Press Realizing That ICE May Be Breaking The Law Showing NBC Universal Propaganda Films On Domains It Seized
from the oops dept
Over the last year or so, we've been one of the few publications out there following the exceptionally questionable use of NBC propaganda material by the federal government as if it were its own content. You may recall that NBC Universal created some propaganda "anti-piracy" PSAs for New York City, in which actor/comedian Tom Pappa claims "there's no such thing as a free movie." The irony that he's saying so while appearing on a free YouTube video stream is apparently totally lost on him.A few months later, the same video, minus references to NYC, appeared on the YouTube page of the Immigrations & Customs Enforcement group ICE (part of Homeland Security). No reference was made to the fact that the video was created by NBC Universal. A few weeks later, these videos started appearing on domains that ICE had seized, and then forfeited.
After filing a series of Freedom of Information Act requests, we found out that the videos were property of NBC Universal -- something that ICE (to this day) refuses to disclose. Further FOIA requests turned up no records of ICE ever properly licensing the video.
Already, this should be exceptionally troubling. ICE running corporate propaganda without any disclosure? And doing so on websites it had seized under questionable legality?
Turns out the story gets even worse. Jeff Roberts over at PaidContent notes that, under civil forfeiture procedures, the federal government must sell or destroy forfeited property. It cannot keep it and use it for itself. It does not appear to be legal to make use of the property for other purposes -- and certainly not for spreading corporate propaganda without disclosure.
The article also points out, quite reasonably, that it seems odd that ICE is using these videos -- which present a ridiculously inaccurate and one-sided argument that "piracy" is taking away movie industry jobs -- on web sites seized & forfeited for trademark violations. That seems extra weird. The sites have nothing to do with downloading movies, as the video discusses. And do the big brand companies that urged ICE to seize these domains to "protect their trademarks" really feel comfortable with the federal government now running NBC Universal propaganda on those domains instead?
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: forfeiture, government, ice, psa, seizure
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
A Way Out
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yep
I could swear somebody mentioned something along these lines awhile back...
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111128/01460616907/ice-seizes-another-150-domains-as-s opapipa-debate-heats-up.shtml#c167
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Yep
Ok, I thought I wouldn't have to but how much ridiculousness do we have to go through every month until someone realizes WTF is up with our government?
We have TSA using bad scanners for fake security
We have the FBI overstating their own importance with their bomb plots.
We have the EPA showing how a lie can destroy someone's livelihood.
And ICE has been the police for the MPAA and RIAA for quite some time. Obviously, what does it take to get a fair trial and a chance to plead your case when the federal government are the crooks? They bend the law five ways from Sunday and the damage of what they do devastates all of their targets. You're left with little money to defend yourself and a sense that justice was not carried out. And for what purpose? So ICE can think that they can continue this same process and procedure to destroy people's lives to save Hollywood? #areyouseriousbro?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Yep
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Yep
Write your congresscritter a check.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And I also figure that even though we can expose the lies we maybe can't do a thing about it.
Would be good if we could do something as this sounds illegal to me but I am not a lawyer or law student.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Which seems to contradict his claims that they have not been forefeitted, but as we know this blog plays by Masnick rules of journalistic integrity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Which, for those of you following along at home, means repeatedly saying you are not a journalist and this is your opinion and these stories are simply what interests you and/or things you would like to discuss while being accused of biased journalism by the same guy over and over again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
b) you know there have been multiple rounds of domain seizures, right? and that different waves of Operation In Our Sites are at different stages of seizure and forfeiture proceedings? Because that should clear up the discrepancy you are imagining.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Forfeited is the process they use after seizing to take control over the domains permanently.
The commenter above meant "get rid of" the domains by forfeiting them.
It's confusing, I know, but everyone else seemed to get it.
Which seems to contradict his claims that they have not been forefeitted, but as we know this blog plays by Masnick rules of journalistic integrity.
Huh? Which of my claims was contradicted?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: no suprise
Never attribute to conspiracy to that which can be explained by incompetence
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: no suprise
There is no way people could be that incompetent ... and thus there must be a plan behind it ... ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Roberts quotes Section 853. That section only applies to criminal forfeitures. These are civil forfeitures, so that section doesn't apply.
If you look at 18 U.S.C. 2323, which is the right section to be looking at, you'll see that it says: "At the conclusion of the forfeiture proceedings, unless otherwise requested by an agency of the United States, the court shall order that any property forfeited under paragraph (1) be destroyed, or otherwise disposed of according to law." Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002323----000-.html
So, the domain names should be "destroyed, or otherwise disposed of according to law," but only "at the conclusion of the forfeiture proceedings." Additionally, "an agency of the United States" can simply request "otherwise."
Importantly, you need to distinguish between a domain name that's only been seized as compared to one that's been forfeited. According to ICE: "Of the 350 domain names seized, 116 have now been forfeited to the U.S. government." So that's 116 that are forfeited, and 234 that have been seized but not yet forfeited. Source: http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2011/November/11-ag-1540.html
Of those 116 that have been forfeited, how many have been "destroyed"? And how many have been "otherwise requested"? Without knowing this, it's hard to understand what basis you or Roberts have for deciding that this use of the domain names is illegal. If anything, the statute makes clear that the forfeited property need not be destroyed and that it may be used by an agency.
I see nothing in the statute that would prevent the government's use of the domain names in the way they're using them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
How is it grasping at straws when Anon 3:46 is actually citing the correct law? According to you, the freetards like Mike Masnick and that jackass at PaidContent are the ones grasping at straws by making bullshit arguments around incorrectly cited portions of the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
...the first sentence of (a)(2) reads:
So, now we need to go to 18 USC ch.46 981(c), which states this:
Notice that the A.G. may not use the property; they may only place it under seal, remove it, or dispose of it.
Furthermore, going back to 18 USC 2323(a)(2), the second sentence reads:
Again, the A.G. is explicitly not allowed to "use" the property.
Furthermore, pay attention to the sentence you quoted:
"An agency of the United States" may request that the property not be destroyed or disposed of, but that does not give them the right to use the property. They are still limited to acts enumerated in 981(c): the property must still be under seal and protective order.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
...actually applies only to "any records or information" that has been seized.
If the government was arguing that the domain names were seized as evidence, then of course that would apply (since a domain name's only value as evidence is as a record of which server it pointed to). When this first started, I (and others) thought that was what they were arguing.
However, it is not; they are arguing (unconvincingly IMHO) that it is "property" used to "commit or facilitate" a criminal act.
So, the "protective order" would probably not apply here.
The rest, however, does. Incidentally, you can also compare 18 USC 981(c) to 18 USC 981(e), which uses specific terms for what the A.G. may do: "retain," "transfer," or "detention." No mention is made, at any time, of the A.G. (or any other law enforcement agency) being able to use the property.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When..
The ICE proceedings are driven not by law, but by greed from businesses. They pay quietly under the table and the agencies need the money so they go ahead and do what they are paid to do. Most countries call this bribery, here we call it business as usual.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShcOJswXnXQ
Oh, and there are several different definitions of "free" due to the vagaries of the English language. That's why there's so many arguments in the software community about, for example, "libre" vs "gratis" when people bring up "free". But, it's certainly possible to have a film that's free (no payment required) without being free (unrestricted).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's not odd at all. The IP industry and the governments it bought want to conflate copyrights, patents, trademarks, publicity rights, etc into one huge group. If you can't shut down a blog because of fair use, then shut it down for diluting trademarks. If that doesn't work, shut it down for interfering with publicity rights. If that doesn't work sue the ISP for patent infringement.
Despite completely different origins and legal backgrounds, patents, copyrights, trademarks are now all tools for eliminating competition, the exchange of ideas, and free speech.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Works that they expended no time, labor or expense to create. They just distributed it it. Without the slightest reluctance.
I am ashamed to be the child of such selfish persons. Verily, they should be severely punished.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The entire internet would be sucked into a dev/null singularity. It would be the infocalypse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]