen when you need one.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jay (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 11:40am
    
    Re: Re:
    Screw that, where's Donald Trump when you need him?
    
    (To John Morton): YOU'RE FIRED!!!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Dark Helmet (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 11:58am
    
    Re: Re:
    "Even better, it says that it's all the DHS' fault on the website"
    
    Excuse me, but the Dark Helmet Security service was NOT at fault here. We're under a lot of strain from a retarded huge blizzard at the moment, but we're working to correct the problem through a new mechanism we're calling Mega-Snowblower....
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 12:09pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Just as long as you don't set it from blow to suck.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Berenerd (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 12:43pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      *shovels out his car and puts the snow on DH's car*
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - OC, 1 Feb 2011 @ 1:21pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Is that the one Mr Sheen was beta testing recently?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Feb 2011 @ 11:31am

Well Spain now can go to the WIPO and complain and gain some punitive concessions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Feb 2011 @ 11:41am

In the end, this only makes US-controled TLDs (.com, .org, .net, .info, .us, and a few others) less valuable, while making TLDs from other countries (.se, .es, .de, .ch, and so on) more valuable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
average_joe (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 11:51am

Whether or not the sites were declared legal under Spanish law has no bearing on whether or not they are legal under U.S. law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 1 Feb 2011 @ 11:59am
  
  Re:
  So, by that logic, every website must be held accountable to every nation's law?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - average_joe (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 12:03pm
    
    Re: Re:
    So, by that logic, every website must be held accountable to every nation's law?
    
    Sure, if it's effects are felt there. Are you suggesting that it doesn't matter where a website's effects are felt, and all that matters is where the operator is located?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - cc (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 12:08pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      The same goes for censorship.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 1 Feb 2011 @ 12:13pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      ... Can you name ONE topic that wouldn't run afoul of another nation's laws/rules/demands? Sure, we start with the obvious by getting rid of piracy. And much of the world has an anti-porn stance. Then of course, we have to dump violence. Websites about free markets and democracy and republics must all go away. While we are at it, any website that deals with those rules we don't like should go too, such as despotism, anarchy, socialism and communism. Web sites on how to make weapons need to go, as those are banned in some nations.
      
      I mean, honestly, if you take the stance you seem to be claiming, it would mean the end of the internet, as every nation starts to attack the websites of other nations for violating local laws. After all the page can be accessed at that nation, so the effects are felt there. So it would wind up with either an empty, pointless internet, or each nation having a nation wide network, with no international communications.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 1 Feb 2011 @ 12:59pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I mean, honestly, if you take the stance you seem to be claiming, it would mean the end of the internet,
        
        These days, I imagine that most governments and the entertainment industry would very much like to see *that* happen and things rolled-back to pre-internet times. So, expect to see more moves in that direction.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 1 Feb 2011 @ 12:25pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      So what you want to do, is to give other countries reasons to expunge all American influence?
      
      Right.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 1 Feb 2011 @ 12:29pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Are you going to invade Europe, China or Russia to make U.S. law enforceable there?
      
      The U.S. took a DNS from a legitimate European business and you don't expect complaints?
      
      Just watch and see what the Europeans will do to American business.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 1 Feb 2011 @ 12:45pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Sure, if it's effects are felt there. Are you suggesting that it doesn't matter where a website's effects are felt, and all that matters is where the operator is located?
      
      Typical average_joe. Non-Muslim religious websites run afoul of the law in certain Muslim countries. So they should be able to get those domains seized too, huh?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - average_joe (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 12:50pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Typical average_joe. Non-Muslim religious websites run afoul of the law in certain Muslim countries. So they should be able to get those domains seized too, huh?
        
        If a non-Muslim website's domain name is managed in a Muslim country, and that website breaks the law, I should think that website's domain name would be subject to the laws of that Muslim country. Are you arguing otherwise?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Killer_Tofu (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 1:12pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The website is not located here. The website might break out laws but a domain name is just a domain name. A domain name by itself cannot break a law. The idea of this has been covered under the trials for the 'sucks' sites. Domain names are just names. If the website breaks the laws then they have to go after the site itself. Too bad for you and others that it was declared legal where it is hosted. More actions that just make the censorship brigade look like tools.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Feb 2011 @ 1:24pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        If a non-Muslim website's domain name is managed in a Muslim country, and that website breaks the law, I should think that website's domain name would be subject to the laws of that Muslim country.
        
        I see, so you're arguing that they should if they can.
        So, might makes right, huh? I guess that for authoritarian fascists that makes perfect sense.
        
        Are you arguing otherwise?
        
        Why, yes, I am. But then again, I'm not a might-makes-right authoritarian, fascist kind of person either. You and I would probably disagree on a lot things.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        average_joe (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 3:59pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I see, so you're arguing that they should if they can.
        So, might makes right, huh? I guess that for authoritarian fascists that makes perfect sense.
        
        Why, yes, I am. But then again, I'm not a might-makes-right authoritarian, fascist kind of person either. You and I would probably disagree on a lot
        
        I'm just explaining what I think the law is regarding these issues. I'm sorry you have to call me names for doing so. I never said they "should if they can." But hey, if pretending I did makes you feel good, go ahead. I'm used to the abuse on techdirt.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Feb 2011 @ 4:37pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I'm just explaining what I think the law is regarding these issues.
        
        And I was just explaining what I thought of the principle involved.
        
        I'm sorry you have to call me names for doing so.
        
        I didn't call *you* anything. But hey, if the shoe fits and you want to wear it, then go ahead.
        
        I never said they "should if they can."
        
        I didn't say you did, either.
        
        But hey, if pretending I did makes you feel good, go ahead. I'm used to the abuse on techdirt.
        
        If pretending someone said something they didn't makes you feel good, then it's just what we're used to seeing you do on Techdirt.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        average_joe (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 5:13pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Are you looking in threaded view? I was responding to someone else.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Feb 2011 @ 5:25pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Are you looking in threaded view? I was responding to someone else.
        
        What makes you think that?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Richard (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 1:45pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      So, by that logic, every website must be held accountable to every nation's law?
      
      Sure, if it's effects are felt there.
      
      Including...
      
      China, Russia, Iran, Burma, North Korea, Pakistan ( Blasphemy law with death penalty , Zimbabwe, Somalia....
      
      Are you serious??
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 1 Feb 2011 @ 1:54pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Pakistan ( Blasphemy law with death penalty
        
        Hey, Pakistan is a US partner in the "war on terrorism". Surely we could do them the courtesy of extraditing a few blasphemers whose websites can be seen in Pakistan since it is such as serious crime, no?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - btr1701 (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 4:52pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      > > So, by that logic, every website must be
      > > held accountable to every nation's law?
      
      > Sure, if it's effects are felt there.
      
      So Germany could seize an American's website for talking about denying the Holocaust, because that's illegal in Germany, despite it being protected speech in America?
      
      And Iran can seize any website which depicts or endorses women acting "immodestly" as that term is defined under Shari'a law?
      
      You're basically endorsing the notion that the entire internet is only as free as the most restrictive and oppressive nation's laws allow.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 1 Feb 2011 @ 5:08pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You're basically endorsing the notion that the entire internet is only as free as the most restrictive and oppressive nation's laws allow.
        
        That's AJ for you. And whoever the leaders are, old AJ will be as far up their asses as he can get.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        average_joe (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 5:23pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        That's AJ for you. And whoever the leaders are, old AJ will be as far up their asses as he can get.
        
        Why does my explaining the legality of these seizures offends you? Should I just be screaming about how bad it all is without any analysis? No thanks.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Feb 2011 @ 5:36pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Why does my explaining the legality of these seizures offends you? Should I just be screaming about how bad it all is without any analysis? No thanks.
        
        Things can be bad even if they are locally legal. Should we all accept anything that is locally legal as being perfectly alright? No thanks to *that*.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Any Mouse (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 6:49pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Because we are not discussing what you believe is allowed by the law. We are discussing what is right and just. The law has nothing to do with justice these days.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        average_joe (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 6:56pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Because we are not discussing what you believe is allowed by the law. We are discussing what is right and just. The law has nothing to do with justice these days.
        
        I don't buy it. We've been discussing the legality of these seizures, among other things. Read through the thread and tell we haven't been discussing what is or isn't allowed by law.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Feb 2011 @ 7:54pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I don't buy it. We've been discussing the legality of these seizures, among other things. Read through the thread and tell we haven't been discussing what is or isn't allowed by law.
        
        Mostly it's been you using US law as an excuse. I really don't see many here arguing that their ICE's action was illegal under US law, but that it was wrong. Your argument boils down to "if ICE can get legally get away with it, then it's A-OK!"
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        average_joe (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 8:09pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Mostly it's been you using US law as an excuse. I really don't see many here arguing that their ICE's action was illegal under US law, but that it was wrong. Your argument boils down to "if ICE can get legally get away with it, then it's A-OK!"
        
        Nonsense. Whether it's legal is a separate issue from whether it's a good idea. I'm interested in the legality, so that's what I comment on. I'm not making any excuses, nor do I care about what ICE "can legally get away with." Is it legal, or is it not? That's my focus. It never ceases to amaze me how much shit I catch for my views. Apparently most people here think that if someone disagrees with them, that person must be wrong and evil. It's pretty much middle school thinking, IMO.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Feb 2011 @ 10:40pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I'm not making any excuses, nor do I care about what ICE "can legally get away with." Is it legal, or is it not? That's my focus.
        
        Wow. First you don't care if ICE's actions are legal, then in the very next sentence that's all you care about. Contradiction much?
        
        It never ceases to amaze me how much shit I catch for my views.
        
        I'm not familiar with your views in general, but you remind me of the fellow who keeps pointing defending the Nazis by pointing out how perfectly legal their actions were under Nazi law. And then you're amazed at catching flack?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        average_joe (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 6:14am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Wow. First you don't care if ICE's actions are legal, then in the very next sentence that's all you care about. Contradiction much?
        
        It's all the negative connotations of "can legally get away with" that I don't care about. That's all I meant.
        
        I'm not familiar with your views in general, but you remind me of the fellow who keeps pointing defending the Nazis by pointing out how perfectly legal their actions were under Nazi law. And then you're amazed at catching flack?
        
        Around here, unless I'm screaming about how bad it is and unless I turn my back on reasoned analysis, I'm shunned. That speaks poorly of others, not myself, IMO.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Any Mouse (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 11:30am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The actual issue is your blind adherence to the law. Just because something is legal does not mean it is right, and arguing otherwise speaks poorly of you, not others, IMO.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - average_joe (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 5:21pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So Germany could seize an American's website for talking about denying the Holocaust, because that's illegal in Germany, despite it being protected speech in America?
        
        And Iran can seize any website which depicts or endorses women acting "immodestly" as that term is defined under Shari'a law?
        
        You're basically endorsing the notion that the entire internet is only as free as the most restrictive and oppressive nation's laws allow.
        
        Not at all. Lots of countries don't like what other countries post on the internet. The question is whether or not they can do anything about it. If a U.S.-based/hosted/managed site isn't liked in some other country, what are they going to do about it? They may block their own people from accessing the site, but they surely can't seize anything if there's nothing in their country to seize.
        
        The issue here is that if a website is going to be used to break U.S. criminal laws, then a U.S. court can issue a warrant to seize that domain name if it is managed in the U.S. It doesn't matter who owns the property. It only matters that that property is used for crime (purportedly).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Feb 2011 @ 5:26pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The question is whether or not they can do anything about it.
        
        The old "might makes right" argument.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - techflaws.org (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 1:53am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      So if the effects of the abundant pornography from US based sites and companies are felt in Saudi Arabia they get to seize domains where this stuff is hosted?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Lo, 1 Feb 2011 @ 12:11pm
    
    Re: Re:Exactly
    This is exactly what I was wondering. How can they do this if the servers are not even on their continent ?????
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - average_joe (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 4:04pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:Exactly
      This is exactly what I was wondering. How can they do this if the servers are not even on their continent ?????
      
      The simple reason is that since it is property that is purportedly being used to break U.S. criminal laws, and it is property that resides in the U.S., such property can be seized. It doesn't matter if the property is owned by foreigners.
      
      Lots of the domain names that have already been seized involved operators that were foreign-based. This one isn't any more special because a foreign court applying foreign laws said it's not illegal.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Cowardly Anon, 1 Feb 2011 @ 12:29pm
    
    Re: Re:
    No, what average_joe is saying is that every website must be held accountable to US law. Duh. Only the US matters obviously.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - average_joe (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 12:48pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      No, what average_joe is saying is that every website must be held accountable to US law. Duh. Only the US matters obviously.
      
      Are you saying that websites can do whatever they want, and as long as the operators are not located in the U.S., they aren't subject to U.S. law?
      
      Here's a little caselaw:
      
      In Dow Jones & Co. v. Gutnick, the High Court of Australia subjected Dow Jones to suit in Australia for defamation over a posting made on Dow Jones's U.S.-based server.
      
      In Playboy Entertainment v. Chuckleberry Publishing, a U.S. District Court held that Italian website infringing on Playboy's trademark was subject to jurisdiction in New York.
      
      I'm arguing based on an understanding of the law. What are you basing your arguments on, your gut feeling?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 1 Feb 2011 @ 1:26pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I'm arguing based on an understanding of the law. What are you basing your arguments on, your gut feeling?
        
        He's just agreeing with you AJ.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        average_joe (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 4:05pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        He's just agreeing with you AJ.
        
        LOL! Only facetiously, by my read.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Feb 2011 @ 4:44pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        He's just agreeing with you AJ.
        
        LOL! Only facetiously, by my read.
        
        Agree with him, disagree with him, it doesn't matter, it's AJ against the world!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        average_joe (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 5:14pm
        
        Agree with him, disagree with him, it doesn't matter, it's AJ against the world!
        
        LOL! You guys are great! :)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2011 @ 2:31am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Just like the USA!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Richard (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 1:50pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I'm arguing based on an understanding of the law. What are you basing your arguments on, your gut feeling?
        
        No I think it was a feeling for international realpolitik.
        US law is moot if the US cannot afford the costs of enforcing it.
        
        Even the US cannot afford to ignore the rights and opinions of other countries forever.
        
        If it continues to collapse economically it may not be able to afford its current military power.
        
        Even with that power it can still be hurt.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 1 Feb 2011 @ 2:09pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Caselaw implied that there was actually a judge involved, which is nice in a situation like this.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        average_joe (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 2:24pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Caselaw implied that there was actually a judge involved, which is nice in a situation like this.
        
        A judge signed the seizure warrant in all of these seizures. How was there not a judge involved?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Not an electronic Rodent, 2 Feb 2011 @ 4:16am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        What are you basing your arguments on, your gut feeling?
        It looks like an approach of common sense and an appreciation that the USA is not the only country on the planet contrary to popular belief. But I'm just guessing.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Fred, 1 Feb 2011 @ 12:59pm
    
    Re: Re:
    So, by that logic, every website must be held accountable to every nation's law?
    If they want to do business there. That is exactly how international law works. Come on guys, this is basic stuff.
    
    US-based businesses get nailed for violating laws in other countries all the time. If you offer your services in a country, you must follow that country's laws.
    
    So many P2P fans seem to think that there's a loophole here that doesn't exist. But thinking doesn't make it so.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 1 Feb 2011 @ 1:24pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      How many countries do you see seizing assets from companies of other countries?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - average_joe (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 4:09pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        How many countries do you see seizing assets from companies of other countries?
        
        I reckon that foreign-owned property used to commit crimes gets seized with regularity. I don't even understand the argument that somehow because this property is foreign-owned it can't be touched by the government. If that was the case, criminals would always use foreign-owned instrumentalities to commit their crimes with. That way, the government could never touch them. The idea is absurd.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 1 Feb 2011 @ 12:03pm
  
  Re:
  So that means NY Times is liable under Sharia law as practiced in Iran?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - average_joe (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 12:05pm
    
    Re: Re:
    So that means NY Times is liable under Sharia law as practiced in Iran?
    
    Maybe so. I don't know anything about Sharia law though, so I can't really comment.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 1 Feb 2011 @ 12:15pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      That means the NY Times website would be required to fire all of their female employees because under Sharia law, women are only allowed to work in specific industries.
      
      Of course, this would conflict with US civil rights laws. So which set of laws take precedence?
      
      The laws where the server is located. And now you're back to square one.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - average_joe (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 12:41pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        That means the NY Times website would be required to fire all of their female employees because under Sharia law, women are only allowed to work in specific industries.
        
        Of course, this would conflict with US civil rights laws. So which set of laws take precedence?
        
        The laws where the server is located. And now you're back to square one.
        
        If an Iranian court ordered the NYT to fire all female employees, I can't imagine that order would be enforceable in the U.S., so I don't see your point.
        
        If I run a website that violates Iranian criminal law, and my domain name is managed in Iran, I would fully expect my domain name to be subject to orders from Iranian courts. That's the point.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The eejit (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 1:23pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The problem is that ICE have seixed not just the .com TLD, but are alsoi trying to seize the toher TLDs associated with the website in question. That opens up a whole new kettle of fish.
        
        IT is good, however, to see someone argue with citations.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Feb 2011 @ 1:31pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        If I run a website that violates Iranian criminal law, and my domain name is managed in Iran, I would fully expect my domain name to be subject to orders from Iranian courts. That's the point.
        
        No, the DNS servers should now be moved out of the US to keep people like you from getting their hands on them. That's the real point.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Dark Helmet (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 12:26pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "Maybe so. I don't know anything about Sharia law though, so I can't really comment."
      
      WTF? You aren't stupid, so don't play that game. The NYT is in no way liable under Iranian law for the simple reason that they aren't located there. Where am I missing the question of jurisdiction here?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Cowardly Anon, 1 Feb 2011 @ 12:31pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Trolls, don't feed them.
        
        You should know that by now :)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Bruce Ediger (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 12:38pm
        
        Portrait of the young average joe as a downhill bicycle race
        average_joe used to claim Real Human status, though. He/she/it said he/her/they were a law student, and that his/her/its motivation was a Love of The Law.
        
        I think we've seen enough to judge this a false claim, however. The real love here goes to Strict Authority. And with that, Away with Real Human Status, and welcome to Trolldom!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        average_joe (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 4:11pm
        
        Re: Portrait of the young average joe as a downhill bicycle race
        average_joe used to claim Real Human status, though. He/she/it said he/her/they were a law student, and that his/her/its motivation was a Love of The Law.
        
        I think we've seen enough to judge this a false claim, however. The real love here goes to Strict Authority. And with that, Away with Real Human Status, and welcome to Trolldom!
        
        LOL! You are one strange cat.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - average_joe (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 12:43pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        They may be liable there. The issue would be whether or not that liability carries over and is enforceable in the U.S.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- cc (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 12:06pm
  
  Re:
  Whether or not the sites were randomly declared illegal under US law has no bearing on whether or not they are legal under Spanish law.
  
  The US was tasked to manage some non-country-specific TLDs and they failed to remain impartial. Result? They will be stripped of any similar responsibilities in the future, along with any benefits such responsibility will have bestowed.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - average_joe (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 12:12pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Whether or not the sites were randomly declared illegal under US law has no bearing on whether or not they are legal under Spanish law.
    
    Agreed, but the point is moot.
    
    The US was tasked to manage some non-country-specific TLDs and they failed to remain impartial. Result? They will be stripped of any similar responsibilities in the future, along with any benefits such responsibility will have bestowed.
    
    A judge issued a warrant to seize property located in the U.S. What specific international duty does that violate? None that I know of.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Marcus Carab (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 12:44pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      What specific international duty does that violate? None that I know of.
      
      Hahaha. Yeah, I'm sure every other country will agree with you that this is totally fine, and they have no problem with the U.S. controlling global access to legally operated websites overseas.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - cc (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 1:26pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "Agreed, but the point is moot."
      
      No, "because they can" does not make the point moot!
      
      "A judge issued a warrant to seize property located in the U.S. What specific international duty does that violate? None that I know of."
      
      .us is located in the US.
      .com means "company" (duh!) and it's an international address.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - average_joe (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 4:14pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No, "because they can" does not make the point moot!
        
        The point is moot because the legality of the site Spain is not an issue. The issue is the legality in the U.S.
        
        .us is located in the US.
        .com means "company" (duh!) and it's an international address.
        
        .com means that property is in the U.S. and subject to orders from a U.S. court.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 1 Feb 2011 @ 6:10pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      >A judge issued a warrant to seize property located in the U.S. What specific international duty does that violate? None that I know of.
      
      Yeah except that in this case neither judge nor court order is involved.
      
      You'd better try again.
      
      I'd say it's more like tax collectors broke in your house in a foreign country, saying that you owe them tax unpaid, and them without even a chance for you to protest, take away money they found in your drawer.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - average_joe (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 6:18pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yeah except that in this case neither judge nor court order is involved.
        
        You'd better try again.
        
        I don't follow you. Why do you think this seizure wasn't done pursuant to a judge-issued warrant like all the other domain name seizures have been done?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 12:10pm
  
  Re:
  Whether or not the sites were declared legal under Spanish law has no bearing on whether or not they are legal under U.S. law.
  
  I see. And by this reasoning, the entire internet should run under the most draconian laws possible. We should allow Iran and China to determine what websites can exist, huh?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - average_joe (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 12:14pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I see. And by this reasoning, the entire internet should run under the most draconian laws possible. We should allow Iran and China to determine what websites can exist, huh?
    
    They already do that in their own countries.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Gwiz (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 12:27pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      They already do that in their own countries.
      
      And the US is trying to that to other countries.
      
      See the problem there?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Spaceboy (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 12:28pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Yes, but they don't have the power or authority to shut down websites owned by US companies. By seizing this website, we have ignored the sovereignty of Spain, effectively bullying them.
      
      By your logic, if techdirt.com was declared illegal by the Spanish authorities, they could shut it down without a trial or anything. How is this right? What happened to due process? I really hope the Spanish authorities raise hell over this.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Gwiz (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 12:41pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I really hope the Spanish authorities raise hell over this.
        
        Actually I hope the Spanish people raise hell over this since the authorities seem to be lapdogs for the *IAA's.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Ben (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 1:41pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Meh, I'm sure most folk with think "fuck the US" and go to the latest rioja.es or whatever TLD they can find. Wonder if Google's screening this web site now?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - average_joe (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 12:55pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yes, but they don't have the power or authority to shut down websites owned by US companies. By seizing this website, we have ignored the sovereignty of Spain, effectively bullying them.
        
        By your logic, if techdirt.com was declared illegal by the Spanish authorities, they could shut it down without a trial or anything. How is this right? What happened to due process? I really hope the Spanish authorities raise hell over this.
        
        If the techdirt domain name was managed in Spain, and a Spanish court ordered it seized, it could/would be seized. Such a seizure would not violate U.S. sovereignty just because Mike lives in California.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Feb 2011 @ 1:08pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        If things get out of hand I want to see you Backing up.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gwiz (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 1:08pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        What we need then is a distributed DNS like the .p2p DNS project has proposed. Since it would be distributed across the net it wouldn't fall under any single nation's jurisdiction.
        
        I might need to contribute to that project, just on principle, otherwise the internet won't be worth a plug nickel and might we as well go ahead and use that kill switch.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        cc (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 1:14pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The key word there is "managed". The US government was never given any more authority over the internet than any other country. That this service was handed to them for safe-keeping does not implicitly authorize them to meddle with it!
        
        And with that said, if Spain or any other country were to erase US domains from the entire internet, US politicians will be hollering from the roofs.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        average_joe (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 4:16pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The key word there is "managed". The US government was never given any more authority over the internet than any other country. That this service was handed to them for safe-keeping does not implicitly authorize them to meddle with it!
        
        And with that said, if Spain or any other country were to erase US domains from the entire internet, US politicians will be hollering from the roofs.
        
        If U.S.-owned property that resides in Spain is ordered seized by a Spanish court as part of a criminal investigation, I doubt very much U.S. politicians would be "hollering from the roof." Pure FUD.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2011 @ 2:17am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Take Venezuela for example that seized property from the U.K., Brazil, U.S. and see if they didn't say anything, they all complained loudly as I recall, what do American politicians think about Hugo Chavez?
        
        Are people going to invest in Venezuela anytime soon?
        
        This is a international matter, ICANN is a international body residing in U.S. soil and it will have international repercussions doesn't matter what American law says, it got beyond the jurisdiction America has, it is now a problem to be discussed between the diplomatic bodies and could have mild to severe consequences, now every American company has a bullseye on their backs if this shit keeps happening, other countries will take action, France is just looking for a reason to strike at American business, as is Italy, Russians will do nothing because they are playing possum until they get in the WTO, but China doesn't care, wait and see until ICE seize some website owned legally in another country to see what it happens, like the Antigua - US WTO Dispute that ended with them gaining legally from an international body the right to ignore U.S. copyright and patents as punishment.
        
        Do you really think this crap will stand if the U.S. starts seizing international assets from other countries?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - DCL, 1 Feb 2011 @ 12:29pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I honestly thought you were smarter then this a_j.
      
      "A judge issued a warrant to seize property located in the U.S. What specific international duty"
      +
      "Sure, if it's effects are felt there. Are you suggesting that it doesn't matter where a website's effects are felt, and all that matters is where the operator is located?"
      +
      "They already do that in their own countries"
      =
      Every US Website is subject to other countries laws and can be taken down by foreign governments
      
      And here it is worse since the foreign government isn't really a "guilty by trial" but a business demanding the government shut another business down without due process.
      
      Please tell me that you are just being a devil's advocate today. I want to believe.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - JackSombra (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 12:34pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      They don't take the (international) domain names away in Iran/China, they just block them within their country. Pretty huge difference
      
      This is the whole problem with the .com/.org/.gov/.org top level domains , they are viewed as "international" but in fact are controlled by the US.
      
      This was fine while the US had a hands off approach to the whole thing but now that this is obviously changing it probably wise not to use them (nor a US based registrar for any other registration) if you think in anyway the US authorities (or entertainment industry as they seem one and the same these days) might dislike your use of the domain (note, i said "dislike" because as noted "actual US law" seems to have little to do with seizures)
      
      It would be nice if ICANN just moved to a new country with a real hands off approach (Iceland?) but don't see that happening any time soon
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 1 Feb 2011 @ 1:41pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It would be nice if ICANN just moved to a new country with a real hands off approach (Iceland?) but don't see that happening any time soon
        
        No, I can't imagine them voluntarily relocating. But, they *can* be involuntarily *replaced*. It's probably time to do that now.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 1 Feb 2011 @ 12:54pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      They already do that in their own countries.
      
      This story is about the US reaching beyond it's own borders and seizing domain names that are used internationally. The US seized a domain used by Spanish citizens in Spain (among others) to reach a Spanish server.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous, 1 Feb 2011 @ 5:16pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        A site that was flagrantly ripping off US IP to make their money? How is this surprising?
        
        You guys are hilarious.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Any Mouse (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 6:55pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Spanish courts disagree with you. It was a legal business operating under the local laws. The US has no right or dominion over them.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        average_joe (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 7:08pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Spanish courts disagree with you. It was a legal business operating under the local laws. The US has no right or dominion over them.
        
        Absolutely untrue. Are you just making this stuff up? You can't just say how you think it should be and try to pass that off as how things really are. If a website is being used to violate U.S. law, that website is subject to U.S. laws. The question is whether the U.S. can do anything about it. When a website has their domain name managed on U.S. soil, the answer to that question is yes, they can do something about it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Any Mouse (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 12:29am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        'If a website is being used to violate U.S. law, that website is subject to U.S. laws. '
        
        Since when? The website doesn't reside in the US, which means it is NOT subject to US laws. Is the US the caretaker of all the internets, now? Really? Are YOU making this shit up? The domain name is managed by an international committee on US soil. Does the US have dominion over the United Nations just because they meet in the US?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        average_joe (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 6:31am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Since when? The website doesn't reside in the US, which means it is NOT subject to US laws. Is the US the caretaker of all the internets, now? Really? Are YOU making this shit up? The domain name is managed by an international committee on US soil. Does the US have dominion over the United Nations just because they meet in the US?
        
        No, I'm not making this up. Think about it. Let's say I have a website with every crime you can think of on it: infringement, child porn, treason, etc. Do you think that if my website is hosted in Spain, the U.S. can't arrest me if I'm in the U.S., but if my website is hosted in the U.S., they can arrest me? That's not how it works.
        
        If that was the case, every criminal would just set up their website abroad and then walk around the U.S. with immunity. That would make no sense.
        
        If you don't believe me, look up the caselaw I've cited in this very thread. In one case, a U.S.-based company was subjected to the law of Australia for a defamatory story posted on a U.S. server. In the other case, an Italian-based website was subjected to U.S. law for trademark infringement.
        
        Believe it or not, but what matters is where the impact of one's website is felt, not where the website is located.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Richard (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 6:49am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Believe it or not, but what matters is where the impact of one's website is felt, not where the website is located.
        
        Does that mean tha a website hosted in the US and run by people who reside in the US should be subject to Pakistan's Blasphemy law if that website is accessible in Pakistan?
        
        That would mean that US citizens could be extradited and then executed for something they wrote?
        
        In practice, once you are dealing with things that pass your nation's borders then your nations law is at the mercy of international diplomacy. Your judges can huff and puff but nothing will happen except by force majeure or international bargaining.
        
        This is a good thing - because if it were not true then US citizens would find themselves liable against all kinds of laws that exist in other countries.
        
        In the present case local force majeure has prevailed for now but even if the US courts do not reverse any of this it is not the end of the story.
        
        What happens if the GATT decides that the US courts action breaks international trade agreements?
        
        Look at the US trade dispute with Antigua if you want to see where this kind of thing leads.
        
        I don't think Hollywood would be happy to see Spain given carte blanche to ignore US IP by the GATT.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        average_joe (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 7:10am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Does that mean tha a website hosted in the US and run by people who reside in the US should be subject to Pakistan's Blasphemy law if that website is accessible in Pakistan?
        
        They are subject to the blasphemy laws in Pakistan. Do you think people can avoid the blasphemy laws of Pakistan by just setting up their website outside of Pakistan. Pakistani criminals would love that.
        
        That would mean that US citizens could be extradited and then executed for something they wrote?
        
        The U.S. would not extradite their citizens for that. The U.S. doesn't just extradite its citizens to any country who asks or for any crime.
        
        In practice, once you are dealing with things that pass your nation's borders then your nations law is at the mercy of international diplomacy. Your judges can huff and puff but nothing will happen except by force majeure or international bargaining.
        
        U.S. judges issue orders that affect foreigners all the time. No huffing and puffing, actual orders that carry actual weight.
        
        This is a good thing - because if it were not true then US citizens would find themselves liable against all kinds of laws that exist in other countries.
        
        A U.S. citizen can be liable to the laws of other countries. Set up a website that breaks English law, then travel to England and see what happens.
        
        In the present case local force majeure has prevailed for now but even if the US courts do not reverse any of this it is not the end of the story.
        
        Force majeure means something different to me than it does to you apparently. Property used for crime that exists in the U.S. was ordered forfeited by a U.S. court. Happens all the time.
        
        What happens if the GATT decides that the US courts action breaks international trade agreements?
        Look at the US trade dispute with Antigua if you want to see where this kind of thing leads.
        
        I don't think Hollywood would be happy to see Spain given carte blanche to ignore US IP by the GATT.
        
        I don't think there's a chance in hell that happens. Pure FUD. Nothing would make some of you happier though, from what I can tell.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Richard (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 8:18am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        U.S. judges issue orders that affect foreigners all the time. No huffing and puffing, actual orders that carry actual weight.
        
        They only carry absolute weight in the US and in respect of US citizens. Beyond that their weight is dependent on the goodwill of the foreign governmnent involved. If that government disagrees then there will be a trial of strength in diplomatic channels, in international bodies (GATT, WIPO, UN etc etc). If that doesn't resolve the matter then brute force will be employed. That is how wars start.
        
        If the US is forced to cave at some point or loses the contest of strength (Vietnam, the original Iran hostage crisis etc) then the judges words will have been just huffing and puffing as I said.
        
        Look at the attempts of the Kentucky courts to seize the domains of British online gambling companies if you want an example of the limitations of US courts.
        
        I don't think Hollywood would be happy to see Spain given carte blanche to ignore US IP by the GATT.
        
        I don't think there's a chance in hell that happens. Pure FUD. Nothing would make some of you happier though, from what I can tell.
        It DID happens in the Antigua dispute - so I don't think you can dismiss it that easily.
        
        btw FUD doesn't mean what you think it means. It is in the nature of the word that your side of the argument (the one that has the big battalions behind it) can be guilty of FUD. My side, by definition, can't be.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2011 @ 10:18am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No, I'm not making this up. Think about it. Let's say I have a website with every crime you can think of on it: infringement, child porn, treason, etc. Do you think that if my website is hosted in Spain, the U.S. can't arrest me if I'm in the U.S., but if my website is hosted in the U.S., they can arrest me? That's not how it works.
        
        If that was the case, every criminal would just set up their website abroad and then walk around the U.S. with immunity. That would make no sense.
        
        Like when someone in a fundamentalist Muslim country issues a death warrant against the owner of a foreign website for publishing something "blasphemous". Never mind that the website isn't violating any laws where it's located. Makes perfect sense, huh?
        
        Yeah, I know how your type thinks, whether you're in a fundamentalist Muslim country or the good ol' U.S.A..
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        average_joe (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 10:39am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Like when someone in a fundamentalist Muslim country issues a death warrant against the owner of a foreign website for publishing something "blasphemous". Never mind that the website isn't violating any laws where it's located. Makes perfect sense, huh?
        
        Yeah, I know how your type thinks, whether you're in a fundamentalist Muslim country or the good ol' U.S.A..
        
        If a warrant is issued in a fundamentalist Muslim country, doesn't that indicate to you that the website was violating the laws of that country? Websites are global, and their effect is global. A website may be legal in one country and illegal in the next. It isn't my "type" that thinks this. That's the way it is. Sorry if you dislike reality, but that is the reality.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2011 @ 11:09am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It isn't my "type" that thinks this.
        
        It's your type that thinks this makes sense.
        
        That's the way it is. Sorry if you dislike reality, but that is the reality.
        
        The reality is that your type exists. And, yes, there are things I dislike about reality.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Any Mouse (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 11:39am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And yet those countries do nothing about enforcing those laws UNLESS the person in question steps on their soil. The US isn't doing that, they are forcing their laws on foreign soil. Why aren't you getting this?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2011 @ 3:26pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Any Mouse (profile), Feb 2nd, 2011 @ 11:39am And yet those countries do nothing about enforcing those laws UNLESS the person in question steps on their soil. The US isn't doing that, they are forcing their laws on foreign soil. Why aren't you getting this?
        
        Actually you don't get it. They did nothing on Spanish soil, they did not touch the server. Instead they seized the domain registered through Godaddy (USA) and with details hidden behind DomainsByProxy.com (also USA) and simply messed up the DNS. Nothing was done on Spanish territory.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Feb 2011 @ 10:29am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Of course they did and you know it. they interrupted that business and caused some financial losses for the downtime and the changes they needed to make to come back again.
        
        And thank God they didn't have any more assets in the U.S. or they would have been seized too.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2011 @ 7:44am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Close.
        
        Look at this: http://whois.domaintools.com/rojadirecta.com
        
        So GoDaddy is the registrar and DomainsByProxy.com the proxy, where both justhappen to be American companies.
        
        This brings the following into play:
        http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/ra-agreement-21may09-en.htm#3.7.7.10
        
        Essentially this domain is subject to US Law both in terms of the registered name holder (DomainsByProxy) and the registrar (Godaddy.com).
        
        The licensee is Spanish, but that is irrelevant.
        
        See http://whois.domaintools.com/rojadirecta.me
        DynaDot is an American company, though I'm not sure what the .me registration agreement says.
        
        I have not looked at the other domains, but I suspect the American controlled DNS servers will be directing to the seizure notice, the non-American DNS servers will be working as normal.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        average_joe (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 8:24am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        This brings the following into play:
        http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/ra-agreement-21may09-en.htm#3.7.7.10
        
        Essentially this domain is subject to US Law both in terms of the registered name holder (DomainsByProxy) and the registrar (Godaddy.com).
        
        The licensee is Spanish, but that is irrelevant.
        
        And there you go. According the ICANN website you linked to:
        
        3.7.7.10 For the adjudication of disputes concerning or arising from use of the Registered Name, the Registered Name Holder shall submit, without prejudice to other potentially applicable jurisdictions, to the jurisdiction of the courts (1) of the Registered Name Holder's domicile and (2) where Registrar is located.
        
        So a domain name is subject to the laws of holder's country and the laws of the registrar's country. In other words, there is absolutely no question that there domain names are subject to U.S. law. Thanks!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        AJ, 2 Feb 2011 @ 9:07am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Before you get altitude sickness from that high horse you�re sitting on Joe, remember that some of us realize that the U.S. has the legal right to do what we did, no argument there. But just because we can, doesn�t mean we should.
        
        Since we�ve decided to go ahead and do what we did, we need to understand that their may be unintended consequences. No amount of puking legal precedent all over this blog will keep a sovereign nation from becoming offended and retaliating if they choose to do so, however in the right we feel we are and however often it happens or not.
        
        I don�t know you, your absolutely right, nor would I want to. Your one fucked up individual. You spend all this time on this blog spewing legal garbage, and when someone corners you, you insult them like a child. Pathetic�.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        average_joe (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 9:16am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        LOL! You crack me up.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        btr1701 (profile), 3 Feb 2011 @ 9:28am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        > If a website is being used to violate U.S. law,
        > that website is subject to U.S. laws. The
        > question is whether the U.S. can do anything
        > about it.
        
        You're essentially saying that the laws of every country apply to every person in the world; that the question of jurisdiction is moot because every nation has unlimited jurisdiction over everyone and the only limitation on it is the question of practical enforcement.
        
        According to your position, if Iran passes a law today that makes owning a bible illegal, that law is technically binding on me in California, despite the fact that I don't live in Iran, I'm not a citizen of Iran and I have no connections to Iran whatsoever, and the only reason I can ignore that law without consequence is that Iran lacks the physical ability to come overseas and prosecute me for doing so.
        
        I would argue that Iran has no jurisdiction over me at all so that I'm not bound to obey it in the first place.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        average_joe (profile), 3 Feb 2011 @ 10:08am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You're essentially saying that the laws of every country apply to every person in the world; that the question of jurisdiction is moot because every nation has unlimited jurisdiction over everyone and the only limitation on it is the question of practical enforcement.
        
        That's not what I'm saying at all. We've talked about these jurisdictional issues before. In order for someone to be haled into a court, that person has to have engaged in activities in that court's jurisdiction. I'll spare you the lesson on specific and general jurisdiction, minimum contacts, purposeful availment, etc. It's enough here that an instrumentality that was purportedly used to break U.S. law existed in the U.S. Such property can be seized. You're an agent, right? You already know this.
        
        According to your position, if Iran passes a law today that makes owning a bible illegal, that law is technically binding on me in California, despite the fact that I don't live in Iran, I'm not a citizen of Iran and I have no connections to Iran whatsoever, and the only reason I can ignore that law without consequence is that Iran lacks the physical ability to come overseas and prosecute me for doing so.
        
        That's not my position. If Iran passed that law, it would not be binding on you in California for the very reasons you stated.
        
        I would argue that Iran has no jurisdiction over me at all so that I'm not bound to obey it in the first place.
        
        No shit, but that's not what's happening here. If you violate Iranian criminal law and an instrumentality of yours that's used to break that law is in Iran, you can bet that an Iranian court could order its seizure.
        
        I feel like you just want to argue with me for the sake of argument.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Feb 2011 @ 10:27am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Exactly a Iranian court not a U.S. court
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        average_joe (profile), 3 Feb 2011 @ 10:10am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You're essentially saying that the laws of every country apply to every person in the world; that the question of jurisdiction is moot because every nation has unlimited jurisdiction over everyone and the only limitation on it is the question of practical enforcement.
        
        That's not what I'm saying at all. We've talked about these jurisdictional issues before. In order for someone to be haled into a court, that person has to have engaged in activities in that court's jurisdiction. I'll spare you the lesson on specific and general jurisdiction, minimum contacts, purposeful availment, etc. It's enough here that an instrumentality that was purportedly used to break U.S. law existed in the U.S. Such property can be seized. You're an agent, right? You already know this.
        
        According to your position, if Iran passes a law today that makes owning a bible illegal, that law is technically binding on me in California, despite the fact that I don't live in Iran, I'm not a citizen of Iran and I have no connections to Iran whatsoever, and the only reason I can ignore that law without consequence is that Iran lacks the physical ability to come overseas and prosecute me for doing so.
        
        That's not my position. If Iran passed that law, it would not be binding on you in California for the very reasons you stated.
        
        I would argue that Iran has no jurisdiction over me at all so that I'm not bound to obey it in the first place.
        
        No shit, but that's not what's happening here. If you violate Iranian criminal law and an instrumentality of yours that's used to break that law is in Iran, you can bet that an Iranian court could order its seizure.
        
        I feel like you just want to argue with me for the sake of argument.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 4 Feb 2011 @ 10:26am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The jurisdiction is not the U.S., the website is locate in foreign soil, comply with all the laws there and suddenly because it had one asset in the U.S. that one asset was seized.
        
        So if other countries were to fallow suit they will all look at what Americans are doing inside the U.S. and seize any assets from those people who violates their own laws and have assets inside their countries because that is what happened.
        
        This is exactly what ICE did, are you trying to deny that?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Fred, 1 Feb 2011 @ 1:04pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Actually, Google and Yahoo! have run into exactly that issue with their China operations. Amazon has gotten in trouble in Germany for violating German pricing laws.
    
    If you do business in a country, you must follow that country's laws. There is endless precedent here.
    
    If you think a country's laws are draconian, it's simple: don't provide your services there.
    
    This is basic stuff.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 1 Feb 2011 @ 1:14pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      No it didn't nobody took their domain names, they blocked the websites, which is a different kind of censorship.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 1 Feb 2011 @ 1:15pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      So China should have seized every asset of Google?
      
      LoL you are funny dude.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Karl (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 12:47pm
  
  Re:
  Snow day! No college for me!
  
  Whether or not the sites were declared legal under Spanish law has no bearing on whether or not they are legal under U.S. law.
  
  Of course, the TLD's that ICE seized weren't only accessed by Americans. They were also accessed by Spanish people.
  
  So, the American government is preventing Spanish people from legally accessing a Spanish domain name. You don't think there might be a wee problem there?
  
  Also, the fact that it was declared completely legal in Spain should indicate that its status as a criminal infringer is, at the very least, questionable.
  
  And it's possible they aren't liable at all. If these seizures are anything like the last ones, there was no attempt to determine whether they adhered to the the laws in 17 U.S.C. 512, which would give them safe harbors (17 U.S.C. 506 notwithstanding).
  
  Frankly, I doubt ICE will even attempt to prove criminal infringement. Nor, I'm guessing, will Rojadirecta ever be charged with anything (the other sites haven't been). ICE are smart guys, so I'm sure they know none of these seizures will ever stand when challenged.
  
  They're seizing as many domains as possible, as quickly as possible, in order to route around any legal safeguards, and hoping that the domain owners will be scared into silence.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Feb 2011 @ 12:01pm

This sickens me. These children are destroying american internet hegemony. It was good for everyone while it lasted, but not with these clowns running the show.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
GeneralEmergency (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 12:04pm

Not surprising.
Eric Holder and Janet Napolitano are clearly two of the most incompetent public servants drawing a taxpayer funded paycheck today.

What probably disturbs me the most is that I would bet a weeks pay that not one single person involved in this investigation could pass a strict, week-long intellectual property law observance audit.

Let's take a look at what's on their Tivo's hard disk and how long it has been there.

The hypocrisy is mind-numbing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- cc (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 12:11pm
  
  Re: Not surprising.
  "the most incompetent public servants drawing a taxpayer funded paycheck today"
  
  Ironically, their individual paychecks are heavier than the paychecks of anyone you've ever met. Combined.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Fred, 1 Feb 2011 @ 1:07pm
    
    Re: Re: Not surprising.
    Eric Holder's salary is $186,000. I don't know Janet's, but it's probably similar.
    
    You're implying that he's never met anybody who made more than $186K?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Karl (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 1:19pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Not surprising.
      You're implying that he's never met anybody who made more than $186K?
      
      Most people haven't.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Any Mouse (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 6:59pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Not surprising.
        Unless they see a health specialist on a regular basis. You know, those heart surgeons make a killing. Literally and figuratively.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - cc (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 1:21pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Not surprising.
      $186l is not exactly the low end of the scale.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 1 Feb 2011 @ 3:08pm
  
  Re: Not surprising.
  "Eric Holder and Janet Napolitano are clearly two of the most incompetent public servants drawing a taxpayer funded paycheck today"
  ---------------------------
  Napolitano was a terrible governor in Arizona for 8 years. She fought local law enforcement every chance she got when they enforced immigration law. She was on the illegal's side and for that got to be head of homeland security who's suppose to protect the borders she didn't give a crap about when she the gov here. This administration is a complete "good ole boy" network joke.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
fogbugzd (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 12:10pm

What is illegal
Apparently you are illegal if the MPAA doesn't like you. That greatly simplifies the legal process. You don't have to mess with things like trials. Someone in the DOJ or ICE calls a friend at the MPAA and says, "Hey, what do you think about X?" Friend says "I don't like them." Bam! The government seizes everything belonging to X that they can get their hands on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
codeslave (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 12:14pm

Interesting metastasizing of the forfeiture laws from the War on Drugs. Of course, this means that the US govt wouldn't have a problem with Libya seizing bit.ly for linking to adult content, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
silvo, 1 Feb 2011 @ 12:17pm

Kudos to ICE
Kudos to ICE for spreading the word on just how awsome rojadirecta is. Way to misunderstand the technology and get yourselves inside a massive Straisand effect situation!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Feb 2011 @ 12:21pm

Sometimes the only thing better than having real talent on your team is a real lack of talent on the other.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Grimby, 1 Feb 2011 @ 12:28pm

It's like the USA is trying to win the coveted "Most Hated Nation By The Rest of The World" award.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Marcus Carab (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 12:46pm
  
  Re:
  I think it's more a matter of defending the title...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2011 @ 2:28am
  
  Re:
  It's already halfway there!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
DandonTRJ (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 12:29pm

StrikeGently
StrikeGently was essentially a repository of music leaks, movie/TV rips, and porn. The guy behind it had a really dickish personality and a tendency to lash out at other blogs. He also claimed none of the content was actually uploaded by him; that he was merely linking to it. But he was fully aware that his entire site was predicated on infringing content. Not that this in any way justifies a lack of due process by ICE. It's worth knowing exactly who the players in the takedown are, though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 1:29pm
  
  Re: StrikeGently
  Doesn't matter until a trial. And there's the sticking point - unless a default jusgement has been made, AND a deadline for response has passed, then they shouldn't be able to seize a domain. Full stop.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hephaestus (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 12:48pm

New running bet ....
How long before ICE goes after the pirate bays domain name?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
\r (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 12:54pm

Please Hurry
Could someone please, please create the FatherNet, ASAP. I'm getting really, really confused about what I should/should not do, can/can not look at, what I should or should not pay for and can or can not click on.

The Internet - ah to be an expatriot of it all - but they'll find you - oh yes they will - and you'll like it - and you'll buy stock - and stuff.

Oh and perhaps the MotherDevice too, so that I now know that I can not, in any way, alter anything I ever fucking choose to spend money on. Please? Oh, and please drive me to work. Thanks.

So.. "rule of law" just and unjust, paid for and free, bled for and protected by. Oh. OK. Cool. I'm glad I got that straight and glad I have the money required to use it. Thanks again.

PS. If y'all do happen to make a mistake on that MegaBlower thing, and it does suck, can I get one? Download it?

\r
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Feb 2011 @ 1:25pm

Wow. If this is the best that TAM and average joe can do, the MAFIAA certainly aren't getting their money's worth, and should hire some better shills.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 1 Feb 2011 @ 1:46pm
  
  Re:
  "If this is the best that TAM and average joe can do..."
  
  They aren't the same?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Bruce Ediger (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 4:36pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Possibly. TAM and average_joe have an above-average command of English, and they both tend toward "might makes right" in every issue. They both seem to automatically assume that "a lawyer" can decide some act's legality. They both assume that the whole of morality is contained within the law. They both have a "my way or the highway" absolutism about what they argue.
    
    TAM tended more to deliberate provocation than average joe. Average joe actually does seem to want to make a cogent argument, while TAM just wanted to muck up the conversation.
    
    Average joe actually quotes bits of comments he responds to, TAM only quoted words or phrases, or even just paraphrased what he/she/it/them responded to.
    
    Overall, my take is that they're different authors, although they may have the same paymaster(s).
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - average_joe (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 5:07pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Wow, you're a fucking idiot.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 1 Feb 2011 @ 5:11pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Wow, you're a fucking idiot.
        
        Well, well, look who actually *is* calling names now.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        average_joe (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 5:27pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yep. I can only take so much, and this guy completely misrepresenting me and then accusing me of being paid is just too much. I stand by my statement.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Feb 2011 @ 5:31pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yep. I can only take so much, and this guy completely misrepresenting me and then accusing me of being paid is just too much. I stand by my statement.
        
        You, complaining about somebody misrepresenting you? That's rich!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Any Mouse (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 7:05pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And yet your response to it does nothing to refute it...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        average_joe (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 7:20pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And yet your response to it does nothing to refute it...
        
        I don't think it needs refutation. If people are dumb enough to believe that I'm paid to post here, let them think that. I don't care.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Feb 2011 @ 7:56pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        If people are dumb enough to believe that I'm paid to post here, let them think that. I don't care.
        
        You don't care? That's certainly not what you said earlier after engaging in some name calling.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        average_joe (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 8:12pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You don't care? That's certainly not what you said earlier after engaging in some name calling.
        
        Bruce has been pissing me off over a series of posts and threads, and I think he's a fucking idiot. I don't care if people think I'm paid to be here because I think it's an utterly ridiculous belief. The two aren't mutually exclusive. Try and catch me on a little perceived contradiction if that's the best you can do. If you want to talk about things that actually matter, that might be time better spent. I'll be here...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 1 Feb 2011 @ 8:47pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Your posts and the responses they generate remind me of a relatively typical day in the practice of law.
        
        Analyze facts, apply your knowledge of law, express your opinion to a client, and when it supports them they are happy, and when not they are not.
        
        Unfortunately, it seems that here most "clients" fall into the latter category.
        
        At least take some solace in the fact that there are some here who understand the difference between explaining the metes and bounds of US law, and not expressing an opinion of the wisdom or lack thereof of a law.
        
        One piece of advice to keep in mind as you enter the legal profession. You will likely find a majority of the lawyers with whom you are required to deal as bordeline idiots. Of course, it is bad form to call them on it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        average_joe (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 7:12am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Your posts and the responses they generate remind me of a relatively typical day in the practice of law.
        
        Analyze facts, apply your knowledge of law, express your opinion to a client, and when it supports them they are happy, and when not they are not.
        
        Unfortunately, it seems that here most "clients" fall into the latter category.
        
        At least take some solace in the fact that there are some here who understand the difference between explaining the metes and bounds of US law, and not expressing an opinion of the wisdom or lack thereof of a law.
        
        One piece of advice to keep in mind as you enter the legal profession. You will likely find a majority of the lawyers with whom you are required to deal as bordeline idiots. Of course, it is bad form to call them on it.
        
        Point taken. Thanks.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Any Mouse (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 12:31am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You being paid to be here is only part of his /opinion/. Pretty much the rest of it I tend to agree with.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - techflaws.org (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 2:01am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The truth hurts, eh?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shawn (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 2:04pm

I think we got it wrong
Are we all sure that ICE stands for Immigration and Customs Enforcement? I think it stands for Immigration and Clueless Enforcement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 1 Feb 2011 @ 2:10pm
  
  Re: I think we got it wrong
  I thought it was called ICE because of its chilling effects on liberty, personal freedom and individual rights.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous, 1 Feb 2011 @ 2:14pm

I think Masnick secretly loves these ICE seizures, as he gets 10-20X the traffic/comments with all the little freetards wetting their pants...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 1 Feb 2011 @ 2:26pm
  
  Re:
  Little wet freetards? Is your boner as big as mine right now?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Karl (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 8:12pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Little wet freetards?
    
    This sounds like a good question for "Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?"
    
    Little Wet Freetards:
    A. Is Nina Paley's tribute to Charles Schultz
    B. Features pictures of Richard Stallman in a diaper
    C. Is the only website to be seized by ICE for both child pornography AND copyright infringement
    D. Was the working title of "Options: The Secret Life of Steve Jobs" by "fake Steve Jobs"
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- techflaws.org (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 2:03am
  
  Re:
  Envy doesn't suit you.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Drpiper, 1 Feb 2011 @ 2:25pm

.es .me and .in are now redirecting
Just checked the alternate sites for rojadirecta and even the other domains are now pointing to the ICE website. I am on Comcast.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Feb 2011 @ 2:27pm

Anyone who thinks this is ok apparently has never read the constitution or bill of rights. This clearly violates several provisions.

Of course the CIA secret budget does also... but somehow the courts ignore that
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 1 Feb 2011 @ 4:19pm
  
  Re:
  Anyone who thinks this is ok apparently has never read the constitution or bill of rights. This clearly violates several provisions.
  
  They read them. They just hate them.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
techinabox (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 2:27pm

Since ICE has been going straight to the TLD administration registrars I think the best bet for Spain would be to go Verisign, who operates the .com TLD and who probably has servers or at least offices in Spain, and seize GOP.com and Democrats.com. Things would work themselves out pretty quick after that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Feb 2011 @ 2:32pm

Um, wow... rojadirecta.es, rojadirecta.me and rojadirecta.in are also showing the ICE page. Even through my bolehvpn (malaysian based vpn) connection I use for privacy from time to time.

Could be a configuration error on their side (since they can still be accessed via ip)

I was worried for a bit that ICE was altering DNS records for only US citizens.. which would mean the end of me using US DNA servers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 1 Feb 2011 @ 4:30pm
  
  Re:
  rojadirecta.es, rojadirecta.me and rojadirecta.in are also showing the ICE page.
  
  Not for me, and yes, I'm in the US. Maybe your ISP or DNS service? Try OpenDNS.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Feb 2011 @ 3:12pm

No one!
I think Homeland Security counts on the fact that no one expects a spanish requisition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- G Thompson (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 10:59pm
  
  Re: No one!
  Ni!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Feb 2011 @ 3:14pm

.es is working for me atm. Swedish DNS provider.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Feb 2011 @ 3:54pm

This thread is like a freetard after school special.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Feb 2011 @ 4:04pm

Thanx ICE Rojadirecta IP http://109.235.53.189/
I wanted to watch the Spurs tonight and you pointed me there. Just type in .me instead of .com and it redirects to IP http://109.235.53.189/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 1 Feb 2011 @ 4:10pm
  
  Re: Thanx ICE Rojadirecta IP http://109.235.53.189/
  oddly, not located in spain, but in the Netherlands.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 1 Feb 2011 @ 4:27pm
    
    Re: Re: Thanx ICE Rojadirecta IP http://109.235.53.189/
    This is exactly why my hosting is in the netherlands, they leave most alone, and if you have a troublesome site, they can assist you with quality firewall protection for a good monthly. I just setup a biz there I will neve look back at the US even though I live here. I can do everything remote and never have to worry about that stupid ICE message on my site. I use dns over there :)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 1 Feb 2011 @ 8:36pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Thanx ICE Rojadirecta IP http://109.235.53.189/
      Except of course because you operate it from the US, you aren't immune to US law. It doesn't matter where the business is, it matters where you are.
      
      Nice dodge, but it rarely works.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
RadialSkid (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 4:44pm

Everyone should just stop using U.S.-based domain names. That should solve the problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
whatever, 1 Feb 2011 @ 5:11pm

1930's
read your history. it's just another step toward controlling, polarizing and closing a society in order to remove rights. it's unfortunate that our democracy is failing badly and we now live in a police state. history does repeat itself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
techinabox (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 5:32pm

Not at all. Lots of countries don't like what other countries post on the internet. The question is whether or not they can do anything about it. If a U.S.-based/hosted/managed site isn't liked in some other country, what are they going to do about it? They may block their own people from accessing the site, but they surely can't seize anything if there's nothing in their country to seize. So then it would be perfectly all right for Germany to seize any .com that violate German law since Verisign has offices and servers in Germany?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- average_joe (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 5:50pm
  
  Re:
  So then it would be perfectly all right for Germany to seize any .com that violate German law since Verisign has offices and servers in Germany?
  
  I'm not sure if it would be possible since Verisign is headquartered in the U.S. I don't really know though. Good question.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jay (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 6:07pm
    
    Re: Re:
    ...
    
    I'm beginning to question your morals and ethics based on everything you are saying within this about domain seizures...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 1 Feb 2011 @ 6:09pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I'm beginning to question your morals and ethics based on everything you are saying within this about domain seizures...
      
      Some people really don't have any. To them, it's all about what you can legally get away with.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - average_joe (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 6:20pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I'm beginning to question your morals and ethics based on everything you are saying within this about domain seizures...
      
      What does my understanding of the legality of these seizures have to do with my morality? Seriously, I'm curious.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 1 Feb 2011 @ 7:49pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        What does my understanding of the legality of these seizures have to do with my morality? Seriously, I'm curious.
        
        The term that comes to my mind is "apologist". Look it up.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        average_joe (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 8:04pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The term that comes to my mind is "apologist". Look it up.
        
        No need to look it up, as I know what it means. Rather than just say, "This is bad, so it must be wrong," I'm able to analyze the situation with detachment. That concept apparently blows a lot of people's minds. No surprise there since very few commentators here appear to do be able to do the same.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Any Mouse (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 12:34am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Again, in your opinion. Someone disagrees with you and your take on 'justice' and 'law,' and they aren't detached. The concept that you could feel this way is what blows my mind.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2011 @ 5:26am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        If you were able to do that you would understand what that kind of action means in reality.
        
        It means other countries now have an excuse to exclude everybody else, it means American interests can be persecuted and the U.S. government can't say anything because they started the whole thing.
        
        It means that France now can seize assets from any company they don't like and make abusive demands, it means Italy can close the grip on its market and all legally, it means American tech companies 10 times bigger than the entertainment industry and even that industry now will have to look over their shoulders in international waters, what part of that you don't get it?
        
        Just recently a Warner Music executive was found out to be a criminal, what that means is that under those same terms France could seize control of every asset of that company to cease competition from outside from being a problem no?
        
        At some point countries will differ over legislation and they should resolve their differences through international mechanisms and not unilateral approaches like the current actions of the ICE that may be legal for you and the legal system inside the U.S. but are not recognized by others and they will retaliate.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        AJ, 2 Feb 2011 @ 5:55am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I think people like our government and average joe don't really care about repercussions or retaliation, they simply care about what the law will allow them to do, or how they can interpret the law to do what they want it to do. To them it's about the letter of the law, not the overall good of mankind... I have a feeling this is going to bite the U.S. hard in the ass real soon....
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        average_joe (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 6:50am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I think people like our government and average joe don't really care about repercussions or retaliation, they simply care about what the law will allow them to do, or how they can interpret the law to do what they want it to do. To them it's about the letter of the law, not the overall good of mankind... I have a feeling this is going to bite the U.S. hard in the ass real soon....
        
        Don't pretend like you know me. It makes you look like an idiot. I'm only addressing the legal issues. That doesn't mean I don't have opinions on the rest of it. I bet if my legal analysis was what you wanted to hear, you wouldn't be suggesting anything about my morality. You like to hear people agree with you. Good for you. I like analysis, whether it agrees with me or not. I'm open minded. You're not.
        
        This won't bite the U.S. in the ass because this isn't anything new. Instruments of crime that exist in the U.S. get seized by the U.S. all the time. All the talk about "international incident" is silly FUD, which you and many others apparently are buying wholesale.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Groove Tiger (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 11:37am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Don't pretend like you know me. It makes you look like an idiot."
        
        He doesn't pretend that he knows you.
        
        But he feels like he knows you, based on "all of the statements he has read of you that you've made on the subject over the course of many posts."
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        average_joe (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 6:45am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        If you were able to do that you would understand what that kind of action means in reality.
        
        It means other countries now have an excuse to exclude everybody else, it means American interests can be persecuted and the U.S. government can't say anything because they started the whole thing.
        
        These actions don't change the reality of anything. All of those things can and do already happen. These jurisdictional issues existed with almost all of the seizures done so far. Why is everyone freaking out about this one? Makes no sense to me.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Jay (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 9:24pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "What does my understanding of the legality of these seizures have to do with my morality? Seriously, I'm curious."
        
        You've basically said that any country can make it legal to impede on people and shut down websites with impunity. Iran and China can do it, so can the US for different reasons but the same purpose.
        
        By stating that anything legal because it is a law on the books ignores quite a number of issues in regards to how you treat other people.
        
        China blocks Google - was it right? It sure as certain was not just. Same goes for China blocking any info about Egypt, forcing people to find underground methods to information.
        
        In all this studying of law, you're failing to see what the consequences of actions are doing to people around you. It's no better than John Morton being ignorant of the actions of his questionable seizures.
        
        Regarding your ethics, it's almost as if you want to support this in any fashion possible. "So long as it's used responsibly..." which in my mind, is the exact opposite of what's happening. This is clearly censorship. It's clearly about taking away people's rights to live a peaceful life. Slowly, this has creeped into something so asinine, the supposed morality rights of copyright holders vs those of the "pirates", that no one who can look at this objectively can say with a clear conscience that this is the way to protect creators.
        
        Quite frankly, it's the same as saying "separate but equal" if you ask me. In the world of copyright, it seems that those that hold onto these copyrights are using them to support a bad business model. Look at everything that has come out of the pipeline because of it. Extortion, bribery, and manipulation.
        
        This is what you want to represent? You sit here and argue these examples are legal as if this is what we need in the world, the examples of bad behavior for no other reason than greed. If you want, here's a fourth example...
        
        Link
        
        Say what you will, these domain seizures, though "legal" are truly an injustice that needs to stop.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 Feb 2011 @ 6:11pm

It is not just ICE that has a problem with US law, foreign countries, and The US Deceleration of Independence.

No matter what you think of porn there is a much bigger issue here in applying US law to a Canadian citizen's actions in a third country, Thailand.

US Immigration and Custom Enforcement
News Releases
JANUARY 31, 2011
NEWARK, NJ
Canadian John Wrenshall sentenced on child porn charges
Worldwide endeavor brought man to justice
http://www.ice.gov/news/releases/1101/110131newark.htm

What I am waiting on is foreign countries to start catching and prosecuting ICE agents for violation of their citizen's rights and then jailing those same ICE officials for mice 40 or 50 year stretches.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nick Dynice (profile), 1 Feb 2011 @ 9:29pm

Spain should retaliate by confiscating the following domain names:

http://www.disney.es/
http://www.starbucks.es/
http://www.google.es/
http://www.chevrol et.es/
http://www.qualcomm.es/
http://www.monsanto.es/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
  
  Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2011 @ 5:58am
  
  Re:
  Why? Exactly what good would that do, besides prove they are more childish than the average poster here?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Not an electronic Rodent, 5 Feb 2011 @ 7:31am
    
    Re: Re:
    Why? Exactly what good would that do, besides prove they as childish as the U.S. Government here?
    There FTFY.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rex Karz (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 12:37pm

check out microsoft.es and intel.es
http://microsoft.es and http://intel.es both point to their respective companys' Spanish web presences.

Maybe the Spanish registrar to seize both of these to get the ball rolling. Eh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Nick Dynice (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 3:02pm
  
  Re: check out microsoft.es and intel.es
  Yes, a lot of top US companies have .es domains but forward them to domain.com/es so that they are not at the mercy of Network Information Center of Spain. Non US companies should do that same: don't use TDLs (.com) where control resides in the US.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Feb 2011 @ 6:38am

How pathetic is that USA's mass media have the power to seize domains without a legal process. USA believe they are the saviors of the world but they are only the mafia of our century.

For the record, you can still access to rojadirecta.es
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
idunno, 9 Oct 2011 @ 10:05am

so many people are trying to make this a logical and issue and refering to laws and policies but this is america we're talking about, since when did they care about anything. that government is just a spoiled brat that needs a life threatening beating with a wooden spoon followed by a meter stick to the wrist and a bamboo pole to the back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
marta, 2 Jan 2012 @ 10:04am

It's so anoying, I live in Spain and with the new law I thougt that rojadirecta is no longer to be legal in Spain..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
susi, 12 Nov 2013 @ 9:34am

i don't like it
I'm completly agree with you Marta, now it's unfortunetly difficult to enjoy internet completly because the law are at Corporation's service.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
cerrajeros valencia, 9 Jan 2014 @ 8:25am

Always the same
I think that internet is becoming a controlled land by countries to continue the dictatorship of misinformation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- davidbarcomb, 2 Dec 2014 @ 5:46pm
  
  Re: Always the same
  I totally agree
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]