ICE Boss: It's Okay To Ignore The Constitution If It's To Protect Companies
from the how-nice-of-them dept
While the folks at Homeland Security keep telling me that they simply cannot speak publicly about the seizure of various domain names -- and specifically the numerous mistakes they've made that appear to clearly violate both the First Amendment and Due Process rules -- it seems they have no problem talking about the domain seizures to folks in the press who don't bother to ask tough questions.ICE boss John Morton did an interview with Politico, where he trots out a bunch of highly questionable statements about the domain seizures, including claiming that it's all okay for them to do this because they're trying to "protect U.S. industry" rather than "regulate the internet." But that's not the role of Homeland Security or ICE. And there are limits on what ICE is actually allowed to do, and Morton's technically clueless agents seem to have ignored many of those rules.
"We don't have any interest in going after bloggers or discussion boards," he said. "We're not about what is being said by anybody. We're about making sure that the intellectual property laws of the United States, which are clear, are enforced. When somebody spends hundreds of millions of dollars to develop the next movie or a billion dollars to develop the next heart medicine, the innovation and the enterprise that went into that effort is protected as the law provides. It's that simple."There's so much wrong in that statement that it should be grounds for dismissal. Morton is not representing what has happened, the law or the facts accurately here. He's lying to the American public (and to Politico, who appears to have failed to call him on any of it). First of all, if they don't have any interest in going after bloggers or discussion boards, why did they? Second, if the intellectual property laws of the US are "clear" -- why did ICE not use them and actually get anyone charged with infringement? Third, the laws aren't that clear -- which is why we (normally) have trials to make sure there was actual infringement. If ICE had been willing to let due process play out, it would have avoided embarrassing mistakes, like taking down 84,000 websites because a few may have had illegal content. Or seizing a blog (yes, a blog, despite what he says) that posted links to music elsewhere that was sent by the labels and artists. And, when someone spends all that money to develop something, there are plenty of business models for them to use, and they have every right to use civil laws to go after those who violate their rights. What they shouldn't have is some government agents taking down websites with no due process, seizing plenty of protected speech in the process.
Finally, for Morton to claim "it's that simple," when the law is anything but simple should get the man fired. Seriously. No one who knows anything about the law thinks it's that simple. He shouldn't be in charge of ICE if he thinks that the laws are as simple as he makes out. It's not, and either he knows it and he's lying or he doesn't know it and he's unqualified for the job. Which is it? I figure I'll send these questions to my friendly press contact at Homeland Security, and I imagine the answer will be the same: "I'll have to direct you to the Justice Department on those questions." Because actually responding to American citizens whose rights he seems to have no problem trampling is not in his job description. Helping Hollywood by violating multiple parts of the Constitution is much more fun.
Morton also seems to think there's simply no legal questions in seizing domain names:
"We can seize and forfeit them just like we seize and forfeit bank accounts, houses and vehicles that are used in other crimes," he said. "Any instrument of a crime is subject to our jurisdiction in terms of seizure and forfeit."Again this is incorrect on a number of levels, and again raises questions about Morton's competence to hold the job he holds. You can seize property, but the case law is pretty clear on the different rules when it comes to seizing speech. And he's never responded to that at all. Because, of course, he cannot.
John Morton seems to think it's fine to be censor-in-chief and to violate multiple parts of the US Constitution, because it protects a few businesses who have failed to adapt their business models. This is a sickening display of the takeover of the American government by corporations.
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: constitution, domain seizures, homeland security, ice, john morton
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
He was talking about the secret law, which is super simple.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
article 1 is about the legislative branch, its organization, and its limits of power.
Where does it mention copyright? Maybe I missed it. Just let me know which section.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"
This is where the AC gets the idea that copyright is in the constitution. What the AC fails to realize is that it only grants congress the power to create copyright laws, not that it's an inalienable right or a mandate for them to do so. If congress felt it would serve the people, they could repeal copyright any time and they would be in their power to do so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You guys fail to acknowledge that a right is a right, whether it's based on Article I or Amendment I.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's no matter. A right is a right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And explain to me why if you infringe my copyright, my copyright right can trump your free speech right in a court of law.
Again, at the end of the day, a right is a right. Rights are created, and rights are destroyed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, that's completely wrong. If the First Amendment was repealed, it's still a fact that a person has the right to free speech. The only difference is that the government is no longer bound by law to protect it. The Constitution only protects against the government from violating these rights. Copyright only supersedes freedom of speech in cases where the defendant cannot prove fair use. Thus it is a legal right, compared to freedom of speech which is a natural right.
Are you actually foolish enough to believe that laws make rights? They don't, the will and consensus of the people makes rights. Laws merely codify these rights for the welfare of the people so they can be used to defend themselves from injustice.
"a right is a right"
You're starting to sound like a broken record.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Early favorite for shark jump of the week post.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
With respect, I do know what I'm talking about. I'm talking about legal rights, i.e., rights that can be successfully defended in a court of law. The rights granted by the Constitution are legal rights. The Constitution is the fountainhead of all of our legal rights. Constitutional rights may reflect some underlying natural rights, but you wouldn't argue in court that something is your natural right. You would argue that it is your legal right.
Despite your claim to the contrary, free speech is most definitely a legal right. As I've indicated, the right of free speech may be granted and it may be taken away. Lots of laws on the books already take away some of your freedom of speech, like defamation laws or obscenity laws. And new laws can be passed that take away your freedom of speech even further. When a law impinges on the First Amendment, there are certain tests such (like rational basis, intermediate scrutiny, or strict scrutiny) that are applied to see if the impingement on free speech is permissible.
All the First Amendment does is make it a little harder to pass laws that can impinge on free speech, but it doesn't make it impossible to pass any such law. Why? Because for the simple reason that free speech is a right. And like all rights, it can be granted, taken way, or otherwise circumscribed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Constitutional rights are just that, constitutional. Legal rights are legal rights because they are not self evident and are subordinate to constitutional rights. That's why they call the Constitution "The supreme law of the land". They are laws that are held above all other laws. You can't grant and repeal them as casually as a legal right either. The majority of the states must ratify any change to the Constitution. Legal rights only need a majority vote from congress and a signature from the president.
There's a reason they label one right legal and the other constitutional.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contrac t
Have fun.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Rights are like energy, they can neither be created nor destroyed. They always exist, so long as society exists. They can, however, be denied to an individual or a group, either by might or by law. My right to breath was not created by anyone (other than my mother and father,) nor can it be destroyed (except by God or by another human who decides his right to breath is more important than mine, and denies me of that right.)
The Constitution, or any law for that matter, codifies those rights that already exist in nature. However, there are many rights that exist which are outlawed as well...my right to use force on others is greatly limited by law, yet it still exists. Society limits those rights because society feels that one person's rights should not damage another's except in very narrow cases, which is necessary in order to keep society together. However, in some societies, the rights of a few persons far outweigh the rights of the populace. In those societies, the members of the ruling class could in fact use the right of force against you, and deprive you of your rights.
I realize IP maximalists love this type of society, where their rights trump the populace, but so long as the society remains free and democratic (something that I know IP maximalists are working hard to subvert,) your right to copyright will never trump my right to free speech, since free speech is specifically codified in the Constitution, and Copyright isn't, until you get that changed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"The Congress shall have Power [...] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"
Yes, that grants Congress the power to create and administer copyright (which they have done, voraciously), but I believe Mike's opinion is that not only has Congress gone well beyond the stated intent of the clause, but that it's very possible that this clause is just as obsolete as the subsequent Militia clauses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It's astounding how ready some are to believe that The People would create a government to protect their liberty and yet also empower it to abridge that liberty to obtain an enriched and consequently beholden and supportive press (taking its lead from Britain four score years earlier).
An author has a natural exclusive right to their writings certainly, but that doesn't sanction the granting of a monopoly - an instrument of injustice (obtained by annulling the right to copy in the majority to leave it by exclusion in the hands of a few). Doesn't anyone recognise that this is why 'copyright holders' are so called? Because they HOLD a right annulled in the majority (left in the HANDS of a few). The only true rights are ones people are born with, imbued in them by nature - to be recognised and secured by law - not granted by law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think Jefferson would disagree:
"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of everyone, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density at any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property." - Thomas Jefferson
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Thus two individuals may exclusively possess an idea or intellectual work (mutually) as long they keep it to themselves.
Individuals thus have a (natural) exclusive right to the intellectual works in their possession.
Could you point out more precisely where what you've quoted disagrees with what I've written, or gives rise to your thought that Jefferson would disagree with me?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
An author has a natural exclusive right to their writings.
An author has a natural ability and need to exclude others from their private spaces and possessions and that includes intellectual works such as writings as well as material works such as sculpture. Do you imagine that anyone can just walk into an author's home and seize or copy their manuscript to a novel they're writing without even a 'by your leave'? The author has the power and natural right to exclude them from seizing, copying or even reading their writing.
Congress is specifically empowered to secure this exclusive right of the author precisely because intellectual works, especially writing, can be so easily copied (and the exclusive right violated). Securing an individual's exclusive right to their material possessions (aka property) has been long understood, i.e. against theft.
Madison egregiously assumed the power to grant Queen Anne's monopoly of copyright on the pretext that this would help secure the author's exclusive right. Unfortunately, it provided no security and little remedy to all except the wealthiest of authors, and simply enriched the publishing industry at the expense of the people's cultural liberty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You believe that it's a natural right of exclusion authors have with their writings. I believe that you can't pass on your ideas and maintain ownership. It's impossible. You can claim authorship of those ideas, but those ideas you express are like so many feathers to the wind, lost to forces beyond your control and impossible to recapture.
Your manuscript analogy is terribly flawed. What you're doing is applying the physical property concepts to works based purely on the fact that those works happen to be fixed to paper. What if it wasn't (which is most likely)? What if it was on their computer and they publish it online? What ownership do they have to those bits flying across the internet? Your analogy is born out of a need to sell the expression of your ideas rather than the effort and skill it took to create it.
I say this often, the expression of your ideas are nothing in terms of money, but your time and effort is worth paying for because it inherently has a heuristic cost, which works do not. They are the result of expending that effort, but they are not the thing that is really for sale. You may believe the exclusive right to your works is a self-evident and natural right, but the nature of how ideas spread contradicts that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As far as I can tell, because you haven't told me, nothing I've actually posted is in disagreement with what you quoted from Jefferson.
Given how apparently significant and several are the disagreements you observe in my writing vs that of Jefferson it would seem to be an easy matter for you to pick one of my sentences and tell me which of Jefferson's it is in flagrant disagreement with?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It seems to me what Greevar is saying is that as soon as you let anyone else see your writing that any "natural right" to your writing vanishes because writing is essentialy an idea and now that idea is posessed by all observers no matter how limited a number. You originally seemed to be implying that the "natural right" extended beyond that: Then you modified it with: Which sort of suggests what Greevar seems to be saying but perhaps, like me, he's getting a little hung up on why one would bother to write something with no intention of it being shared with others? And if you don't share it then any "right" to seems irrelevant - I took Mr. Jefferson to be speaking ironically with the "as long as he keeps it to himself" line.
Of course I could be way out of the sport never mind the ballpark with that one and if so I've no idea what the two of you are arguing about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What people want to 'bother' doing and what their intentions are is up to them and immaterial to a right. Indeed, we're concerned with what people's rights are, and specifically, with whether what I originally posted is in disagreement with the Jefferson quote.
Rights are not dependent upon intention or what is worthwhile. Such considerations may be claimed as supportive by those finding excuses for the granting of privileges, but again, we're concerned with rights.
If I write a poem on a piece of paper, an etch-a-sketch, a cat litter tray, or on an electronic PDA, I have a natural exclusive right to it, i.e. a natural right to exclude others from accessing it, removing it, copying it, destroying it, or reading it, or anything else I am physically able to achieve. Such a right should be secured by a government created to protect all individuals' rights equally.
If I give/copy/lend/share/sell this poem with/to a friend (or even a joint author), then we both have a natural exclusive right to this poem. The same applies if either of us shares the poem with others, and so on.
Just because there are several other people who now have a copy of this poem, that still doesn't make anyone's right to exclude others from the poetry in their possession vanish. I still have a right to exclude burglars (invaders of my privacy - the region I inhabit from which I exclude unauthorised persons) from stealing & printing copies of the poems in my possession. Just because you don't see much need for such a right doesn't mean it doesn't exist or that no-one should have it secured.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
An individual's rights don't disappear through any action on their part, nor are they negated by any action. Indeed, rights are inalienable. There is nothing an individual can do to alienate themselves from their rights (aside from jump off a cliff).
I have a poem in my drawer and I have a natural right to exclude you from it. End of story, no ifs, no buts.
You might offer me $1 for a copy, and I might take you up on your offer. Let's say you did. You now have a copy. However, I still have a right to exclude you from accessing or copying the original in my drawer. Obviously, you may now have no inclination to burgle me to copy it as you already have a copy of the poem (unless you're after the original, or want a copy of my handwriting as opposed to a typewritten copy). That you lose interest in burglary doesn't make my right vanish. Similarly, you have a right to exclude others from the poem in your possession. Just because two of us now possess a copy, that doesn't make it open season for anyone to burgle us and take copies.
Bear in mind that copyright is quite different to this natural exclusive right. Copyright is a privilege that annuls EVERYONE'S right to make copies of covered works (even the author's). This privilege enables the holder to restore/license the annulled right back to authorised persons, e.g. printers. Because of this privilege, when I write a novel poem, neither of us is legally permitted our natural right to copy it. Instead, the holder of the privilege of copyright is solely entitled to determine who may copy the work. Copyright arises in each original work and is thus initially in the hands of the author, and if the author transfers copyright, they, having already had their right annulled, also loses the privilege to copy their own writing. Copyright is about controlling who can make copies of a work even if the work is in their legitimate possession. Thus thanks to copyright I can give you a copy of my poem AND only the copyright holder (me, my publisher, their receiver, or whoever) can decide if you should be authorised to make further copies (probably not). Such power of course being quite unnatural.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So, I don't think you get it.
Even if I've previously 'divulged' or given a copy of my writing to a friend this still doesn't diminish/negate/vanish my right to exclude you from the writing in my drawer.
You've still not pointed out where my original post disagrees with the Jefferson quote. A clue that you won't find any disagreement should be that I haven't disagreed with anything in the Jefferson quote.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Are you suggesting then that the "exclusive right" to do exactly what you want with something remains on the something in your posession but that the *same* "exclusive right" is automatically created in anyone you allow to hear/see/smell or otherwise experience that thing? Basically a sort of "You can't have my copy because it's mine - go bug someone else about it if you want it they'll give it to you"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The right belongs to the individual and applies to the intellectual works in their possession. Clearly anyone can attempt to prevent anyone else rifling through their drawers and removing writings or making copies thereof. However, if you give a writing or copy to someone, then that is obviously no longer in your possession.
It's not the right that ends when you give a copy to someone, but possession.
An individual does not magically obtain power over another simply by reciting a poem they've written to them, or handing them a copy of one. Though, it seems people do like the idea of having such power. Hence, copyright is seductive because it provides power over others (they have to ask the copyright holder's permission if they want to recite a covered poem - or pay a license fee).
So yes, if one person won't give/make you a copy of something, ask someone else who might. Just because several people have copies, that doesn't entitle anyone to steal one. Of course, once you have a copy, you can produce as many further copies or derivatives as you like (but for copyright that annuls your liberty to do so).
So, even without the privilege of copyright, the exclusive right remains, though it should still be secured by law - but not a privilege. You don't need to annul everyone's liberty to secure an individual's exclusive right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
seriously, this would be funny if the system didn't think it was true :S
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Take slavery for instance. It's illegal to "own" another person. Yet corporations, who claim to be a legal person, can buy up other corporations or "persons". So what's their excuse for that? Are they getting married to other corporations? Is the price of the merger just a dowry to the share holders? All I see is blatant, overt, hypocrisy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I could go on, but I think you get my point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Constitution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Constitution
Ignore the constitution and do everything corporations ask of them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Constitution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Billions of dollars...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Billions of dollars...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Billions of dollars...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Best guess...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
none
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When will they be seizing google.com?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So if I spend a million dollars to hire someone to draw me a circle and someone else copies that circle, I should be able to sue them for a million dollars because that's what I chose to spend on the damn circle?
The amount invested in research and development or a product's creation does not directly correlate to its value, however much it might correlate to its producer's estimation of value or offering price.
Can I price an item at a million dollars and if someone steals can I then have a million dollars in lost property written off on my taxes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I say this because recently my mother lost her wedding ring and engagement ring. She's been married 36 years, and those two items are arguably worth more than one million dollars to her. Yet, her last recourse was to submit a claim to the insurance company for the appraised value of the gold and diamond rings (way less than one million dollars). Why can't she claim her rings were worth at least that much? Because that's reality. You can only get back what an item is actually valued to be worth, and that's paid back from an insurance company which you pay monthly or yearly in case of damage or loss. Movie makers and artists don't insure their works when they make them because they have no idea how much it's worth, and neither does everyone else. You can’t put a price tag on something until someone else appraises how valuable something is.
Avatar is worth hundreds of millions because enough people said “this is a great movie, and I’ll pay X amount of dollars to see it”, and they did. We couldn’t say it was worth hundreds of millions of dollars before anyone saw it because we’d have no idea what to base that valuation on. Without people to judge, nothing holds ANY value, so an artist creates something they value themselves, and share it with the world in hopes that someone else will value it highly too.
As someone who is based in reality, if a movie is made, and you spend 6 million to make it, and you distribute it however you want, why don't you charge 6 million people $1 to see it? An MPAA goon might say “Because you want to make a profit... duh” so you charge $10. But you can only get 1,000 people to pay you to watch it, so you cry that piracy is to blame. Only your movie sucked, no one else watched it because it wasn’t worth the price of admission, so they told their friends not to bother, and that was it. The movie wasn't worth the $10,000 you actually got back for it, so you as a film maker or producer shouldn't be able to go cry to the government to get your other 5.99 million back... that's how reality works. People will only pay for what they value – not the other way around.
You can’t claim something is worth anything without other people to provide evidence that a thing, piece of art, movie, whatever – is worth something, be it money or anything else. Just because you made something doesn’t mean you’re owed $$ because I saw it or touched it. If I think your product/service/art is worth the price tag you put on it, I’ll pay. If not, you didn’t lose a sale, you lost nothing because I wouldn’t have paid it to begin with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
theamericandreamfilm.com
30 minutes to clear up that question.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anybody else hear
On a separate note, is it me or is anyone else noticing a HUGE slowdown on this site loading the last few days?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anybody else hear
Really? We actually made a bunch of changes that appear to have cut the load time in *half*. We've been monitoring load times pretty carefully over the past few months, and massively cut down on the load times, so if you're seeing the opposite, that's weird. Do you have any idea where it's coming from?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Anybody else hear
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Anybody else hear
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Anybody else hear
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Anybody else hear
Who are you selling information to?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Anybody else hear
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Anybody else hear
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Anybody else hear
Besides how do you know everything you are seeing is coming out from Techdirt and not some third party that installed something in your computer.
The only thing I see when I come to Techdirt with scripts on is on banner ad at the top and that is it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Anybody else hear
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Anybody else hear
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anybody else hear
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anybody else hear
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anybody else hear
Some of us are busy, but suffice it to say, this is one of the funniest DHS hit pieces yet. Is this site supposed to be comedy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anybody else hear
Have you tried accessin this site using another DNS service or using a proxy and see if the problem is someway along the line?
Of course that won't help if the problem is with your local connection(i.e. your ISP)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anybody else hear
How often have I told you AOL is not an internet service provider !!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Morons as heads of agencies.
I'm not saying this guy did but it has become more common that at any other time in U.S. history. And it's equal opportunity, all kinds of alliances.
So, yes, the people running agencies are now stupider and less competent than every before. They are spaceholders for other interested parties and they are also open to every form of bribery. Although nowadays these are called consultancy fees, board memberships, special investor friends and family deals, special hedge fund investments, and speaking engagement fees.
A pox on all their houses!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
With asset forfeiture laws the way they are these days, I think Morton might have misspoke and that last word should have been "profit".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is a stickup.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hrm.
Isn't copyright all about seizing speech in the first place? Seems like not much of a stretch to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hrm.
None of the speech is seized. None of the "books" or "content" is taken away. The owners still have all of their "speech" intact, which they can disseminate any way they like. The domains are not the speech, rising no higher up the food chain than a phone number or a cell phone. They are at best sign posts towards information, and not information in and of themselves.
It would take some mighty find lawyering to even suggest that a domain name is "speech" by itself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hrm.
How do you know they run an illegal business?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hrm.
Oh, and before anyone goes there, the courts have already ruled that some protected speech may be adversely affected by the termination of unprotected speech, but that isn't enough to make the seizures go away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hrm.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hrm.
The problem is there's no guarantee of a trial following a seizure. If such a guarantee existed and the domain were returned in the event the state or property owner were unable to prove or follow through with its case, domain seizures would not be a problem as they couldn't be used as an end-run around the justice system. What DHS wants is to take away people's domains without bothering to try the owners of the "alleged illegal business" in court, and that's just plain wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hrm.
What DHS wants is to take away people's domains without bothering to try the owners of the "alleged illegal business" in court, and that's just plain wrong.
Actually, I do think they want to try them in court. But they understand that they are often dealing with fly by night setups, spread out over multiple countries, with shadowy figures making it go. It's very hard to hit the target. There is a lot of investigating that will go into it before there are any court cases, and don't be shocked if some of them are filed and don't go forward only because they are unable to locate the defendants or to bring them to the US for trial.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hrm.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hrm.
That's not true. We're on the judge's and the prosecutor's timetable. The clocking isn't ticking as you suggest. The prosecutor has great discretion of when to file the actual forfeiture proceedings, and then the judge has great discretion as to when to return the property, if ever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hrm.
And that makes it OK? Unless they have a legitimate investigative reason to hold on to said property, to do so so without a trial in sight is unfair to the owner. To do so knowing there will be no trial is just plain unethical. The DHS has no legitimate investigative reason to hold on to seized domains, so what remains to be seen is whether any of the seized domains will lead to a trial.
Fact is that DHS wants to shut down certain websites with as little effort as possible. If that means shutting down websites without a trial because it's too damn hard to catch or prosecute the offenders, then that's exactly what they'll do (and everything so far suggests it's exactly what they're doing). You're free to disagree, but that just isn't right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hrm.
Actually, "lead to" is the wrong choice of words. Nothing about seizing a domain would lead DHS to the identity of the criminals, leading instead to nothing other than a busted domain.
I should have said that what remains to be seen is whether any of the seized domains will ever be involved in a trial.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hrm.
And if they aren't potential evidence, nor do they affect the potential evidence in any way (as you pointed out), then how are they subject to pre-trial seizure?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hrm.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hrm.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hrm.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hrm.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hrm.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hrm.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hrm.
A seized item doesn't have to become "valuable evidence" to be held until trial. Once the warrant is signed and executed, that is pretty much that until trial.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hrm.
False. No charges need be filed to seize and ultimately confiscate a person's property. That's the problem with the law as it currently stands: you can deprive people of property without having to prove they are guilty of the alleged offense or offenses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hrm.
You still have to go to a judge and convince them the person is engaging in illegal activity. Are you questioning the anchors of our US judicial system? Good luck with that.
Your post is just FUD, like everything else written on this site about anything that dares to touch Masnick's precious piracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hrm.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hrm.
The standard of evidence in that case is a great deal weaker than it should be for anything other than seizure as a preliminary step to a trial. The standard of evidence for anything that results in depriving a person of property or his ability to speak should be very high indeed.
You're an apologist for the status quo who presents absolutely no evidence for why the standard of evidence should be so low. Just another anonymous idiot trying to pull the wool over other people's eyes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hrm.
Domains aren't speech, that is true, but the fact that domains are attached to speech can't be as easily dismissed as you think. If DHS took away Techdirt's domain for daring to criticize its actions you can be sure it would constitute a violation of Techdirt's first amendment rights. The fact that Techdirt's website could still be accessed by its IP address wouldn't change the fact that protected speech would be negatively and significantly affected by the move. The fact that DHS felt compelled to return mooo.com's domain to it is proof enough that taking away a domain is not at as insignificant an action as you claim it is.
Domain names are property and people should not be denied the use of their property without due process. Furthermore, when being denied the use of one's property also impacts one's right to speak freely, the degree of scrutiny to which such denials must be subject should be pretty high indeed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hrm.
You're fooling exactly no one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hrm.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hrm.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hrm.
Source: 4th amendment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hrm.
Um, I hate to break it to you -- even if we have explained it to you at least a dozen times -- but going to a judge without an adversarial hearing of some sort is NOT due process, and this is well established.
Your level of delusion never ceases to amaze. Due process means that you have a chance to defend yourself. If you're left entirely out of the process, there's no due process.
Thanks for playing, and please read your Constitution, because it appears you need a refresher.
It really frightens me when Americans defend such blatantly anti-Constitutional positions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hrm.
And your rhetoric and focus on only one side of things frightens me. The truth is that instrumentalities of crime get seized every day without a prior adversary hearing, and it does not violate legal due process.
There is a nontrivial argument here that these seizures violate legal due process, but that's all it is--an argument. I believe that you are intentionally lying by claiming that this is 100%, without any doubt, a violation of legal due process. That is less than honest, Mike, and you know it. All you have is a viable argument. That's all either side has. Don't pretend like there's not another side with a viable argument. That makes you look bad. That makes you unbelievable.
After the property is seized, a forfeiture proceeding is initiated, and the owners of the property seized can participate in that proceeding. That's legal due process when it happens in other forfeitures. Perhaps it's legal due process here. The fact that you don't admit that possibility destroys your credibility immensely. It shows that you care more about your agenda than you do about the truth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hrm.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hrm.
LOL! I'm not going to do your homework for you. Forfeitures predate the Constitution, and they have been a part of this country since the day it was born. I'm sure a quick Google search would have you on your way in no time.
Look, I admit there are good arguments for why these seizures and forfeitures violate the First and Fifth Amendments. What I don't do is pretend like there's only one way to look at this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hrm.
Translation: You called my bluff, I'm leaving.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hrm.
Ha ha ha! Yeah, with 220 years of forfeitures in the books, it's real hard to find discussions of their constitutionality. Right.
Here, let me help you out: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=civil+in+rem+forfeiture+due+process
It's a complicated subject. It's not one you can just unilaterally exclaim, "This violates due process, absolutely, guaranteed!"
That doesn't stop you from pretending like it's black and white though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hrm.
That talks about civil forfeiture...
And yet ICE is fighting piracy as if its criminal.
So which is it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hrm.
That talks about civil forfeiture...
And yet ICE is fighting piracy as if its criminal.
So which is it?
These seizures and civil in rem forfeitures done pursuant to an underlying investigation of criminal infringement. So, it's both.
That answer may not satisfy you, but that is precisely the correct answer.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=civil+forfeiture+criminal+property
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hrm.
I also picked up that the RICO law has been expanded far beyond it's initial intent over the years (I assume because it's so handy for law enforcement to be able to do pretty much what they please), but it doesn't yet seem to cover trademark or copyright infrigement. Have I missed the bit where it does? Or are you suggesting that RICO laws cover these cases in a different way?
Or have I missed some other specific cases that answer the question I asked where seizures are pre-trial, not evindentiary or to prevent further crime? As I said from a quick read RICO would seem to allow for that but does not seem to apply here. In lieu of that as I understand US law to work, it would default to the various constitutional ammendments would it not? 8th, 1st, 4th and possibly 5th as I understand potentially coming in to play in this case and all on the side of the seizures being dodgy.
I'm interested so help me out here. Logic and common sense state that these seizures are ludicrously over-reaching, but I also realise those things have little to do with law (RICO statutes and the Patriot Act both seem to stray into that defintion for example). You seem pretty sure that they are legal so show me - argue a case instead of flat antagonistic statements of "truth"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hrm.
I've been working feverishly preparing for an upcoming debate on whether or not Obama is right in his latest announcement he believes DOMA is unconstitutional and that the DOJ will not be defending it in the Second Circuit. I'm taking that position that not only is the President right to not defend laws he believes to be unconstitutional, but that democracy is at its finest when such situations occur. I've already done about 40 hours of research, and I'm only halfway done with getting all my arguments prepared. It's a very complicated subject, with lots of history.
So is the constitutionality of these seizures. The point is, analyzing the due process issues alone in these seizures would mean days of research culminating in a 30-40 pages of memorandum of law. It's not an easy subject. From the 10 or so hours I have researched it, I have come away recognizing that both sides have merit, and I could make good arguments for either side.
One last point, my netbook that I primarily use died a couple of days ago. On that computer, I had a few good law journal articles that would help you out. Luckily, all of my computers back up each night, so once I restore that backup, I'll try and remember to find those articles and post them for you. Good luck.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hrm.
I'd have no problem if whatever they'd seized was evidence - the servers, data the goods they were allegedly selling in some cases. I'd have no problem if the domain names had been siezed as a punitive measure after guilt had been properly established in court as being the only possible remedy available.
The case, however, seems to be that there is a seizure of property that has no other reason than to be punitive and that has happened without correctly establishing guilt. Now I'm not an expert nor American so that may well be legal as far as I know, but if it is you guys really should stop singing about "The land of the free". What's next? Bursting into a student house and saying "We think you've drawn some Marvel fan art in violation of copyright so we're taking your coffee machine oh, and that nice stereo over there"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hrm.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hrm.
This is by design, if you recall civics hasn't been taught in schools for many years.
So how can our newest freshly minted voters have a clue?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hrm.
Because it temporarily disrupts those things so it is a form of censorship, further where the "illegal" part came from, where they found guilty in a court of law?
How did you concluded that it was all illegal? care to share you logic with the rest of us to see if you are a nutjob or someone reasonable?
From what I saw ICE screw up seizing 84.000 websites and posting to everyone trying to access that website that they were pedo's which is big, even by accident with the current climate about the subject is like pouring gasoline into fire, the Salem-withcraft-courts comes to mind of the dangers of such actions.
Further some blogs where completely legal and courts had said so and there is the case of the blogs that received content from producers and got seized without any wrong doing apparently on their part, is that what you call it illegal?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Typo maybe??
I think the last word was supposed to be "profitable."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Excellent Post
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Excellent Post
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Excellent Post
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Excellent Post
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Excellent Post
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Excellent Post
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just goes to show..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's NOT ok...
Ah yes, the fine American art of hypocrisy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's NOT ok...
Aren't those the words that got Nixon 'Frosted'???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Disconnect here ..... does this imply there was a claim of intellectual property regarding the recent child porn seizures? I don't get it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Remarkably, ICE ommitted thast from their credo
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What seizures mean really.
European customs ordered to seize PlayStation shipments in legal dispute
Sony got bitten by IP laws today in Europe will LG launch an assault on Sony in America and will ICE seize all illegal PS3 being sold by Sony?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
USA V the world
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
and they will keep ignoring the constitution until.....
Which is why they invest so heavily in military....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]