Why We Haven't Seen Any Lawsuits Filed Against The Government Over Domain Seizures: Justice Department Stalling
from the running-scared? dept
We've been covering the various illegal domain seizures by the US government quite a bit, and with the latest round, I did want to loop back on one point: how come none of the seized sites have sued the government yet? We've heard a few times that the lack of lawsuits from those who have had their domains seized is "evidence" that they know the seizures were legal and that they would lose any court case. I began to wonder about this myself, and spent the last two weeks contacting people on all sides of these cases and found the answer to be exactly the opposite: it's not the site holders who are scared. It's the Justice Department, and they seem terrified to have one of these cases actually go to court.What was really incredible was how everyone I spoke to involved in these cases (even though not at all connected with one another) had an identical story: they'd all love to take their cases to court, but they're waiting for the government to actually get in touch with them. If it was just one site, there would be no story. But I spoke to people associated with many sites, and the story was nearly identical. To hear John Morton and other proponents of domain seizures talk about it, it's "easy" for the owners of seized sites to protest and file suit against the government over the seized sites. Tragically, the reality has turned out to be quite different. Many of the sites were not even officially notified about the seizure until months later. Prior to that, they weren't even told what the sites were accused of, let alone who was doing the accusations. You try responding to a government action against you completely blind. You don't know who you're suing or for what.
Even once notified, the "notification" often came in the form of an "offer" from the government to effectively give up any and all legal claims against the government. From there, the process sounds like something out of the movie Brazil. Any attempt to speak to the government has been met with either a total lack of response or directing people to someone else, who then won't respond. Some of the people navigating this situation said it took months just to figure out who in the government they should be discussing the issue with -- and once it was figured out, actually getting those individuals to respond to basic questions that are normally answered as a matter of course in discussions prior to any litigation, has been an exercise in futility.
Basically, the same story was heard over and over again: the Justice Department doesn't seem to want these lawsuits to proceed and is stalling as much as possible and trying to avoid the legality of the seizures from being tested. At the same time, the site holders are eager to take these issues to court and are tremendously frustrated and distressed over the idea that the US government can simply seize domains without hearing, notice or effective process of appeal. However, nearly all of them expect that it will eventually end up in court (though one suggested that we might all be dead before a case moves forward at this rate).
Of course, I reached out to the government as well. I spoke to the press office of the part of the Justice Department involved in these cases, and beyond pointing me to the press releases they put out, they had no comment. I asked if there was an official process to protest domain seizures and was promised they'd get back to me. It's been a week and no one has gotten back to me. Separately, I reached out to people in other parts of the government that are heavily involved in the seizures, and despite multiple people promising to respond with details of the process, or to pass on my question to others who might know the process, days have gone by with no further response.
So, apparently it's "easy" to protest these seizures, but the people most involved in these seizures don't want to even let us (or those who it matters most to!) know what the process is. After talking to so many people on this, it's become abundantly clear that the lack of lawsuits has nothing to do with the strength of the government's case, but the very opposite. Multiple site owners would like to file suit, but can't. The government, who insists that it's easy to protest their wholesale seizure of a domain without prior notice or hearing can't even provide me a straight answer to what the process is to protest such a seizure. It's almost as if the government never even expected anyone to want to protest such censorship and were totally caught off-guard by this.
But the real tragedy is for the folks who ran these sites. Even as many have found alternative homes, they're frightened and disillusioned by the US government. They don't feel they did anything wrong, and yet were blindly punished by the US government, declared as criminals with no clear recourse -- and when they sought out information or details, have been met with the bureaucratic equivalent of a brick wall. We can all disagree over whether or not these domain seizures are legal or productive, but I would hope we can all agree that those who have had their domains seized should at least have a clear path to protest their innocence if they believe that they did not commit the crime Homeland Security, the Justice Department and a magistrate judge already declared them guilty of committing.
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: domain names, justice department, legality, seizures
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Would an FOIA request help?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Would an FOIA request help?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Would an FOIA request help?
1 take down site
2 stall
3 ?????
4 profit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Would an FOIA request help?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Would an FOIA request help?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Would an FOIA request help?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Would an FOIA request help?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Would an FOIA request help?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
2) You mentioned in a previous article that you're hearing rumblings from inside ICE/DHS itself that they're are people who feel its a complete waste of time and that they should be focusing on actually productive. Did you hear this from your investigation on this article? Could you elaborate?
Thanks for the info. This is unbelievable. I wish we could could have gotten more details though, especially about this "offer".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wait who am i kidding both the press and the officials would ignore them
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They're going to ignore requests and fumble around literally until legally they are ordered to either prosecute the sites, or stop seizing domains and giving back seized domains to the owners.
What does this accomplish? Well, nothing actually because the sites are coming back stronger than ever...but I think they believe the longer they can hold out these lawless procedures then the more sites they can destroy in the process based on "favors" they're performing for their big content buddies.
It's amusing that they thought once they seized the domain and put up their lame banner that the sites audience would vanish and the site would be crippled forever. This has back fired on them in a big way since the exact opposite is happening.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
History doomed repeat ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He flat...out....lied...and continues to do so. It's unbelievable, where's the checks and balances? They don't exist. These guys are allowed to use tax payers money to commit crimes upon citizens and when asked about it they can literally lie about it with no recourse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There's a lot of people in quasi governmental jobs that have lied and gotten promotions. The FBI and CIA are famous for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The recent seizures, following the seizure of eight domain names in June, were controversial, but reviewed by judges, ICE director John Morton said Tuesday. In "every single case," federal investigators were able to obtain materials that infringe copyright from the websites that had their domain names seized, Morton said during a speech at the Congressional Internet Caucus' State of the 'Net conference.
"They were all knowingly engaged in the sale of counterfeit goods," Morton said. "We're going to enforce the law. It's that simple."
http://www.csoonline.com/article/655918/us-official-defends-domain-seizures-for-copyright- violations
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unless you expended all your wit on the first url....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If you want a real life example of this, look at Facebook.
Facebook has a tendency to do just as the Justice Department is doing, but to pages. Facebook will ban a page with no warning, no explanation and no clear way to challenge the ban. The people who run these pages try and try to find out just why their page was banned and never receive a response from Facebook.
They are then forced to do what you suggest, try to rebuild under a different page. Unfortunately, that doesn't work.
I was an admin on one such page. We were a fan page for a popular Facebook game. We had over 90,000 fans and it was growing every day. Then our page was killed. After a few days of fighting Facebook for even a scrap of information, we started a new page. It took 6 months to get that initial 90k fan base. After 9 months on the new page we weren't at even half that. When people saw that the old page was gone, they never tried looking for the new one.
If it weren't for those dedicated few fans, our page probably would have died completely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Shutdown with little or no explanation
Yahoo does this as well. I had a great reputation for great help on Yahoo! Answers and my account was suspended without explanation and despite numerous inquires, was never able to find out why it was disabled. All requests for information go into some black hole never to return...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you would like to license my intentions in the previous post I am sure we can work something out
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So, you're saying no lawsuits have been filed because the government isn't returning phone calls? ahahahahaha
Are you saying these sites are retaining lawyers that don't know how to go file a lawsuit?
I wonder if I can avoid paying my electric company bill by simply never returning their calls...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Those are rules dealing with situations where citizens sue the government for negligence. They have nothing to do with contesting seizures.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Go read up on it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"circumstances where the United States, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred."
But if the charge is that the government infringed on your constitutional rights, there is no "private person" equivalent - that is a charge that can only be leveled against the public government.
But like I said, I'm no expert - so can you explain your position a bit more? How would one use the FTCA to sue the government in this circumstance? What would they sue them for?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nonetheless, the above act does work- look at the full sentence in context:
"The Act allows monetary recovery against the United States for damages, loss of property, personal injury or death. In seeking recovery, one must show that the damages occurred as a result of the negligent or wrongful acts of government employees acting within the scope of their employment, under circumstances where the United States, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Um, is that the case? I thought the only thing the constitution guaranteed for people of all races and colours was suffrage. Anything else would be covered by anti-discrimination laws enacted by congress. A private business selectively offering service might be illegal, but is it unconstitutional? I don't see how. So no, I don't think it is possible to sue the government under the FTCA for violating the first amendment.
And then there's this:
The Act allows monetary recovery against the United States for damages, loss of property, personal injury or death.
But this isn't about monetary rewards or recovering damages - this is about the First Amendment. Censorship is unconstitutional whether or not there are measurable losses. The FCTA might work if someone wants to bring a lawsuit against the government for lost profits, but what if someone simply wants to defend their constitutional rights?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
capice?
[ 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:
I mentioned both the FTCA and United States Court of Federal Claims as the avenues by which these sites could sue for all the reasons Masnick says they can.
Yet they haven't.
And no, Karl does not know what he's talking about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And yet nothing suggests that the FTCA applies here at all. So I'm hardly convinced.
And no, Karl does not know what he's talking about.
That is a fine assertion if you want to make it. But he backs up his arguments with much, much more supporting information than you do. It's also quite clear that he believes in what he says more than you do, since he is willing to attach it to a name and be held accountable for it later, which you are not.
So given all that, and since you are both just words on the internet from my perspective, what would possibly lead me to believe you over him?
[ 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:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Are you saying you don't agree with Masnick's mantra that the seizures were "unconstitutional" and "illegal"?
I would like to believe you've seen the light, but somehow I don't think that's what you meant...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
IF: the FTCA only allows you to sue the government as a private entity wherever a private entity would be liable
AND: private entities are not bound by the First Amendment (they're not)
THEN: what would you sue them for?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
All signs point to the USCFC as if that's the magic answer when no one has been able to advise on these issues.
[ 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:
I think there's some confusion here.
As I stated, the site owners are not talking about "bringing a First Amendment suit" against the government.
They're talking about the simple ability to go before a judge and contest the seizures - where they would presumably argue that the seizures are unconstitutional and/or procedurally unlawful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I did. The procedures for contesting seized property are laid out in Rule G, and 18 USC 46. Both state that the owners of property seized ex parte must be notified where, and with whom, they can file a claim to get the property back.
This is where ICE is stalling. The site owners are not talking about "suing the government" in the colloquial sense; they're talking about the ability to go before a judge, in an adversarial hearing, and contest the seizures. They have not been allowed to do so.
[ 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:
What's the point of hoping to do that now?
Masnick says the seizures are "unconstitutional" and "illegal".
If that was really true, then these sites could immediately go file a lawsuit and force the issue instead of waiting.
Except it isn't true. It's a figment of Mike Masnick's piracy-loving imagination.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you don't agree (and it's quite clear you don't) then fine, but don't you have better, more constructive things you could be doing?
If you have children, would you encourage them to behave as you do? I think it unlikely. Try and grow up and remain civil, please.
I know Mike doesn't need the likes of one random dude on the internet to defend him, I'm just tired of reading your bullshit. I trust next time you contribute here, you'll attempt to bring something to the table.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I will hand his ass to him every day from now until eternity till he stops or is rendered irrelevent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Fine, have it your way, pal.
Mike Masnick runs one of the most blatant piracy-apologist websites on the net.
[Citation needed]
I will hand his ass to him every day from now until eternity till he stops or is rendered irrelevent.(sic)
I do not mean to condescend, but what on earth makes you feel that you, a very anonymous coward, are handing anyone their ass? You come off as a petulant 8 year old child on your best days and as a hormone-fueled tween with keyboard courage on your worst. You are obviously not swaying anyone to seeing your point of view-- even if you were making all the sense in the world, (hint: you're not) your delivery and childishness ruin any credibility you might have had.
I enjoy reading other points of view, and actively seek them out online. For some reason, the people who come to TD with opposing views act like children. Even professionals with opposing points of view can't seem to keep it civil in their posts. This does not help you or your cause. It certainly prevents you from handing anyone their ass. Pro-tip: You don't hand someone their ass by calling them names.
I'm still curious as to what you hope to gain by posting here.
[ 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:
+1 Internets to you sir.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Don't flatter yourself, shilltard. You haven't handed his ass to him EVER.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Here's the skinny: In the laws under which the domains were seized, the domain registree MUST be givewn a timeframe within a reasonable time, in which to contest the seizure. This has not happened. Like, at all. Which is, y'know against the laws written for Congress.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If they really felt that strongly that they had a case, they would simply sue and force the issue.
But they're not. They're hoping to try and get a couple (at best) of the seizures tossed on what will ultimately be viewed as an irrelevant technicality. It's BS.
Here's the bottom line: Mike Masnick hates copyright.
But he isn't an artist so he does not understand the mindset of one.
He thinks that the world should change the way it works because of how he happens to view copyright.
His followers here lap it up because they're scared to death of losing their free lunch and having to pay for the content that they are so hopelessly addicted to- despite claiming that it "all sucks" or that "they wouldn't buy it anyway". Yeah, right.
There isn't a single reason to listen to a person like this, who is putting his interests ahead of those whom these laws are designed to protect.
His selfish crusade is massively fucked up and narcissistic.
[ 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:
I don't have a free lunch: I pay for it through hard work and careful living, something that seems to be lost on Big Media; living within your means is a much more admirable goal than the pursuit of wealth for wealth's sake.
And 'those whom these laws are designed to protect' are bribing officials through perfectly legal means (in the US) to change the laws for THEIR benefit, no the public's. Go have a look at the 'Age of Copyright', then go have a look at the age of Mickey Mouse. See a correlation?
There's this funny little conept called 'connecting with fans'. You should tryt it sometime, instead of feeding the entitlement culture in Big Business. "Look at me, I'm relevant! Now give me my free lunch!" The RIAA's bonuses for the last fiscal yearwere larger than the CEOs of just about any other company in the US. And that's saying something.
YOUR crusade is equally selfish, by your own logic.
[ 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:
I am, and I think I do. So is Nina Paley, and she sides with Mike. I'm sure that the many artists who Mike has helped make money would probably side with him, too.
There isn't a single reason to listen to a person like this, who is putting his interests ahead of those whom these laws are designed to protect.
U.S. copyright law was not designed to protect publishers, it was designed to "promote the progress." Copyright is not an artist's Constitutional right; rather, it is Congress's Constitutional right to grant it to them. Congress, in turn, is supposed to be the "voice of the public" - meaning copyright laws are granted, or not, solely at the discretion of the public, and primarily for their benefit.
So, it is you who is "putting his interests ahead of those whom these laws are designed to protect."
And you're right: there isn't a single reason to listen to a person like this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hello Anonymous Coward!
Unlike you, I'm not afraid to attach my name to my post. Unlike you, I hold a series of copyrights, on music, software, and literature.
I can assure you that Mike 'doesn't hate copyright'. I don't hate copyright either. I do however have a rather cynical viewpoint towards the CRIA member companies, who I've been having an ongoing war with for the last couple of years. They are the ones who hate copyright.
Wayne
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hello Anonymous Coward!
I can assure you that you have a serious reading comprehension problem then.
Mike Masnick despises copyright.
I couldn't care less why he does; that's between him and his therapist. But he's apparently managed to make some sort of living off this pro-piracy blog.
He is seriously one of the worst people I've never met.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hello Anonymous Coward!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What's the point of hoping to do that now?
And here, we're seeing exactly the reason ICE is stalling.
They figure if they stall long enough, the "defendants" will run out of either willpower or money, and quietly go away. I'm sure that, in a few cases at least, it worked.
If they stall long enough, the defendants' only option would be to do as you suggest, and sue the government. But this is a) far more expensive and difficult, legally speaking, and b) would put the burden of proof on the defendants, which is against the fundamental principals of criminal law.
It's against exactly these sorts of abuses that the requirements of seizure laws were written - requirements that ICE steadfastly refuses to follow. Situations like this were also the reason that 18 USC 512 was created, a section of copyright law that ICE believes simply doesn't apply to them.
They're acting unlawfully, and they know it. They're stalling in a deliberate attempt to cover their tracks.
And let's not think this is about "piracy," either. They've already started using exactly the same tactics against poker sites, and these same tactics resulted in the "mistaken" labeling of thousands of websites as being child pornographers. There is no question that, if they're not stopped by the courts, they'll use these same tactics against "enemies of the state" such as Wikileaks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
They have hired lawyers supposedly.
Give us the exact difference in cost between protesting the seizures and filing a suit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I disagree.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You see when you file a lawsuit it cant just say "i would like to sue 1 government for taking my things." You have to name the parties you are suing and give reasons as to why they didn't have the right to do what they did. Since they don't have a party to name or that parties reasons for their actions its hard to sue.
"I wonder if I can avoid paying my electric company bill by simply never returning their calls"
It would be more like they stop sending you bills and then shut off your power for not paying them. When you ask how to get it turned on they say pay your bills, when you ask how much you owe they just hang up on you. How are you suppose to pay bills they never send you? How are you suppose to dispute something when they never give you something to dispute?
We missed your horrid logic and bad analogies in the article about canadian music growth, hope to see your stupidity make it in there
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You can a file a lawsuit over anything you want.
Now look at all the verbiage Masnick has spewed these past few months about these seizures being "unconstitutional" and "illegal".
IF that were true, that is exactly what you would sue over.
Except it's not happening, is it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You would claim violations of the 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendments (free speech, search and seizure, and due process). And you'd ask for injunctive relief -- e.g. stop blocking my site. Assuming there's no statutory remedy, you might also ask for damages for the violation of the 4th Amendment, relying on a "Bivens" claim.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/RuleG.htm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
At worst, filing an action would cause the government to have to come to court and assert that they are properly trying to seize the domains, at which time the court hearing the matter could decline to allow the 1983 action to go forward while the forfeiture action was pending.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If the government treats you like a defendant without actually bringing charges, you can sue the government to make them stop. If they're not complying with Rule G, then you can sue them to make them comply.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is one of the reasons the government's actions are so wrong here. The sites are the defendants; the burden of prof lies on the government to prove these seizures were legal. To reverse the burden of proof in this way is against the fundamental principals of criminal law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The government already did that when they got their warrant.
Put up or shut up.
You people HAVE NO CASE.
If you did, a suit would have been filed THE NEXT DAY.
Mike Masnick is stiffing a music CHARITY, one that provides health care for the people he advocates RIPPING OFF EVERY DAY.
You people are truly the worst, and will no doubt rot in hell; if it does indeed hopefully exist...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
> Morton, in their official capacities as
> the U.S. Attorney General and the head of
> ICE. You would claim violations of the 1st,
> 4th, and 5th Amendments (free speech,
> search and seizure, and due process).
Yep. This is one of those times I'm actually going to pull a TAM and say "There's more here than we're being told."
If these plaintiffs really are raring to go and want to sue the government, it's a simple matter to do so, regardless of whether the government is returning their calls or not. If they haven't filed suit, I don't buy that as the reason. There's something else going on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Also why waste money filing a brief if you are not sure who you are suing. If they put the wrong person down it can just get tossed out without any useful knowledge coming out of the money spent.
Dont worry the lawsuits will come. I would say you will look like a jackass when it happens but its a little late for that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
See my above post -- but you can sue the AG and head of ICE in their official capacities.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
they have to file a complaint
notify the defendant of the complaint
and the defendant has to respond to that complaint
this isnt just filing a lawsuit against the government this is a response to a government action. there are rules that are supposed to be followed. Please excuse the defendants for trying to go through the process as they are suppose to as opposed to just filing willy-nilly lawsuits. They would like to actually file the appropriate responsive pleadings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Because they have no case.
It's one gigantic boondoggle dreamt up in Mike Masnick's piracy-loving brain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
so my post is about why they havnt done anything giving reasons why they wouldnt. and this is your response? really need to work on those arguing skills.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
They file a lawsuit.
Your link had nothing to do with these sites being prevented from filing a lawsuit.
This whole thing is one of the biggest epic fails Masnick has ever pulled.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You act as if these sites are making money hand over fist and have tons of cash to waste on lawyers and lawsuits like the MPAA or RIAA does.
I would be surprised if any of the sites seized for copyright infringement barely made their operating costs back.
[ 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:
Sites like release.com that get 10k users a month come out near even.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
*Facepalm*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ahhh, irony can be so funny...
boon·dog·gle
–noun
1. a product of simple manual skill, as a plaited leather cord for the neck or a knife sheath, made typically by a camper or a scout.
2. work of little or no value done merely to keep or look busy.
3. a project funded by the federal government out of political favoritism that is of no real value to the community or the nation.
Take a look at definition #3.
This really is a giant boondoogle. Not dreamt up by Mike though, but by the legacy gatekeepers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
At a minimum, even if you got to the point where a motion to dismiss your claim was to be heard, it might at least afford you the opportunity to make the government show up and answer some questions before the judge dismisses the case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
> you can argue those reasons do not justify the
> action
That's what discovery is for. All they need to allege at this point is that their property was seized without justification. After the suit is accepted by the court, they can make a motion for discovery and ask the judge to compel the government to provide documentation and justification for its actions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You are obviously familiar with the process, so you should be already aware of this.
But then again, trolls gotta troll...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
But the Guantanamo detainees WERE able to bring suit to challenge that detention, and in Boumediene v. Bush, the Supreme Court said that the government had to provide some semblance of due process.
Granted, the process for the Guantanamo detainees is moving along super slow, but that's largely because (1) it's difficult for lawyers to get access to the detainees, and (2) courts are super cautious on issues of national security.
But that's not the case here. It's clear which websites were blocked. Their owners could probably contact a lawyer in the U.S. And although the domain blocks are being enacted by DHS, I seriously doubt any court will buy that this is a "national security" concern that it shouldn't touch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I'm sure the dinosaur industries have lots of experience with filing lawsuits that:
* don't know who they're filing against
* don't have proof of what they are alleging
* in some cases have no standing to sue (eg, don't even own the copyright *cough* wrong haven *cough*)
The problem is that the people who had their domain names taken want to actually WIN a lawsuit and not have it thrown out. Furthermore, they are not in the dinosaur business of filing a lawsuit under false pretenses for some other purpose (extortion shakedown) rather than actual litigation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
IF that were true, that is exactly what you would sue over.
Except it's not happening, is it?
Okay, then look at all the bullshit you have been spewing about these sites being guilty of contributory infringement or even direct infringement.
IF that were true, those are exactly the charges the government would make and bring to a court of law.
Except it's not happening, is it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Seems pretty clear that the government isn't confident these charges will stick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
They mention restrictions placed on the site owners but not charges. I thought I remember tvshack getting formally charged too but im foggy on it
http://www.businessworld-australia.com.au/australian-business-profiles-and-featured-articles-bwa -magazine/why-ninjavideo-matters-us-news/
[ 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:
So they weren't named in the official complaint where the other 7 were. That's all that I can surmise from the information that I've gathered.
I still find it odd that there was a raid on Ninjavideo... Does anyone have any information on that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Imagine driving around in a city and needing to park. You see a sign in the middle of a block that says "No parking, here to corner." So you park before the sign.
Your car gets towed. You're told the sign meant the other corner. You don't think this was right. So you want to get your car back.
You go to the city and they say they get impounded car reports once a year. If you want it back sooner you need to talk to a tow company. There are 50 in the city.
Each tow company tells you that you need to pay $500 to file a "go look for my car in your lot" report.
What do you do?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
shoulda followed your instincts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
They may not get any monetary settlement from the Registrar, but they would at least get it before a judge, and the judge would be able to order the registrar to return the domain to them, and that would force ICE to then go directly after them, or back down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There's a clear claim -- violation of the Constitution. And you can always sue the head of ICE or the DOJ for injunctive relief (stop blocking my site).
If the site is actually legit and hasn't filed suit, then the only reason I can think of is that lawsuits are expensive, and that they'd prefer to resolve this directly through administrative action on DOJ's or DHS's behalf.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
This was my point above, yes you *could* make a suit against Morton and the USAG for unconstitutional actions. But we dont know that is the right people and we dont know their reasoning. You could probably do a john doe but whats the point. Why should these citizens have to spend money and file suits just to find out who and what is charging them. If they had money to burn and wanted to prove a point they could blow their money approaching it this way.
Since most of them (all?) don't have a lot of excess money set aside for legal and are generally in no hurry to do this (all the sites I looked into are back up w/ a different domain) the smart thing to do is to wait and get officially charged with something so you can refute it.
Its only been a couple months if it had been a couple years I would agree that they probably decided they dont have legs to stand on.
When this does go to court these are going to be long and expensive and complicated cases. Why rush into it blind? Why spend money filing a weak suit?
I would think the government not being open about what is going on is much more telling than the lack of blind lawsuits.
Side note, anyone know what ever happened with this:http://torrentfreak.com/movie-site-pleads-for-to-fight-feds-100723/ ?
Those guys have had almost a year to put something together. Are they a party you spoke to Mike, or have you just been talking to people from the November seizures?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
http://torrentfreak.com/movie-site-pleads-for-to-fight-feds-100723
and a quick follow up. I know last july's seizures were different as they actually charged the owners and seized the servers instead of just the domains. Here is a great summary of those early seizures and a look at the people running the site:
http://www.businessworld-australia.com.au/australian-business-profiles-and-featured-article s-bwa-magazine/why-ninjavideo-matters-us-news/
but i still can't find anything on the state of the case, or charges filed ect. and ninjavideo's forums seem to be down now, don't know if thats recent or not (i know they worked about 6-7 months ago and they were very vaguely keeping people abreast of the situation)
anyone have pacer access wanna do a scan for ninjavideo?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The forums are back up, I am surprised to see they are linking to videos in it.
I remember them having a big post about the seizures on their forum back when it happened, I don't know if its still there or have time to find it.
You make mention of them coming to a deal in another post, I find that hard to believe they made any deal with the gov and are linking to content on their forums now. I remember Ninjavideo.com went down suddenly and they said their servers were taken, I don't know if you mean they agreed not to use the domain anymore or repost the site, but like I said their activity on the forums makes me doubt any agreement or at least it was a really weird one if it happened.
That article from the Australian website has some mention of the raids but not much. Unfortunately its the best coverage of the incident I could find.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's what I can surmise from everything that's happened. Their servers weren't taken, is all I can say on that. The domain name was taken down and if anything, I remember there was an issue of a raid, which I've heard nothing else about.
In regards to the videos, those are mainly Youtube videos, nothing else. They're not the videos coming from Megavideo in regards to full length movies, merely stuff like Nyancat. That's a lot different than the movies that were placed on the site before this ICE mess started.
Notice who the complaint was for from the first seizure (link is down but it has the websites)
Link
Then we move on to the second one. Link
Third one
Since Mike has already stated most of these sites have gotten lawyers to represent them, I would wonder what exactly happened with NV's being excluded from the first seizure. Did they take the deal? I don't know. Since it was the first time this had happened, the terms could be much different than what ICE has now decided to do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh I didn't click through. I used NV regularly for BBC documentaries and British Sitcoms (PeepShow & IT Crowd, mainly) so I know what it used to look like. I just saw the familiar banners on their forum and assumed they were back to old tricks.
"Notice who the complaint was for from the first seizure (link is down but it has the websites)
Link
Then we move on to the second one. Link
Third one"
Can't follow your link through for the first one, firewall is blocking zeropaid, but I have seen it before. Not sure what your point is in listing these though. I figured it was all reference to the July seizures and NV's name dropped off, but these are individual actions and a list of who was "attacked" during each action, not a list of everyone effected by Op in our sites so far.
"It's what I can surmise from everything that's happened. Their servers weren't taken, is all I can say on that."
I agree that something is quietly afoot. I disagree with the servers not being taken. I remember reading about it on their original blog post about it (full disclosure: I remember that they were physically raided I don't remember what was taken, but why kick down a door if they are not there to take some shit?) which was on www.saveninjavideo.net which appears to be down these days, as is the quick link to their "legal defense fund" on Google search under the hit for their forum. Though they may just be having issues, I couldn't get the forum up yesterday/ saw it this morning / and now cant get at it again. The Australian news story also mention raids and servers being taken but that's just in general for the whole July operation it doesn't mention NV's servers specifically. I would link it again but each time i did it required moderator approval to post(??) but its just a few posts up.
The whole thing, as you mention is odd. I would love to see any info you find on it. Gonna do a little digging on my lunch break today as well. It weird they went from "Give us money to fight this" to "___________" with no mention of what happened inbetween.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Just for convenience in finding all the sites and trying to calculate how many have been affected with these takedowns. It's easier to go through my posts and find this, than constantly google searching it. :)
Well, there were a few things that were amiss:
Link
"The crackdown spanned New York, New Jersey, Washington, North Carolina and even the Netherlands, and involved the seizure of assets from 15 bank accounts and the execution of several residential search warrants.
Servers have not yet been seized, however, so it's possible that some of the sites could simply set up shop under different domain names"
So they raided people's houses it seems, but I've not seen one affidavit in that regard.
The servers weren't seized (maybe they were not physically with the people?). And remember, this was when COICA was FIRST run through the Senate so Wyden did a great job of blocking this legislation. I believe this is what the Justice Department is waiting for. They're looking to take out these sites and their financial backing but they don't have the laws in place to do it. Of course, this could be an Occam's Razor on my part but it makes the most sense.
Unfortunately, I can't say too much because I honestly don't know all of the details. I remember that Mike asked about crowdsourcing funding for defense, but nothing has come out of the donations. So I have to assume that NV has since moved on and are no longer interested in fighting this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Interesting that they would go to residences and not where the servers are, but the more I think about it even sites whose owner/operator are in the US usually rent European server space for projects like these so it makes sense.
"They're looking to take out these sites and their financial backing but they don't have the laws in place to do it."
I would agree it seems as if they started enforcing before they really had the law to support them with the knowledge that the laws were in the pipeline. However, those laws didn't ever make it out the other side so as it stands they have acted outside the law and are trying to stall until there are laws that support them.
"I have to assume that NV has since moved on and are no longer interested in fighting this."
Yeah I guess either some kind of deal like you mentioned before or they realized they weren't being charged with anything so don't have to defend themselves and they don't have the money to go on the offensive.
Didn't get a chance to look for any new items of interest on lunch spent it arguing about the intentions of artists on some other post. :(
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I dunno -- seems clear to me. Don't these domains now say, "This has been seized by DHS for infringement" or some sort? So ... you sue the head of the DHS. That is the right person. Federal law lets you sue the head of the agency even if it's one of their underlings, so as everyone is acting in their official capacity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
lawsuits aren't expensive, LAWYERS are expensive.
Masnick says they've hired lawyers...
AND??????????????
What is the difference in price between contesting something and a filing a suit?
mmm?
Tell you what-
I'll pay the filing costs for the lawsuit.
Let's go.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Yes. All the sites I spoke to have retained US lawyers. And, yes, they could sue, but there are very good reasons for at least talking to the Justice Department first. There will be lawsuits, but the lawyers involved are being smart in how they handle this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
LOL. Like what?
"Pardon me, but would you mind if I sued you?"
the lawyers involved are being smart in how they handle this.
Yeah, they are. They're not suing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But I'm not going to be.
Masnick likes to shout in his headlines about how "unconstitutional" and "illegal" the seizures are, but then when the rubber meets the road apparently that isn't the case.
But do you think he cares?
Of course not. His job is to post FUD headlines that show support for the pirate cause.
[ 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:
DAMN YOU TAMasnick
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Are you saying these sites are retaining lawyers that don't know how to go file a lawsuit?
So basically, you are saying that these small individual business should spend huge amounts of cash to fight the US Government (with it's endless tax payer money) just to discover why their property was taken from them?
That's not the way it's supposed to work.
On top of that - there hasn't even been legal precedence set concerning whether just linking infringing material is even a crime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Please give it a try. Once they turn off power to your house and puter we'll have a nice break from your bullshit postings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Please, keep it up, darryl ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I won't even waste my time responding to that...I'll just highlight it for others
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No need to return their calls they'll just turn your electricity off.
Brilliant observation broke legacy friend.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
None of them can get lawyers in the first place. Why be disingenuous in the argument?
"I wonder if I can avoid paying my electric company bill by simply never returning their calls..."
What's most pertinent which you seem to have missed.
" They don't feel they did anything wrong, and yet were blindly punished by the US government, declared as criminals with no clear recourse -- and when they sought out information or details, have been met with the bureaucratic equivalent of a brick wall. "
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
What a gigantic pile of bullshit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Just to be clear, this is not true. All of the sites I've talked to have been able to retain US counsel (and some really top notch lawyers are involved). But those lawyers -- smartly -- are trying to talk to their counterparts in the government first and having amazing difficulty doing so, which is not at all par for the course in most such situations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You got it backwards, my silly Anonymous friend.
It's more like: Do I have to pay my electric bill if the electric company never sends me a bill and never answers my inquiries as to why I have no bill?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Am I missing something? It sounds like the government is trying to avoid paying it's electric bill by not returning the call. The electric company (the sites) are calling the responsible party (government) but aren't getting calls back. The government is the cheapskate trying to avoid paying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
notification
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WHAT?
wait a minute, is this true?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Then add to this, European domains have very little chance to represent themselves in a US court. There's also the amount of legwork involved such as travel costs which makes this entirely cost prohibitive to a lawyer, who gets paid a lot for researching these.
I know of at least two or three domains that have problems in this area, in finding representation. Yes, the EFF can assist in certain aspects, but money is still required. And when your site is only making enough for server space, you have an entirely new problem where you have to appear in court for a domain seizure.
These "pirate" sites aren't run by Google level businesses. Some are run by smaller communities that enjoy watching films. Having these domain seizures occur is majorly disruptive to people's everyday life. Now you're asking them to get a lawyer while they don't know where exactly they can respond?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
They're not. There is no case and Masnick is too much of a coward to admit what is really going on. Nothing has changed alright, but it's on the site owner's end. He just goes to them and says "Are you gonna sue? You're gonna sue, right?"
Then they don't and it's somehow the government's fault.
What a fucking joke.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But there is no case. You're all drunk on Masnick's kool-aid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There are lawyers. And they are all over it.
But there is no case
There is a case. Many cases.
Why do I expect that you will have amnesia to these comments once the first case is filed?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There is nothing in the world I would love more than for them to try and do this; even just for the caselaw.
But there's ZERO reasons why they shouldn't have sued already if they really had a case.
You are saying the EXACT same things you said months ago.
All you're doing is stalling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
1) That Mike is lying about having spoken to lawyers, or about these sites having lawyers at all?
2) That Mike is lying about what the lawyers said to him, and that they in fact do not plan to sue?
3) All the lawyers were lying to Mike when they said they plan to sue but the situation is unusual and difficult?
I am genuinely asking here... who are you accusing of lying?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
4 if the govs case is so strong why are they avoiding speaking to opposing counsel? Or is that made up by masnick as well?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What do you do?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Must have been too much contact with the Chinese
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Must have been too much contact with the Chinese
It's you pirates that want the US internet to look like China's.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Must have been too much contact with the Chinese
99% of all goods in china are pirated?
99% of pirated good are pirated?
99% of internet traffic is piracy?
99% of the bullshit you make up is bullshit?
I think i actually know what you are talking about which was widely discussed. The % of software installed on computers that is pirated. Which has nothing to do with music, your favorite thing to cry about.
Also a quick google search shows the 99% figure you post is complete garbage.
So your bullshit rate is 99%
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2010-05/11/content_9831976.htm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Must have been too much contact with the Chinese
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Must have been too much contact with the Chinese
Wow, I'm not even sure where to start on that one. From looking at your posts, it would seem that you're the one that wants the US's internet to look like China's. What with the arbitrary seizures and all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Must have been too much contact with the Chinese
Dumbass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Must have been too much contact with the Chinese
It has to be one of those two, so which is it? And why?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Must have been too much contact with the Chinese
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
John Doe lawsuit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: John Doe lawsuit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Haha, exactly.
You won't see it there, the music industry is thriving and when he sees data that supports that unfortunately I don't think broke legacy friend can think of any analogies quick enough that either don't apply, don't make sense, or both.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Please send donations via PayPal to JohnMortonsPuppet@ analogy.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
IF that were true, those are exactly the charges the government would make and bring to a court of law.
Except it's not happening, is it?"
haha, ZING
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sue the domain registrar
I'm not a lawyer but can't this get started with a civil suite?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't think the owners can bring suit so much as they must wait for the government to file a complaint first. That's my understanding at least. I haven't really researched this issue, so please correct me if I'm wrong. It's certainly an interesting issue, and I'm as anxious for the courts to look at these seizures as the next person.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Please define this. It's been a year since the July takedowns with NO charges filed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If they had a case, I'm sure they would have been a lot more confident to go to court. As it stands, they seem to be scrambling for a cause to build around.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Further, the government filed a complaint on TVShack, not some of the later seizures. We got to see the affidavits for Onsmash and all, but that's woefully different from seeing what the exact problems arose and the charges against, at the very least, the first sites taken down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Out of the first 9, 7 were filed.
Out of the second round, we saw only the affidavit.
Out of the February takedowns, I didn't see much of anything save an affidavit or two.
The complaints should have come out a long time ago. I'd grant a 3 month leniency, but any longer is beyond "a reasonable time". If so much effort is put into the enforcement, there should be a lot more effort put into organizing the exact reasons why this is needed.
There should be a beginning, middle, and an end game for the government. Right now, it seems more of a "make it up as we go along" while everyone is shuffling duties.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
so maybe they are stalling until they do have adequate evidence of foreitability. or until they have modified the laws to make the sites forfeitable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I can say that where Mike says "the government tries to make you give up all legal claims against the government" is entirely accurate. That fits a lot with what the Executive Branch has been doing under Obama's reign. It's more a "head in the sand" approach than an actual approach at the issues.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't know if Mike covered this letter or not. It's a good read.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Here's what I've been able to make out of Rule G.
Rule G(4)(b)(i) states:
Thus, direct notice is required, and the deadline is in Rule G(5)(a)(ii)(B). Here's what that states:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
But of course they haven't.
Because they have no case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kafka
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trial
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Suit
> those individuals to respond to basic questions
> that are normally answered as a matter of course
> in discussions prior to any litigation, has
> been an exercise in futility
They ought to just file suit against the DoJ in general and name Eric Holder as defendant. Once the suit is accepted by the court, I'm fairly certain the DoJ would route it to the right set of lawyers to respond to it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Founding Fathers
Out government doesn't just piss on the Constitution, they openly wipe their asses with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
welcome
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So even though some may not like the actual procedures available (and many of us may find the inadequate or problematic), there are procedures set out in the law, and a lawyer versed in forfeiture law would have an idea of where to begin.
It seems like one issue that may be slowing the process is that in some cases, the parties using the domain may not be getting notified because they are not actually the owners of record. It looks like many of the seized domains were registered through proxy services, so if notices were sent to the mailing address of the registered domain owner, they would go the the proxy service, which actually has the registration.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And I just told you that if there really was a case here then THE DHS/ICE/JUSTICE DEPARTMENT would be ALL OVER IT...except...they aren't. It's easy for them to abuse their powers to get a judge to rubber stamp a warrant that is riddled with errors, now comes the part where they have actual work to do. No wonder nothing is getting done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
well everyone who wastes time on techdirts life that is
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
These are favors ICE/DHS are executing for their big content friends. They aren't based on "tips" received, it's favors. Plain and simple. Ever heard of CONFLIT OF INTEREST? For some reason those 2 sites aggravated a label executive (they probably didn't post all of the content the label sent directly) and thus they were targeted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let's not forget these details, let's not forget just how outrageous all of this is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why Have We Not See The Seizures Of Islamic Terrorist Webistes?
Homeland Security and ICE have “Banners” made up for “Child Porn”, "online Poker Sites, Copyright Infringements for “Music Download Sites”.
One, has to wonder if they currently have a ‘Banner’ made up for… Islamic Radical Jihaid websites, that call for the destruction of the USA and Israel…and that encourage violence towards the people of these two countries and other countries?
Is that not their REAL jobs? Is that NOT more Important?
Peace To ALL!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If some are actually located in the US, does anyone have the names of those sites?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If some are actually located in the US, does anyone have the names of those sites?
According to ICE, as of last month there were 120 seized domain names (100 of them for trademark violations) with 100 of them out of China: http://www.scribd.com/doc/55446034/ICE-Answers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
My question, though, is how many of the seizures pertain to sites whose principals reside within the US?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And my questions was how much US created content (therefore product) was residing on those sites ?
So what you are saying is if you can steal something from the US and get it out of the country, then you are safe and you cannot be charged for the crime ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More people are refreshing the page, more people are coming back to interact in the discussion. Additionally, users are more inclined to click on a post with 150+ comments.
More pageviews = more revenue
You continue to do an excellent job of proving how shortsighted you are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's time to get out of the United States, NOW.
That may sound harsh, but consider this situation. If Mike is telling the truth (and I have good reason to believe that he is) the people who would like to fight the Justice Department in court are being blocked by the Justice Department, by the simple method of avoiding giving the complainant any information.
Joseph Heller would recognize the situation. So would Kafka. I wasted a fair bit of time trying to warn the International Music Score Library Project of the dangers of working with a .ORG domain. It went in one ear and out the other. The next time someone decides to take them down, if they may end up staying down permanently, if they don't setup an alternate safe domain.
Wayne
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's time to get out of the United States, NOW.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's time to get out of the United States, NOW.
Besides, music scores as crime? Wasn't this a whole big issue 110 years ago which was 'destroying' the music industry and going to 'stop people creating'? Dream on!
Then there is the issue of copyright as a civil issue, not a criminal one. Let's not mix in copyright with fraud/counterfeiting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
VeriSign
Suing VeriSign would be a civil lawsuit, thus possibly open to a class action status by all of the effected domain holders.
No I don't think VeriSign is guilty here. They just did what the court ordered them to do. However, they could be used as leverage to get to the real heart of the matter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Then DO something....Talk is cheap...
News flash, they dont have too.
Mike I thought your were a 'law speaking guy', then why is it beyond you to work out how to lodge a law suit ?
What are you saying, all these seized sites have morons as laywers.
If that is the case, Mike if you are a 'law speaking guy' YOU FREAKING DO SOMETHING.
Represent them !!! advise them,
Or whine for them... that will work..
Are you guys REALLY THAT stupid ??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Then DO something....Talk is cheap...
Always hilarious to read that from you of all people ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Then DO something....Talk is cheap...
Actually they do
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/RuleG.htm
but I wouldnt expect not knowing what you are talking about to keep your from speaking
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Will they be auto-renewed? If so, in whose name?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ha - you "domain real estate" guys thought I was kidding?
Seizure of a domain operating illegal sites is easier than placing the site owners and operators in jail.(Domain registration privacy or hiding of owner identities)
The seizure of previously registered and used domains is going before a jury and the joke called the "domain name market" will soon disappear. Google Inc and NameMedia Inc seized notable short domains and ran AdSense for domains ads on them till one sold.
(5:09-cv-05151)
Not a secret or quiet lawsuit but it is being ignored valiantly by the "domain name" press.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I AGREE!!!
Services the new and improved SS and the government thinks that we, the American Family can just sit back and watch the remake of the gestapo? I am researching, that's how I found your site but I am running out of time. I have to file within days while I am learning Virginia law, although I have a CAP ( who , of course will not lift a finger in my indeavors.)Wish me success I intent to file a suit against the Virginia State Government. CS v Virginia Beach Dept of Social Services.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I AGREE!!!
Services the new and improved SS and the government thinks that we, the American Family can just sit back and watch the remake of the gestapo? I am researching, that's how I found your site but I am running out of time. I have to file within days while I am learning Virginia law, although I have a CAC ( who , of course will not lift a finger in my indeavors.)Wish me success I intent to file a suit against the Virginia State Government. CS v Virginia Beach Dept of Social Services.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]