Senator Leahy Praises US Gov't Censorship Of Websites As ICE Takes Another Victory Lap
from the they-live-in-an-alternate-reality dept
It really would be kind of funny to watch the US government congratulate itself for censorship of websites if it wasn't just kind of sad. At a Senate Judiciary committee hearing on intellectual property issues, Senator Patrick Leahy (top 3 campaign contribution sources: lawyers, entertainment industry, lobbyists -- you can't make this stuff up) praised administration officials for censoring websites based on questionable accusations from an entertainment industry who seems to think that their own content creators are running "pirate" websites.Of course, Leahy apparently doesn't recognize the irony of condemning internet censorship in other countries while praising it at home when it benefits his biggest campaign contributors.
The same hearing gave ICE assistant director Erik Barnett one more chance to declare victory, though I note with some amusement that the text of Barnett's speech this time leaves out the bogus claim that no sites are challenging the seizures. Apparently he's realized that some people might call him on it when he blatantly misrepresents reality.
Either way, none of this dog and pony show is much of a surprise. You certainly wouldn't expect Senator Leahy to call one of the people who had their sites illegally seized to hear their side of the story. I mean, that might be embarrassing to actually hear that there's more than one side to this. He might have to hear about how the content creators themselves sent the content in question to these sites, and how the ICE affidavit to seize them misstated the facts of whether or not the content was infringing. He might have to hear how ICE didn't even ask the actual copyright holders, in most cases. He might have to hear how ICE doesn't seem to understand the technology, and doesn't seem to understand the difference between linking and distribution. He doesn't have to hear about how hardworking people who helped promote new artists and build their careers now live in fear of their own government. He doesn't have to hear about how these people are afraid to speak out, because the Justice Department has told them that if they do, they may face criminal charges.
No, it's easier to put on a show and pat yourself on the back for censoring those people and pretend that you've done something productive.
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: censorship, copyright, dhs, domain seizures, erik barnett, free speech, ice, patrick leahy, victoria espinel
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
What's next...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Me: So you are suggesting that everyone should just bury their heads in the sand, ignore the laws of the land, and stop chasing law breakers? Nice! I'll be over tonight to steal your computer, because that is another law that isn't popular!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Me: So you are suggesting that everyone should just bury their heads in the sand, ignore the laws of the land, and stop chasing law breakers? Nice! I'll be over tonight to steal your computer, because that is another law that isn't popular!"
No, its more like you'll simply accuse someone of infringing and then the GOVT will go over and take away their computer based solely on your accusation, without trial, without proof, without any recourse.
Still want this scenario wiseguy? Because with a scenario like this, YOU could be on the receiving end just as easily and with ZERO recourse or defense. Do you REALLY want our justice system to work this way? Or would you rather (as the article tries to point out) that they actually do their jobs CORRECTLY and not simply ONLY at the behest of those who make massive campaign contributions?
Get a fricking clue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Get a fricking clue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"But I have an IP address," you say? Yes, but how can you tied that to a specific household (wireless access), much less a person?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
This is like you claiming someone took your car for a joyride and brought it back. Then because you don't really know who did it, you tell the police that it was the guy down the street you hate. So they go and take his car from him while he is sleeping.
They don't actually charge the guy or arrest him. They just take his car.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Who knew that wonderland style justice was coming to the US...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The scariest part for me is losing all my computers... how would I continue to watch pirated movies?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I work in the security department overseeing several retail stores. We've caught people shoplifting on camera and knew who they were because they're repeat offenders. The police come and take the report and the video and then file it away.
They've basically told us we have to catch the person in the act and detain them ourselves before they'll bother with it. Otherwise it just goes in their files.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Shoulda told 'em you saw them downloading something. You'd have SWAT there w/i minutes....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You're still trying to compare apples to oranges.
Get a fricking clue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Get a fricking clue.
You know, if I called DHS and told them that my neighbor has infringed my copyright and I have proof they'd laugh their asses off at me, right up until they hung up. I guess only those with proper cash get results.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
In the first instance, the owner still has the original, in the latter, they do not. This has been explained MANY times.
Do pay attention, you'll look less of a fool.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Could you have possibly framed that statement in a more disingenuous manner?
1. No, I'm not saying people should ignore the law of the land.
2. The issue here is not about ignoring the law of the land, but the gov't constantly stretching and changing that law in questionable ways at the behest of an industry that refuses to adapt.
3. The issue here is not one of obeying the law. It's about how the government has now gone so far as to start censoring protected speech, and refuses to admit that.
4. If you can't understand the difference between gov't censorship and stealing a computer you aren't worth listening to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Your insistence on continuing this willfully ignorant charade makes you look like a buffoon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Your continual spin given the facts makes you look like an ARSE!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The best example are poker sites, which are legal in most of the world, but were made illegal in the US using various methods. None of those poker companies actually have offices in the US or are US companies, but they are still subject to US law when dealing with US players and in making their product available in the US.
As for the rest of your rant, almost every report of a crime is based on what happened, what you saw, etc. The only evidence may be an eye witness report. Online, it may be an IP address, a date, a time, and other information.
Oh yeah, the AC above, you got it right. There are court rulings that have said that some protected speech may be harmed in order to stop unprotected speech. That in turn means that wrapping unprotected speech with some protected speech doesn't shield it from the law. Mike Masnick tends to ignore that very basic piece of caselaw at every turn, pretty much playing the 1st amendment card any time he has no other argument that makes sense to justify the latest shady website.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So you would be okay with, say, Chinese officials seizing the domains and servers of sites that they don't like, even if they were outside of that country?
Oh yeah, the AC above, you got it right. There are court rulings that have said that some protected speech may be harmed in order to stop unprotected speech.
Under some very specific situations and circumstances, which don't apply here. Why you ignore that... I have no idea.
Mike Masnick tends to ignore that very basic piece of caselaw at every turn, pretty much playing the 1st amendment card any time he has no other argument that makes sense to justify the latest shady website
Hilarious. Almost everything you state here is wrong. I don't "ignore" the case law. I have explained why it's not applicable. And I bring up the First Amendment where it applies, and not to justify shady websites, but to point out a rather scary abuse of power by the government.
I've actually talked to people who run some of these websites -- such as the blogs that musicians themselves would hope to get linked on, and which never hosted any content themselves and which only posted content sent from the copyright holders.
And they're confused and scared. Because the US government has seized their property, not responded to their questions for why, used evidence that was simply wrong, relied on faulty testimony from people who were not the copyright holders, and... when they brought all this up, they were threatened with criminal prosecution.
You might think that's nothing and that this is just a "shady" website. And then you look at who Universal Music declared were such "shady" websites, and it includes Vimeo, the Internet Archive... and all of the top hip hop magazines and blogs.
And you realize this is absolutely a First Amendment issue, and a big one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're just resorting to flat-out lying at this point, Masnick.
Of course they apply. We're talking about sites that flagrantly ignore US copyright law while dealing in US content. You know this, you're caught, but you are such a slimeball that you refuse to admit it.
And they're confused and scared.
More slimy, disingenuous bullshit. They are 100% aware of the laws on these matters. There are hundreds of hip-hop forums and blogs where this is admitted every day. Do some real research for once. You're embarrassing.
[ 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:
Mike said - "You might think that's nothing and that this is just a "shady" website. And then you look at who Universal Music declared were such "shady" websites, and it includes Vimeo, the Internet Archive... and all of the top hip hop magazines and blogs."
How about answering the question instead of going off topic with the rant? The seizures and the law change all the time. How were they supposed to know about the illegality of what they were doing when the government didn't give them a chance to tell their opinion in court?
[ 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:
By flagrantly ignoring US copyright law, you mean promoting works that were sent by the copyright holders? Obeying the DMCA?
You have no clue what you're talking about, as usual.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ie, just like when you buy a CD, you purchase the "works" but you do not purchase the right to copy that work.
Don't you get that Mike ??
Just because a music company gives away music (they can do that) it does not mean they are also giving away the right of copyright to that work.
Only a moron would think that is the case, do you think that is the case Mike ??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For the love of...
They weren't Righthaven.
"Ie, just like when you buy a CD, you purchase the "works" but you do not purchase the right to copy that work."
*facepalm*
"Just because a music company gives away music (they can do that) it does not mean they are also giving away the right of copyright to that work."
They were promoting!
Just like when you hear FREE MUSIC on the radio! Music YOU DON'T pay for that makes you like an artist or decide to check them out and see if you want to add them to your list of artists!
FREE PROMOTION, darryl!
FREE PUBLICITY for an artist, darryl!
FREE
FREE
FREE
What part of that do you NOT understand? What part of that do you have to sit here, crawl up inside your brain and lobotomize because you want to make a retarded argument about how they're not purchasing a work?
That wasn't the argument presented and you damn well know it! The argument has been focused almost exclusively on why did the record labels, through the ICE stop the promotion, which stopped the FREE advertising?
Geez...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
What a Spanish court said about US IP means absolutely nothing in the US.
You know that, unless you also choose to be willfully ignorant...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.fileserve.com/
http://www.filesonic.com/
http://www.wupload.com/
http://ww w.easy-share.com/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
and the actual point of the exercise is what?
1. To actually remove infringing content?
or
b. To look like your removing infringing content?
[ 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:
I can't believe I'm having to use this analogy, but here goes:
Let's compare this with child porn (a criminal act):
1)Domain is seized in both cases;
2a)Copyright - you are stonewalled, and the content isn't taken down, just marginally less accessible;
2b) Child porn - you are arrested, and the content isn't taken down, just marginally less accessible;
3) Criminal charges are brought against, maybe, one person in both cases, instead fo, y'know, going after the real criminals, as you claim them to be.
If you cannot see that those, whilst similar circumstances are completely different in the eyes of the law, then I think oyu may have to take a bath in sulphuric acid, because there is no provable harm in one case, and provable harm in the other.
I'm guessing you'll go for the former being provabel and the latter not so much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I'm not a Masnick apologist, I love it when people argue both sides of the story. I just find it hilariously ironic they always seem to do so as Anonymous Cowards. If the FQDN Brute Squad isn't stopped, if the federal agencies that continue to reduce the list of things they can't do without proper legal authority, you'll be left with an American internet with no anonymity. Hope everything you wanted to do online meets with the approval of the corporate-sponsored moral majority.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
And there is no law that says a trial must occur before property can be seized. These people are flagrantly breaking US law right out in the open. And the judge that grants the seizure order agrees. Due process right there, whether you like it or not.
None of you apparently give a fuck that they are breaking US law with US content. Very telling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's hilarious that you call someone wilfully ignorant and then in the same breath claim you can tell if something's infringing just by looking at it. It's been shown repeatedly that this is miles from reality.
"None of you apparently give a fuck that they are breaking US law with US content."
Who's law it is is irrelevant. People don't respect bad laws, and they often break laws they don't respect. You'll have to come up with a much stronger argument than simply "it's against the law".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You rip stuff off because you can currently get away with it. Everyone knows this, yet you like to pretend there is some other reality.
Go see a medical professional about your mental health.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
*sigh*
The most painfully ignorant thing anyone could say is that streaming or copying a movie is theft.
You just need to rethink piracy. Period. There's plenty of information available about how copyright enforcement has more harmful effects than someone downloading a movie. No one cares about the latter except the person involved. Everyone will come to care when they're restricted to 200 websites on the internet, their bandwidth is limited, and they can't play the games they like, causing them to revolt against their ISP.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Copyright law today is massively different to copyright law from centuries ago. You know this, and yet you still make this incredibly stupid comment. Vested interest much?
"Go see a medical professional about your mental health."
And there's the razor sharp wit and skillful debating we've all come to expect from our content industry AC's...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
1. No, but you are often encouraging people to profit from those who ignore the laws of the land, and propose business models that exist because of them,
2. The government writes new laws and modifies old ones as a matter of course to meet with modern situations. Otherwise, we would have no rules for automobiles, example, because they came after the first congress.
3. protected speech cannot be wrapped around unprotected speech to shield it. There are judgements that make this clear. Why do you ignore those judgements?
4. law breaking is law breaking. Stealing a computer of using unprotected free speech (say child porn, a good example) are both crimes. If you cannot see that they are similar, I would say that you have a lot to learn about the basics of the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Ah, the simple argument of a simple mind...
Most people won't steal a computer because they believe it's morally wrong to do so.
Most people will copy a computer file because they don't believe it's morally wrong to do so.
If you cannot see that they are quite different, I would say that you have a lot to learn about the basics of the human nature. As does Big Content.
[ 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:
Of course it does. Like most people, I don't commit rape or adultery because I know it's morally wrong to do so, not just because it's illegal. There aren't things I wish I could do but don't simply because they're illegal. Laws have almost always been based on what most people in a society believe to be right and wrong. One of the reasons copyright infringement is so widespread is that copyright laws don't line up with what many people inherently believe is right and wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Thanks for playing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You rip stuff off because you can currently get away with it. Everyone knows this, yet you like to pretend there is some other reality.
Go see a medical professional about your mental health.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
AC, OK so who exactly is ignoring the laws of the land? You're saying that you are completely ok with any federal agency making up threats to take assets away from people because they don't or haven't been given any actual evidence. Mind you, if there was evidence there would be actual charges against the people in question. The actions of ICE are puppet shadow tricks because they aren't even taking the servers, they're taking domain names. So there is no evidence being gathered, no probably cause being justified, and nothing being preserved for trial. So I ask once again... Who exactly is breaking the laws?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who do they represent?
Do they understand (or care) that their constituency doesn't share their unanimity?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who do they represent?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pretend? I'm pretty sure he's stupid enough to think he has done something productive, even if he has no idea what it is he's done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Senate Judiciary: Oversight of Intellectual Property Law Enforcement Efforts
The Hillicon Valley blog reports that Senator Leahy made his remarks Wednesday at an �oversight hearing for the administration's intellectual property enforcement efforts�.
Yesterday, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a full committee hearing on �Oversight of Intellectual Property Law Enforcement Efforts�.
Senator Leahy's full statement is linked from the committee hearing page. In addition, witness testimony is available �including testimony by the administration's Victoria Espinel� linked from the hearing webpage.
�
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ 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 ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But wait, only Republicans take money from big companies, i'm confused!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Voluntarily shut down?
following Operation In Our Sites v. 1.0, ICE was notified that 81 of the most active websites that had been offering pirated material voluntarily shut down.
Does anyone know which sites he's talking about? Because I'm guessing that he counts websites voluntarily moving their domain names overseas as "shutting down." This is the only "deterrent effect" I've actually witnessed.
The rest of his testimony (PDF - thanks, "orange AC") is pretty angering, but hardly surprising, and stretches the truth quite a bit.
For example, he describes the forums and blogs as "websites selling pirated movies, music and software". Except, not a single one of the seized domains actually "sold" any infringing music or movies. (I don't know about software, but I'm guessing those were "warez" sites, in which case they wouldn't "sell" the software, either.)
And here's his example of how IP helps American industries: "Intellectual property rights laws protect this tradition of innovation by thwarting thieves from selling cheap imitations of products that are often far less reliable than the original products."
Of course, this is called "competition," and it is not illegal in any way. Hell, I've got a cheap iPod knock-off, which I bought from Micro Center.
He also repeats the tired old connection between infringement and threats to "public safety," as if sharing a song and selling counterfeit pharmaceuticals are the same thing. And raises the bogeyman of "organized criminal enterprises," even though the one person charged with criminal copyright infringement was one guy who lived in his dad's basement.
No mention, of course, of the major backlash this has caused from the tech industry and the general public. No mention of the fact that the seizures almost certainly violate the First Amendment. No mention of the fact that there is no immediate way to contest the seizures. No mention of the fact that one of the sites seized is completely legal in its home country. No mention of the fact that the person they're trying to extradite from England, is probably innocent under England's laws as well.
Well, of course he wouldn't say all that. He's only saying what the MPAA lobbyists pay him to say.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Voluntarily shut down?
Many of them also put tons of advertising, paid links, and have other income methods related to the number of visitors to their sites.
It isn't competition when one side produces a product and sells it, and the other side just steals it and sells it for a lower price. If you think that is competition, I have to shake my head and wonder where you went to school.
The rest of your post is tired rhetoric, the stuff that plays well on this site but makes the rest of us laugh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Voluntarily shut down?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Voluntarily shut down?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Voluntarily shut down?
So what's your explanation for all the money MPAA, etc give to politicians? If it's not paying to get the laws they want, what is it? Genuine question, I want to hear this explained by someone who doesn't think it's simply legalised corruption.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Voluntarily shut down?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Voluntarily shut down?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Voluntarily shut down?
See, there's your problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Voluntarily shut down?
Actually, that is coimpetition, just not the way the Big companies want it. They want someone to point at and go, "there's our villain, get him!" This simply doesn't work anymore - it's like trying to break the world record for the number of sexual partners in 10 hours - after a while, you'll just be too tired.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Voluntarily shut down?
OR, they simply offer a place for others to post links to filelockers who don't pay any money. You'll find out about that soon enough when following the money trail won't stop these sites from existing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Voluntarily shut down?
WHAT ???????
May be you should visit other sites apart from TD!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Praises US Gov't Censorship Of Websites
If something is censored in your country it means that legally NO ONE is allowed to sell it, or there are specific restrictions as to who is able to buy or view that materidal.
Copyright is not censorship, if harry potter is rated G that is it's censorship rating. If does not mean that anyone is allowed to sell that content or that it is restricted by government laws.
It simply means that is it's censorship rating, and again that has absolutely nothing to do with copyright.
Mike if you are so 'smart' and knowlegable about these things why do you constantly make this simple and basic error?
It makes you look stupid and ignorant! Because YOU KNOW BETTER.. dont you Mike!
So why lie ? why not tell the truth, do you think the people you are talking AT are so stupid that they will accept you crap as true?
or is it that you honestly do not understand the difference between COPYRIGHT and Censorship? and if so HOW CAN THAT BE?
How is it possible for someone who claims knowledge in this field can exihibit such ignorance?
Please tell us Mike
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Praises US Gov't Censorship Of Websites
...Well, that was easy. One sentence to kill a rant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Praises US Gov't Censorship Of Websites
Until then, you are better off saying nothing.
If you honestly think you can equate any laws with "the things you like" it is clear you do not have a freaking clue about anything !!!!..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Praises US Gov't Censorship Of Websites
All evidence points to this being false.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Censorship
[ link to this | view in chronology ]