Breaking News: Feds Falsely Censor Popular Blog For Over A Year, Deny All Due Process, Hide All Details...
from the copyright-as-censorship dept
Imagine if the US government, with no notice or warning, raided a small but popular magazine's offices over a Thanksgiving weekend, seized the company's printing presses, and told the world that the magazine was a criminal enterprise with a giant banner on their building. Then imagine that it never arrested anyone, never let a trial happen, and filed everything about the case under seal, not even letting the magazine's lawyers talk to the judge presiding over the case. And it continued to deny any due process at all for over a year, before finally just handing everything back to the magazine and pretending nothing happened. I expect most people would be outraged. I expect that nearly all of you would say that's a classic case of prior restraint, a massive First Amendment violation, and exactly the kind of thing that does not, or should not, happen in the United States.But, in a story that's been in the making for over a year, and which we're exposing to the public for the first time now, this is exactly the scenario that has played out over the past year -- with the only difference being that, rather than "a printing press" and a "magazine," the story involved "a domain" and a "blog."
There are so many things about this story that are crazy, it's difficult to know where to start, so let's give the most important point first: The US government has effectively admitted that it totally screwed up and falsely seized & censored a non-infringing domain of a popular blog, having falsely claimed that it was taking part in criminal copyright infringement. Then, after trying to hide behind a totally secretive court process with absolutely no due process whatsoever (in fact, not even serving papers on the lawyer for the site or providing timely notifications -- or providing any documents at all), for over a year, the government has finally realized it couldn't hide any more and has given up, and returned the domain name to its original owner. If you ever wanted to understand why ICE's domain seizures violate the law -- and why SOPA and PROTECT IP are almost certainly unconstitutional -- look no further than what happened in this case.
Okay, now some details. First, remember Dajaz1.com? It was one of the sites seized over the Thanksgiving holiday weekend back in 2010 -- a little over a year ago. Those seizures struck us as particularly interesting, because among the sites seized were a bunch of hip hop blogs, including a few that were highly ranked on Vibe's list of the top hip hop blogs. These weren't the kinds of things anyone would expect, when supporters of these domain seizures and laws like SOPA and PROTECT IP talk of "rogue sites." Blogs would have lots of protected speech, and in the hip hop community these blogs, in particular, were like the new radio. Artists routinely leaked their works directly to these sites in order to promote their albums. We even pointed to a few cases of stars like Kanye West and Diddy tweeting links to some of the seized domains in the past.
In fact, as the details came out, it became clear that ICE and the Justice Department were in way over their heads. ICE's "investigation" was done by a technically inept recent college grad, who didn't even seem to understand the basics of the technology. But it didn't stop him from going to a judge and asking for a site to be completely censored with no due process.
The Dajaz1 case became particularly interesting to us, after we saw evidence showing that the songs that ICE used in its affidavit as "evidence" of criminal copyright infringement were songs sent by representatives of the copyright holder with the request that the site publicize the works -- in one case, even coming from a VP at a major music label. Even worse, about the only evidence that ICE had that these songs were infringing was the word of the "VP of Anti-Piracy Legal Affairs for the RIAA," Carlos Linares, who was simply not in a position to know if the songs were infringing or authorized. In fact, one of the songs involved an artist not even represented by an RIAA label, and Linares clearly had absolutely no right to speak on behalf of that artist.
Despite all of this, the government simply seized the domain, put up a big scary warning graphic on the site, suggesting its operators were criminals, and then refused to comment at all about the case. Defenders of the seizures insisted that this was all perfectly legal and nothing to be worried about. They promised us that the government had every right to do this and plenty of additional evidence to back up its claims. They promised us that the government would allow for plenty of due process within a reasonable amount of time. They also insisted that, after hearing nothing happening in the case for many months, it meant that no attempt to object to the seizure had occurred. Turns out... none of that was true.
What happened next is a story that should never happen in the US. It's like something out of Kafka or the movie Brazil, but it should never have happened under the US Constitution. First, you have to understand the two separate processes: there's seizure and then there's forfeiture. Under the seizure laws, the government has 60 days from seizure to "notify" those whose property it seized (imagine having the government swoop in and take away your property, and not even being told why for two whole months). Once notified, the property owner has 35 days to file a claim to request the return of the property. If that doesn't happen, the government can effectively just keep the property, so it tends to rely on intimidation and threats towards anyone who indicates plans to ask for their property back (usually in the form of threatening to file charges). However, if such a claim is filed, the government then has 90 days to start the full "forfeiture" process, which would allow the government to keep the seized property and never have to give it back. If the claim to return the property is filed and the government does not file for forfeiture, it is required to return the property. Thus seizures are supposedly used as a temporary part of the investigation, to stop criminal activity or to prevent the destruction of evidence. However, that's not how things always play out in real life.
As we'd heard with a number of domain names that had been seized, the government began stalling like mad when contacted by representatives for domain holders seeking to get their domains back. ICE even flat out lied to the public, stating that no one was challenging the seizures, when it knew full well that some sites were, in fact, challenging. Out of that came the Rojadirecta case, but what of Dajaz1?
After continuing to stall and refusing to respond to Dajaz1's filing requesting the domain be returned, the government told Dajaz1's lawyer, Andrew P. Bridges, that it would begin forfeiture procedures (as required by law if it wanted to keep the domain). Bridges made clear that Dajaz1 would challenge the forfeiture procedure and seek to get the domain name back at that time. Then, the deadline for the government to file for forfeiture came and went and nothing apparently happened. Absolutely nothing. Bridges contacted the government to ask what was going on, and was told that the government had received an extension from the court. Bridges, quite reasonably, asked how that was possible without him, as counsel for the site, being informed of it or given a chance to make the case for why such an extension was improper.
He also asked for a copy of the the court's order allowing the extension. The government told him no and that the extension was filed under seal and could not be released, even in redacted form.
He asked for the motion papers asking for the extension. The government told him no and that the papers were filed under seal and could not be released, even in redacted form.
He again asked whether he would be notified about further filings for extensions. The government told him no.
He then asked the US attorney to inform the court that, if the government made another request for an extension, the domain owner opposed the extension and would like the opportunity to be heard. The government would not agree.
And file further extensions the government did. Repeatedly. Or, at least that's what Bridges was told. He sent someone to investigate the docket at the court, but the docket itself was secret, meaning there was no record of any of this available.
The government was required to file for forfeiture by May. The initial (supposed) secret extension was until July. Then it got another one that went until September. And then another one until November... or so the government said. When Bridges asked the government for some proof that it had actually obtained the extensions in question, the government attorney told Bridges that he would just have "trust" him.
Finally, the government decided that it would not file a forfeiture complaint -- because there was no probable cause -- and it let the last (supposed) extension expire. Only after Bridges asked again for the status of the domain did the government indicate that it would return the domain to its owner -- something that finally happened today. Dajaz1.com is finally back in the hands of its rightful owner. This is really quite incredible, considering the "rush" with which it seized these domain names, claiming the urgency in stopping a crime in progress. But, of course, after realizing that it had no evidence to suggest a crime was ever in progress - there was absolutely no urgency to correct the error.
The level of secrecy in this case makes it sound like a terrorist investigation, not the censorship of a popular music blog. Normally, when there's a lawsuit, the docket is available on PACER. Even in cases where things are filed under seal or everything is redacted, there's at least a placeholder for them in PACER. This case does not exist anywhere that anyone can find. The docket was apparently kept hidden in a judge's office in Los Angeles the whole time. No one knew this was going on, other than the US Attorney and the representatives of Dajaz1 (who still never saw the docket or the extension orders).
Let's just take stock here for a second. We have the government clearly censoring free speech in the form of a blog that discussed the music world and was widely recognized for its influence in promoting new acts. The government seized the blog with no adversarial hearing and no initial due process. Then, rather than actually provide some sort of belated due process in the form of an adversarial hearing, it continued to deny any and all due process by secretly (even to Dajaz1's own lawyer) extending the seizure without any way to challenge those extensions. All in all, the government completely censored a popular web site for over a year, when it had no real evidence for probable cause of infringement, as it had falsely claimed in the original rubber stamped affidavit. As we noted in reviewing the affidavit, the case had been put together by folks who clearly did not understand the law, the site or the music space. But to then double down on that and continue to hold the domain for a year in secret? That just compounds the error and takes it to new extremes.
This was flat out censorship for no reason, for an entire year, by the US government... Everyone should be horrified by this. It also shows what a joke the claims of supporters are that since "a judge reviewed the affidavit," there's due process. Without the other party, there is no real due process. Not only that, but the government made sure, at every step of the way, that the other party was not heard. That's horrifying. It wasn't just an act of omission in leaving out the party, but actively preventing the party from being heard.
And yet the feds and private companies continue to say we should just "trust them" to get these kinds of things right? Even more bizarre, they want to expand their ability to do this incontestable censorship through laws like PROTECT IP and SOPA? If anything, this massive screwup on the part of ICE, the Justice Department and the RIAA should lead us to go in the other direction. ICE and the DOJ should be investigated and reprimanded, if not directly penalized, for clear First Amendment violations, while the ICE program for seizing domains should be dismantled. John Morton, who led ICE's domain seizure program, should tender his resignation or be fired. Victoria Espinel, the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator, who defended these seizures to Congress, should issue a public apology, and begin a process to revamp the government's role in such enforcement actions (and consider tendering her resignation as well). The federal government should issue a huge apology to the operators of Dajaz1 and make it clear that it will no longer take such drastic censorship actions. The RIAA should be investigated for providing claims about the site that were not true, and which it had no right to make.
If Congress needs to do anything, it should be to investigate the lawless, unconstitutional, cowboy censorship and blocking of due process by both Homeland Security and the Justice Department. The last thing it should be doing is allowing more such actions. This whole thing has been a disgrace by the US government, starting with a bogus seizure, improper and illegal censorship, followed by denial of due process and unnecessary secrecy. Dajaz1 is currently reviewing its options in terms of whether it can or should take further action as a result of this, but at least it has its domain back. And people wonder why we're so concerned about these seizures and new proposals to further such censorship.
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, dajaz1, domain seizures, free speech, homeland security, ice, justice department, pipa, protect ip, sopa
Companies: dajaz1, riaa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Gotta wonder...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
#ImJustSayin
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Can't Wait for the Trolls
[ link to this | view in thread ]
What is the penalty for violating the Constitution?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
IP czar is no longer a slang term; they made the job title a reality.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Public interest/welfare is no longer a concern of theirs.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Gotta wonder...
Judge: "Very well. No charges will be filed. Carry on, have a nice day."
Just another day, business as usual.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Amateurs...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
So in 2012, I'm going to vote for change, I won't get fooled again. I'm voting a straight crony capitalist ticket. But don't worry, so are you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This story needs to spread....
Stories like this make me think it's getting dangerously close to pitchforks and mobs time....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: What is the penalty for violating the Constitution?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
But the government has 30 days to fix whatever errors the judge found and submit a revised complaint.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
It's a democracy in the name only. Companies dictate what happens in the US, not the ppl.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: What is the penalty for violating the Constitution?
A cushy job at the Justice Department, DHS, or a big media company. Violations of the Constitution are paying for some people's mortgages!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
And if the press isn't careful, THEY won't exist anymore, either.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: What is the penalty for violating the Constitution?
A meme in the making...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The corruption will come out on top every time and the rest of us all pay the price
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nail in the coffin?
I'm truly waiting to see some copyright troll with no brains dismiss this as an isolated case and tell us that SOPA should be approved because mistakes (shit) happens. Yea, right, they mistakenly kept everything secret.
Talk about ROGUE. Rogue Govt, rogue governmental departments... I guess we should have our own version of SOPA to seize Govt powers without due process too.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: What is the penalty for violating the Constitution?
"I PLEEEEAD, THE FIF!"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
My problem is deciding which of the two crony capitalism tickets to vote for.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Yes, I'm imagining the US under SOPA. Go on...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Amateurs...
Go pick on dorpus or something.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sourcing
It seems that Andrew P. Bridges is likely the source, but the phrase "according to" or "said" isn't included anywhere in the piece.
I'm not here to be a journalism critic, and I *believe* the story, but I can't *rely on* the story professionally without more definitive sourcing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Simply frightening.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Gotta wonder...
I do hope there is a way that a lawsuit of big proportions be handing to Washington for this flagrant act of violating our Country's Basic Laws.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Are they going to file a lawsuit?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Sourcing
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Censorship and Seizure.
You act surprised at the advantage and latitude our government has. You didn’t realize that they can and often do whatever they please for no reason at all and our response to these Gestapo tactics must be – “Thank you Sir, may I have another…” If you think this will change, you are wrong. It will not… The Patriot Act and other insidious laws give them carte’ blanch and impunity. We don’t need to like it. It is what it is, and we cannot change it. So sit back, grab a beer and some popcorn, and enjoy the show… or… Start the revolution. The choice is yours.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Gotta wonder...
If we can't even punish the CIA for destroying evidence of war crimes, what makes you think that some blog will get any sort of justice?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: What is the penalty for violating the Constitution?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Sourcing
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
BTW, speaking of Bernie Sanders, check out his bill S.1558. Totally unrelated to this, but I was quite impressed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Gotta wonder...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Sourcing
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Are they going to file a lawsuit?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Censorship and Seizure.
You forgot the third option: do everything you can get the word out, and make sure people know what's going on, so THEY can make THEIR choice as well. That's the option Techdirt has chosen, and I for one am glad they did.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Got any links?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
"we're exposing to the public for the first time now"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I'm puzzled
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Sourcing
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Are they going to file a lawsuit?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Sourcing
Obviously, Mike got some details from somewhere. Otherwise, it's all just fiction.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Sourcing
Obviously, Mike got some details from somewhere. Otherwise, it's all just fiction.
+1
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Gotta wonder...
and weren't those trials the result of a war fought against governments who thought that they were above the rule of law and answerable to no-one.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Names?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Of course it would be nice to have some names of people Mike talked to since he wasn't directly involved.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Censorship and Seizure.
Sign me up.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Sourcing
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Sourcing
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
But Dajaz1 *is* a pirate site, derr
So...you have one case like this, Mike? Just one? Oh, maybe two? Awful, AWFUL! But edge cases, as we all know. No one should have to wait a year, guilty or not, to have their case adjudicated. But could it be that there are just so many cases like this of in fact real piracy even you would have to concede, so they can't get to them? And could it be that it is completely obvious that this is indeed a pirate site? And could the ICE have given it back merely because it was just too much bother to prosecute even the obvious? Because there are just too many?
More to the point, Mike, why do you LIE about the nature of this web site? It's not like we can't go to the Wayback Machine and see what this site was all about:
http://web.archive.org/web/20080511230605/http://dajaz1.com/
Oh, what Dajaz1 was all about was people uploading hundreds and hundreds of Youtubes that were protected by copyright as you can quickly see.
These weren't scrappy young start-up musicians trying to get their own unique CDs heard, poor blacks that you'd like to exploit to get what you imagine to be fearful white liberals guilt-tripped into opposing SOPA. (In fact, I don't see a single upload like that, but I have to work through several years).
There wasn't just "sampling" or "fair use" either.
Oh, no, Mike. That's fake. And you *know* it's fake. Lyndsey Lohan isn't a poor black hip-hop star trying to get a DJ or music critic to hear her. Nor is Lil Wayne. nor is Busta Rhymes. Nor are hundreds of artists who are famous and whose Youtubes were uploaded to that site, and who don't want to give away their work for free to masses because they need to get paid and have a right to get paid, -- as do their producers, who go to a lot of trouble to produce them and advertise them.
Honestly, Mike, *you are ridiculous* with these fake claims.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
But you can still link to source documents that the story is based on, no? Or embed them in the post? Or at least say where all these factual claims are coming from?
Mike doesn't need to follow any sort of journalistic practices or canons or whatever if he doesn't want to. But it's hard to take everything he says at face value without *any* discussion of how he learned of these supposed secret acts.
This is especially true for me because I feel he regularly mischaracterizes third party documents/stories even when he *does* include a link.
I'm not saying this is all made up or anything, but I'm also not going to take it all at face value without some sort of corroboration from *somewhere*
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: This story needs to spread....
I'll alert Pitchfork.com.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: But Dajaz1 *is* a pirate site, derr
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: But Dajaz1 *is* a pirate site, derr
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
You're back!
Welcome back man.
I don't really think you left all those months, but it certainly felt like there was a lack of organized thoughts from the other side. Without you it seemed to pretty much just be ad-hominems and worthless drivel.
Glad you have returned. Can possibly have some reasonable debates now.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sourcing
Why? It's not pointless to readers of this article for Mike to demonstrate where this is all coming from.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Sourcing
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: But Dajaz1 *is* a pirate site, derr
"Uploading Youtubez: The smoking gun of piracy."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Sourcing
I mean, if it were, Mike could have just run a story explaining the "facts" that all these sites are rogue sites devoted to piracy, etc., etc.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sourcing
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: This story needs to spread....
I am sad.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: But Dajaz1 *is* a pirate site, derr
"But But But PIRACYS ARE KILLIN US!!!1!"
I really could give a flying fuck about the piracy, it is a luxury industry... What I do care about are fucktards like you lining up with the sociopaths, and fascists putting their jackboots on our throats because they can't find a way to make millions of dollars from the same people they've been raping and pillaging from for the last 60 odd years... Seriously examine your priorities... which is more important - a shiny plastic disc with some lame, shitty music on it, or the ability of people to voice their concerns? As far as I'm concerned you can take your shiny plastic discs and eat them for all the good it will you do your lost and withered soul... Have a pleasant day Mr. Fascist
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sourcing
If you support SOPA/PIPA, argue or lobby for any of the companies and interest groups that are for it, think the many debunked studies are reputable, then you have won the irony of the year award.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Vote 3rd party. Hell I vote for the communists/greens whenever possible. I won't be forced into voting for the faschists, even if it is "throwing my vote away". Only like 20% of the damned population votes, if the 10% honest enough to care would vote third party we COULD have change.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Notice how late any of the usual trolls were to this post?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: But Dajaz1 *is* a pirate site, derr
You can see why the government needed to get involved. This sort of Youtube theft steals jobs away from boom mike operators for cat videos. If all of the Youtubes are no longer on Youtube, the site itself would have to close down, eliminating nearly 14 million jobs at a loss of $severalB to the US economy.
The other tragic side effect is that people will turn to counterfeit Youtubes, like YouPorn or Redtube, both of which are known to be harmful to our fighting men overseas and whose income directly benefits both the Russian mafia AND Somalian pirates. (The latter also receives income from Huffington Post.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sourcing
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: But Dajaz1 *is* a pirate site, derr
I don't know what's worse: Mike's conspiracy theory or the breakdown of mechanisms that are supposed to keep society sane (because it's too hard to after criminals apparently).
I'll go with conspiracy theory.
** Puts on tinfoil hat **
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Amateurs...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: What is the penalty for violating the Constitution?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: But Dajaz1 *is* a pirate site, derr
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sourcing
If the sites decide to follow this up with lawsuits of their own we'll find out more.
Maybe. Hard to find shredded papers and non-existent recordings. Just ask Richard Nixon.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
I look forward to some updates on this and I'm sure that more concrete information will come out.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: This story needs to spread....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Sure you'd have to have evidence but how can you get any evidence if the Govt itself is hiding everything? Let us wait the development before demanding anything. I've come to trust this site enough to believe that he got the story from the lawyer. If the lawyer was telling the truth or not is another issue and it will be investigated for sure.
It's GREAT that this came to light, true or not. It'll spark some serious investigations. Or so we hope.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
IP 74.220.215.217
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: But Dajaz1 *is* a pirate site, derr
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: But Dajaz1 *is* a pirate site, derr
Also, I'm trying to think of one good reason why everything needed to be filed under seal to the point where the lawyer could not even get a redacted copy to prove that the court had even done the things the government said it did. Even if there was some horrible unimaginable thing in those files that could absolutely never be seen, couldn't they have at least shown the part where the judge in fact grants the extension?
"And could the ICE have given it back merely because it was just too much bother to prosecute even the obvious? Because there are just too many? "
Ever drive 66 MPH down the freeway right past a cop? They don't bother to prosecute everyone. But that doesn't mean that they get to stop you and impound your car for over a year without even having to bother with not only the speeding trial, but the forfeiture proceedings themselves. If there's too many to prosecute, either get more lawyers and judges, or choose your targets more carefully.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
In fact, I think we have a new form of energy! We can start using the turning motion to power generators!
:P
ps. not sure if I crossed the line over there, lol.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
I notice that. I figured they were all at the same Christmas part this morning and didn't see the post right away.
Either that or the story is about something that is so outrageous that there wasn't much to say about it other than comment about the sourcing. Even if the story is only partially true it should rattle the sensibilities of any American citizen.
So far there has only been one really off the wall post about tin hats from someone that I assume has a large collection of his own.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Previous Governor: Rod Blagojevich (DEMOCRAT)
Soon to be serving 12 year sentence for... corruption.
Prior Governor: George Ryan (REPUBLICAN)
Currently serving six and half years for.... corruption.
That pretty much says all I need to know about both parties these days.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
As for source documents, did you miss the point that there ARE none? At least other than what ICE has released thus far which are damning enough as it is.
And why would the site's lawyer lie about things when there's a lawsuit being considered? While, for the most part, courts ignore the rantings of lawyers to the media where constitutional cases are concerned they tend to pay more attention and in cases such as this a lot of attention as his comments and outline of events amount to evidence.
Actually, Mike's journalistic standards are pretty good all things considered. But he's not a journalist in the sense that he's writing up an "objective"* news story he's an editorialist and commentator which is different. So your complaints there are "without merit" to use a legal term for such things.
As for your closing sentence you ARE, in fact, accusing him of making this up in whole or part. In a very nice way that isn't actionable but you are accusing him of exactly what you say you aren't.
* (objective news) if you believe in that you believe in things like the tooth fairy and think that Nigerian Scam email you saw this morning is real.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
dajaz1.com was seized and an anti-speech(er, piracy) notice was posted.
There are no locatable court documents relating to the seizure.
dajaz1.com is now available and the notice is gone.
Sometimes the lack of information says as much or more than documentation could.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sourcing
Check it. Seems the site owners just confirmed what mike is saying =)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: But Dajaz1 *is* a pirate site, derr
You realize in his article, Mike discusses the site being used by Kanye West and Puffy?
Also, how in the world do you "upload a youtube"? Are you sure you understood anything about the site? Or are you just pointing and screaming "PIRATE" even though the gov't didn't have enough evidence to proceed?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: But Dajaz1 *is* a pirate site, derr
Whether the site was a pirate site or not it should have been up and running until the government proved in open court - with arguments from both sides - that they had the right to shut it down.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Gotta wonder...
Any war is in fact illegal, regarless of the intentions, making those who start and fight them WAR CRIMINALS, but...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: But Dajaz1 *is* a pirate site, derr
And did you miss the minor detail that, perhaps, the videos you see are exactly the ones sent to them by a label for promotional use? As admitted to in the story? Ahh, missed that, didn't you. Either that or words didn't engage brain because you refused to see them.
You do manage, however, to make what is as close to the most blatantly racist remark I've seen on this site in quite some time with your statement regarding poor blacks. But then, I guess you feel that poor blacks aren't as able to make up their own minds about the value of something as poor WASPs are. Sorry, I forgot about that after going almost 40 years since the last time I saw it expressed in that way. Me bad!
Oh and just how does one "pirate" a YouTube? Linking you can do, embedding you can do but I've never heard about pirating them. Is this something similar to pirating LOLCatz?
As others have commented we've love to find all the illegal sites that have pirated YouTubez and a lot of us would like to increase our pirated collection of LOLCatz as well.
(Actually the guy who first posted LOLCats has no problem with them being "pirated" just leave his copyright and website intact and he's happy. Drives more visitors to his site, you see.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sourcing
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: But Dajaz1 *is* a pirate site, derr
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
> This deserves a promotion.
Considering that the Director of the FBI works *for* the Attorney General, it would be a demotion, not a promotion, if Holder were reassigned to that position.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sourcing
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Where?
"If some1 from the New York Times comes and rolls the news telling you that they got it from protected sources you'll probably take it in one fast gulp"
No, not really. I'm a pretty skeptical consumer of news/commentary/etc.
Anyway, when the NYT makes factual claims, they say what their source is for those claims, or states that "according to Joe Schmoe" X is a fact.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Really? Isn't that *exactly* what Mike is saying the government's lawyer did?
Lawyers spin things to portray their client's case in the best light. That is pretty much a lawyer's JOB DESCRIPTION. That shouldn't include *lying*, but it often includes a whole lot of spin.
Repeating spin as fact without disclosing that it's coming straight from the mouth of a lawyer representing one party's interest is lame.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I could, but that would be silly.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
> one breaking the story.
What's funny is that newspapers have been writing stories for hundreds of years without 'links'. No one accuses them of just making them up merely because it isn't simple to vet their sources from the comfort of one's living room.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I agree. But that doesn't make Mike's foray into "breaking news" beyond any criticism, does it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: But Dajaz1 *is* a pirate site, derr
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Here, we just have Mike saying Y happened on X day, without any explanation of how he knows this.
Moreover, not everyone takes "the news" as gospel, just because it's in newsprint.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Gotta wonder...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
There was a cartoon with this exact theme that I saw not too long ago. Unfortunately, my memory is a little fuzzy on the details and my Google-foo is not compensating enough to find it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
I was wondering if anyone else maybe got a different IP address to try.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
:)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Go straight to second base
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandamus
The Ninth circuit has some computer literate judges.
Mike: When this happens to you (or any other blogger), hit the double, go straight to second base and file the writ of mandamus so that we can continue reading your blog.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Gotta wonder...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
:-P
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Go straight to second base
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Gotta wonder...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: What is the penalty for violating the Constitution?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Ready, Mr. Russell? I didn't think so.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: This story needs to spread....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Go straight to second base
Any Circuit Court of Appeals could receive a writ of mandamus within its jurisdiction.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Go straight to second base
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Gotta wonder...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101128/15302012021/who-needs-coica-when-homeland-securi ty-gets-to-seize-domain-names.shtml
Basically it was already reported that the blog was seized without due process. The "evidence" used by ICE was already presented and shown to be completely fictional. The blog itself was down for over a year. This story is Mike saying "the blog is back and here's what their lawyer told me".
I would expect more information as it becomes available, but aside from the government's secret extensions and sealed court documents, most of this story is an historical account of information that has not been disputed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Go straight to second base
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Gotta wonder...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
This is another reason why seizing a domain name is a restraint of trade. Lots of websites share one IP address and cannot be accessed outside of that one name.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gotta wonder...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: But Dajaz1 *is* a pirate site, derr
http://web.archive.org/web/20080511230605/http://dajaz1.com/
Oh, what Dajaz1 was all about was people uploading hundreds and hundreds of Youtubes that were protected by copyright as you can quickly see.
So, let me get this straight. It takes you all of a minute to "see" that dajaz1 was a chronically infringing site, yet the government sat on it for a year before deciding that they could not come up with enough evidence to charge them with anything? And you call Masnick's claims ridiculous?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
i am waiting to read his commentary on why this is OK and necessary
[ link to this | view in thread ]
you know what the best part about it is? i used to want to be a cop.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Censorship and Seizure.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: But Dajaz1 *is* a pirate site, derr
Whatever your using seems to good to keep to yourself... puff puff, pass, bro!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Names?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
I got into several "discussions" with him last time and he took a condescending attitude because there was no way someone understood these issues better than him. Surprise, every legal concept and theory he put forth was incorrect.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Amateurs...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
just gotta expect it ...
Now if the community supporting IP thieves were not feeling all self satisfied by supporting Robinhood types, that are just stealing from large corporations, but rather vocally complaining about them being stealing little trash they really are ... then they might have a right to complain about government goons.
Frankly ... both need to go to jail in my opinion ... but if we are rewriting the rules to ignore the law ... then lets all get a free pass to do so .... not just the robinhood thieves.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Go straight to second base
In modern practice, the Court has effectively abolished the issuance of writs of mandamus
Basically, this doesn't happen anymore.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: just gotta expect it ...
Well, thanks for sharing, be sure to come back and contribute further to the conversation when you've found a clue.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
I got into several "discussions" with him last time and he took a condescending attitude because there was no way someone understood these issues better than him. Surprise, every legal concept and theory he put forth was incorrect.
Can you be more specific than that I'm "wrong in pretty much every way" and "every legal concept and theory" I've ever put forth? That's a ridiculously broad statement. I'm happy to address any particular claim I've made that you feel is incorrect if you tell me what the claim is.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: This story needs to spread....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gotta wonder...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not necessarily. I'm asking for more than "X happened" without any citation to any source for the notion that X happened.
If all he's got is Mr. Y says that X happened, so be it. Then I've got to judge the credibility of Mr. Y in addition to whether I believe Mike will faithfully convey what Mr. Y said.
If he's got a link to some other document or report demonstrating or claiming some of the facts asserted, even better.
Otherwise, it's just some guy on the Internet (who I don't entirely trust to provide no-spin characterizations) saying X happened, without any explanation of how he knows this.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I'm puzzled
/s (with a touch of truth)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Where in the story does it say that all the claims are according to one party's lawyer?
If that's the case, I would hope both Mike and readers would be a little less eager to swallow an interested lawyer's version of the facts hook, line, and sinker without question.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
For those of you who need reminded
Fourth: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated
Fifth: nor shall any person....be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Sixth: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I'm puzzled
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Go straight to second base
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I am still going to patent it! Mwahahahaha~ and the USPO will probably give it to me anyways!
Here I come SMBC-Comics and Dilbert! *evil grin*
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
So lots of people don't think. I won't fault you for it though.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
We'll see what the Ninth Circuit says.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Go straight to second base
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Congress
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: just gotta expect it ...
Or like BREIN, the IFPI-funded anti-piracy group that considers contracts to be worth less than a Eurocent?
Or like WMG, whose accounting methods for royalties for artists can best be summed up as "outright theft from artists' pockets"?
Yeah, pull the other one, it's got songs on.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Gotta wonder...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Either way, I do my own research and make my own arguments and back them up when I can. That you are insulting me for doing this just makes you look bad. I get stuff wrong all the time and I'm happy to be proved wrong. No need to put me down because I disagree with you on some issue.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: This story needs to spread....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
who's now "co-incidentally" been offered a well paid job by the RIAA?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The same reason why the Pirate Bay appeal verdict in Sweden was delayed until after the election.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
The only unsubstantiated assertion presented in this article is that the government specifically denied the lawyer a chance to be heard, a chance to respond, a chance to speak to the court to advise that his client objected to any further extensions, and that they told him to "trust them".
The matter of the blog being censored for a year is clearly a matter of public record. Thus far there has been no justification shown for this censorship and an overwhelming amount of evidence to show that it was improper and in violation of the constitution. Do you dispute this?
I guess the real question, is which part of the article are actually objecting to? Without documentation due to the alleged sealed nature of any court documents, nothing take what the lawyer asserts beyond a level of hearsay. I concede that point, but again, I'm not really clear what you are saying is unbelievable?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I heard Mrs Rodham-Clinton speech today about how the internet should remain free, especially under tyrannical regimes... and then I read this.
The saying "Do as I say, not as I do" springs to mind.
Besides, the US has pretty much a one party system. There aren't that many differences between the donkey, and the elephant. At least not in US politics. Sure, the talking points are different, but that's just what they are.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: This story needs to spread....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm just asking for some sort of corroboration or explanation of where the factual claims are coming from. Right now, the only source is Mike Masnick, who doesn't appear to have any connection to the case (so I doubt it's his own personal knowledge).
Frankly, I think anyone who takes fantastic claims on the Internet at face value without any such corroboration/explanation should be more skeptical.
That doesn't mean fantastic things never happen, and fantastically bad things do appear to have happened in this case.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I generally disagree with you (not always) but I do appreciate that you put some effort into logic and evidence.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Gotta wonder...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Shadow on the Land
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: just gotta expect it ...
Copyright infringement is not stealing. It never has been, never will be. Because the original owner still has access to his/her own work. Yes, it's illegal, no it's not theft.
What the ICE did, however, was stealing. They took a domain name its rightful owner. Now, that's theft. Because the original owner did not have access to his/her own domain and website anymore.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pirates are not Osama Bin Laden, nobody will accept the loss of free speech as people accepted the killing of another human being, specially when those laws only benefit one tiny minority that makes up a tiny fraction of the total market at the expense of everyone else.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sourcing
This is certainly not the "traditional" way to break a story - but Techdirt has never been a traditional news outlet. Between what we already know about the ICE seizures, and the fact that I trust Mike not to fabricate anything, I can't say I find myself particularly dubious here.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sourcing
A lot of people seem to feel that way so I guess it should have been more explicit. But I don't think there was a lack of disclosure. In all honesty, when I read the post, I thought it was clear that it was coming from Bridges. This line -
"After continuing to stall and refusing to respond to Dajaz1's filing requesting the domain be returned, the government told Dajaz1's lawyer, Andrew P. Bridges, that it would begin forfeiture procedures (as required by law if it wanted to keep the domain)."
- to me marked the start of the lawyer's account. It was surprised to read the comments and find out some people were unsure.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sourcing
As an attorney, I would never take the word of another attorney *representing a client* at face value when discussing that client's case. Not because I think he is likely fabricating anything, but because I can be certain he's trying to present the facts in the best possible light for his client, rather than objectively.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: This story needs to spread....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Great News
This is exactly the kind of precedent we need to get the behavior allowed by SOPA/PROTECT IP declared unconstitutional.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gotta wonder...
What does this mean? It means, a citizen is unable to use the Freedom of Speech motiff to call another citizen names or falsely accuse said citizen of violations of copyright, but a citizen CAN use Freedom of Speech to do said name calling of any governmental objectification, (aka the Prez, VP, HSA, NASA, etc).
So, is the government guilty of violation of Freedom of Speech? No. Is it guilty of violation of FREEDOM OF THE PRESS? YES.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
meanwhile in America
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I still think we are focusing on the wrong part of this story though. The behavior of ICE and the government in this case is inexcusable and warrants investigation of the constitutional violations, the abuse of authority, and (if what the lawyer said is true) a blatant attempt to cover up their wrong doing.
What happened here (that can be proven by the established facts) is improper censorship. Whether or not the lawyers version is true will not change the rest of the material facts. If what he says is true it makes the case even worse based on the governments conduct, but even he is a bold faced liar it doesn't excuse the government's behavior in the least. They dropped the ball on this and violated the founding principles of our society. I don't think there is any way to dispute that, but if anyone has an argument I'd be happy to debate it.
Let me ask you... Aside from the lawyers version of the story which can't currently be substantiated, do you feel there is any defense to excuse the government's behavior that we can prove?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gotta wonder...
Here is a...
Link
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ice was asked about the seizure and commented on returning it, but when asked about the events discussed here he had no comment. He didn't deny it either..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Sourcing
''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''
Two cookies to the winner.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110215/01092813096/did-homeland-security-seize-then-unsei ze-dynamic-dns-domain.shtml#c47
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Gotta wonder...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Go straight to second base
One recent example of a Writ of Mandamus...
Federal Circuit Grants Writ of Mandamus in False Marking Case
http://ipwatchdog.com/2011/03/15/federal-circuit-grants-writ-of-mandamus-in-false-marking-ca se/id=15776/
"Ultimately, given that a § 292 sounds in fraud and there were no particularized facts alleged in the complaint the Federal Circuit had little difficulty in finding that the district court erroneously failed to dismiss the complaint and issued the writ of mandamus."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The solution isn't to throw away a system meant to protect us but to FIX it when it stops working. Constantly pointing blame at the politicians alone is misdirection.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: But Dajaz1 *is* a pirate site, derr
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Gotta wonder...
Learn to use them!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: This story needs to spread....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm watching you.. you bully you!!! o_O
On another totally different question.. Have you had the intellectual displeasure of reading anything that out_of_the_blue has commented on yet? Hopefully you haven't and this serves as a warning, if not well.. welcome to the new wall of weird at TD
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: But Dajaz1 *is* a pirate site, derr
Though if you click on this newest blog post.. you will see that The Tinfoil is strong in this one
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Go straight to second base
They got taken away from Australia (and most common law countries) decades ago and now all we have is misfeasance, nonfeasance or malfeasance to fall back on which are about as useless as tits on a bull.
Ordering a lower court or govt to do something is fine and dandy when that lower court or entity would comply. In this situation there is no way they would of complied, or even admit that they received one, and then the higher court has to fall on its own petard since... well how do you punish a government?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Sourcing
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sourcing
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: just gotta expect it ...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Gotta wonder...
If you can nail them on that, then you can sue the person (and the person's Office as Agent of the State) directly and not have the case thrown out on Sovereign Immunity claims.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gotta wonder...
I suspect you mean losing a war is illegal however and intended it as a commentary.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: meanwhile in America
[ link to this | view in thread ]
breaking news
[ link to this | view in thread ]
imperial perogative
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: But Dajaz1 *is* a pirate site, derr
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: breaking news
"Many times, breaking news is used after the news network has already reported on this story. When a story has not been reported on previously, the graphic and phrase Just In is sometimes used instead."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breaking_news
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: just gotta expect it ...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
You've shown incredible restraint for a country that's been labeled as war-mongering and violent. If ever there was a time to become that stereotype, I would think it's now. There is something fundamentally wrong with the government, it's a cancer that's eating your livelihoods.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Response to: MRK on Dec 8th, 2011 @ 8:54am
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: But Dajaz1 *is* a pirate site, derr
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The chickens have come home to roost
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
hdmi
[ link to this | view in thread ]
www.internationalstranger.com
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
"We're an empire now" quotation
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Gotta wonder...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sourcing
I already have a copy he is what it says:
REDACTED
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gotta wonder...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
"Convicted War Criminals"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm not sure if I have a full understanding of what is "provable" and what is not, so I'm not sure if I have an answer to that question.
In general, I don't think you should have your property seized without an opportunity to argue before a judge that you didn't do anything wrong for a year. I'm not sure if it's undisputed what opportunities dajaz1.com had during the seizure period.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Go straight to second base
Publishing the government's refusal to obey a court order on the front page of the NY Times during an election year would do wonders.
You punish a government at the voting booth.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Go straight to second base
But it seems to me that it doesn't matter who we vote for any more. We will still end up with corrupt government officials in office. Who should I vote for that hasn't been bought and paid for? It will merely be more of the same.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
FoIA?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: FoIA?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gotta wonder...
There is no limitation of freedom of speech to only speech about the government; you are way off base.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Absent.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: just gotta expect it ...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: But Dajaz1 *is* a pirate site, derr
Er, I'm finding it hard to see any jackbooks here except by you thugs, who steal people's livelihoods away from them by condoning piracy and engaging in theft content yourselves. I fail to see why people can't "voice their concerns". The feds closed a site because it had loads of copyrighted stuff on it. Too bad, so sad. They took way to long to adjudicate the case. We get that. It's not good. But at the end of the day, the nature of the site here is being covered up outrageously by the ideology Mike Myasnick, and he knows it, and we know it. The police gave the site back because they had too many cases, or some lawyer cut some deal with them, or they'd figure they'd get back to it and prosecute it another day. That's all. It's not about fascism, it's about the right of people to make a livelihood. Say, how do YOU make a living, big guy?!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: But Dajaz1 *is* a pirate site, derr
It's the hope of Myasnick and the propagandists and the attorneys hired by copyleftists of course to be able to distract everyone with the due process issue, and make these people out to be horrible victims of injustice! the horror! and distract everyone from seeing that indeed they are pirates.
Trying to cast around to analogies like car impounding is beside the case. It's clear from a simple look at the nature of the site that they had loads of infringing content. The feds felt justified in shutting them down. Who knows why they dragged it on or sealed something? Maybe they didn't fill out all the proper paperwork or do everything by the book and didn't want to lose their obvious case over the kind of technicalities that lawyers can and do pounce on to get a case thrown out even of someone obviously guilty. Whatever. That shouldn't distract from the fact that ICE is doing its job by and large to pursue piracy, and that's a good thing. If they botch some cases, hey, let the lawyers due for damages *shrugs*. This is America.
There *are* too many to prosecute in this fashion, and that's why a good universal law like SOPA needs to be established and precedents built up and practices established so we can move through these cases more quickly and more effectively.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: But Dajaz1 *is* a pirate site, derr
Of course I understood the site, and I went and looked at it, and I see it shows youtubes that have copyright on them, and people even writing things like "I hope this doesn't get removed". Derr. My God, this is obvious, just go and look.
I don't see that the government "didn't have enough evidence to proceed". I don't buy that at all, having looked at the site in past years now. I think that the government found it might have difficult in making its case because aggressive lawyers were going to play the race card on them. That would be my estimation of the situation.
That's great if Kanye West and Puffy use this site. Are they happy to have their material stolen and endlessly copied without any revenue?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: But Dajaz1 *is* a pirate site, derr
We do not have transparency on this case. As another reader asked, where are the court papers, eh?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: But Dajaz1 *is* a pirate site, derr
We got all that.
AND it's a pirate site where lots of content was obviously uploaded. And now that fact has been drowned out in a sea of tendentious crap about due process that really is beside the point, as when the feds went for this site, it was OBVIOUS what it was. But then -- as I already said -- either they didn't do their paperwork right or something else happened or there was some shady backroom deal with lawyers or they were threatened by the race card or SOMETHING, and they let it go. So what? It's not like they arrested a person and put them on death row and Mike Myasnick came up with a DNA test to prove the suspect innocent.
What it's about is a pirate site that got legitimately closed down, and then with a lot of lawyering, got opened back up.
This is why we need SOPA. To have the rule of law, so that individual adjudications like this don't take so long, and don't wind up the prey of predatory lawyers with agendas, but are resolved by judges.
Thanks for helping to make that obvious point!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: But Dajaz1 *is* a pirate site, derr
The government obviously saw the same thing and felt perfectly justified in closing it down. They felt that due process was merely an add-on.
That's wrong, and we get all that.
This became a highly lawyered-up cause celebre, and now we've all been distracted from seeing that this was an infringing site.
Thanks for putting the focus back on that fact : )
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: But Dajaz1 *is* a pirate site, derr
Say, if the lawyers REAAAAAALY think their client was so innocent and a victim of lack of due process, they should go the full monte and SUE FOR DAMAGES. Why aren't they doing that in this awful, awful heinous violation of due process THE HORROR!!!!
In fact, the government should go hurry and get the Wayback copies because knowing Google, and their sentiments, they may destroy the evidence.
But that's the open question to me. Here Mike has written about this AWFUL AWFUL THE HORROR THING of people impounded an ENTIRE YEAR but their lawyers aren't suing for damages over that grave injustice. Why?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: But Dajaz1 *is* a pirate site, derr
Or -- let's see -- you're going to try to pretend this is about First Amendment freedoms lol. The First Amendment doesn't extend to posting the address of a house with the door open and the people gone on a bulletin board urging people to steal.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Go straight to second base
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: just gotta expect it ...
They don't pay their taxes.
They launder their money through Ireland to avoid taxes in this country.
You mean like that?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: just gotta expect it ...
It's a ridiculous notion because digital content doesn't come in the form of discrete commodities, but are obviously copyable online due to the analogue hole and the properties of the Internet.
But it is still theft because it *deprives the artist of livelihood* he would otherwise have if people PAID to download the tune instead of viewing it FOR FREE. Duh.
The domain name company likely has a TOS about not breaking the law and uploading infringing content. Even if it didn't, you can't yammer on about your right to a warehouse where you are holding stolen property to distract from your theft.
The thuggish dishonest and lying is what is always the worst about Mike Myasnik's articles and the comment section.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Great News
But the case actually shows why we need SOPA to restore the rule of law in this area and prevent the adjudication of cases one by one on a variety of principles like this so that technicalities stall them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Great News
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: But Dajaz1 *is* a pirate site, derr
Too many to prosecute?
Maybe there is something wrong with the law and it is what needs to be changed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: But Dajaz1 *is* a pirate site, derr
"lots of youtubes" "giant link site" "hundreds" "stolen property"
WTF are you talking about?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Feds Falsely Censor Popular Blog
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I went through something like that
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: But Dajaz1 *is* a pirate site, derr
Having said that, there are 4 such cases involving 5 domain names. Of those 4 cases the only one has gone into forfeiture proceedings that I'm aware of. That would be the case of Rojadirecta.com/.org
Furthermore if you took the time to actually pay attention let alone click on those pretty blue links you would see that one of the songs listed on the affidavit was sent to the site owner directly by Busta Rhymes.
You cannot look at the site and clearly see obvious infringement based solely on the fact that you do not know the conversations, communications or requests that occurred behind the scenes with the operator of the website and the content owners and artists. All you can do is assume and well you know what they say about assuming making an ass out of you.
The police didn't give the site back because there were too many cases, there are 4 cases. Are you insinuating that the DOJ is not capable of fighting more than one case at a time because there is only one case that is known to have reached judicial proceedings out of the four and it was dropped because they couldn't even get that one right.
Windmill away sweetheart, stomp your feet, scream and yell like a toddler who just got his shiny new toy taken away. It won't change reality, it just makes you look stupid.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: just gotta expect it ...
"When the President does it, that means it is not illegal."
Now it's: "When the U.S. Government does it, that means it is not illegal. But, if it somehow is ruled illegal, we'll pass a some trumped-up cockamamie law to make it legal." and "Two wrongs do make a right, as long as the U.S. Government says so."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: But Dajaz1 *is* a pirate site, derr
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: But Dajaz1 *is* a pirate site, derr
Neva, a quick reference. Youtube is a SITE. What you're talking about is a LINK. It's why people are not taking you seriously when you rant and rave. You sound like the senators who understand the internet as much as they understand financial derivatives.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: just gotta expect it ...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This is obviously unconstitutional and not even in the first amendment sense. It is the due process sense. Due process is notice ad opportunity to be heard . Obviously there is neither hear.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Great News
Translation: This is why we need SOPA to restore our control and allow us to skip due process so it doesn't take so long to shut down sites we don't like.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: But Dajaz1 *is* a pirate site, derr
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: But Dajaz1 *is* a pirate site, derr
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Sourcing
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: But Dajaz1 *is* a pirate site, derr
[ link to this | view in thread ]
scratch a little
A decade long planned maneuver by a handful of media companies and financiers to control Media on the Internet but done in immoral and illegal ways. Most surprisingly these media companies have fostered child pornography, manipulated children in receiving pornography and induced them to steal copyrighted works, in order to build a distribution Network of massive proportions.
In the wake of devaluing the media industry these companies have been able to sweep up the competition up at fire-sale prices. The People responsible need to answer for their crimes and be stopped.
These companies manipulated and lobbied Congress to pass draconian laws to be used against their competition but not themselves. One of these laws is SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act). Though on the surface this is a good and decent law, the lobbyists championing SOPA have a very different agenda.
The companies and individuals who are involved in these crimes include Edgar Bronfman Jnr. Warner Music Group, Sumner Redstone Viacom/Cnet, Jarl Mohn, Niel Ashe, Quincy Smith, Redpoint Ventures, Greycroft Partners, Paul Allen, Microsoft, Jim Bryer Accel Partners.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: But Dajaz1 *is* a pirate site, derr
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: But Dajaz1 *is* a pirate site, derr
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: But Dajaz1 *is* a pirate site, derr
Seems to me you're making this up. Point to one case that supports your position.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: just gotta expect it ...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: But Dajaz1 *is* a pirate site, derr
Get it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Gotta wonder...
they are the power, and they do abuse it.They are criminals from osama on down. They have the czars, getting healthy paychecks for doing not a thing. you have the government selling arms to the narco-terroists, you see they are trying push aside the first and second amendments.
Sounds like Hitler, who killed 9 million people and Stalin that killed 20 million of his own citizens. Both Stalin and osama call themselves socialist.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: But Dajaz1 *is* a pirate site, derr
Go reread the article, pay close attention and make sure to relearn how the internet in general works before typing up a single response more.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Make it very very public...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Good Work!
Please keep up the good work. If more people did what you just did, we would still have our constitutional rights.
LOL call me paranoid, but I didn't put my real name on this comment, because I don't want to be on the receiving end of any enforcement actions, again.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Gotta wonder...
Fun part? Try paying for the trial(s) or even getting a court to hear your case. The grubberment is so corrupt at this point it's almost time to move someplace where your "protection money" (sic taxes) actually gets you some protection.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Censorship
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Question: What is ICE?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Question: What is ICE?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Question: What is ICE?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It seems like this was a test by the DOJ
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
You say this 3 days after the domain was returned and ICE more or less admitted the key details.
If you can't form an opinion after that, you've got a problem.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Gotta wonder...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: What is the penalty for violating the Constitution?
The US has structurally eliminated everything which would allow for justice at the federal level. It's time to replace it with a system which is actually just.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Question: What is ICE?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Gotta wonder...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Sourcing
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Sourcing
[ link to this | view in thread ]
THE FEDS!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:lucid renegade Raising Visibility
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Gotta wonder...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The whole law system is a joke and a system of extortion
People who actually want to understand and stop taking the government's bull**** should read this, in full: http://www.freedomfiles.org/extortion.pdf
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
************************
I keep getting contradicted in comments sections on news stories about the pending SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) in the U.S. House of Representatives and the companion pending PIPA (Protect Internet Property Act) over in the U.S. Senate, but this story clearly shows why those telling me I'm an idiot -- and who imply I'm at best disloyal to my country -- to worry and should just trust the government to "get it right." Yeah, sure. In the story below, all this crap happened that SOPA and PIPA would enshrine in law if passed (and signed by the President, of course). And guess what? -- it happened over Thanksgiving weekend in *2010.* If existing laws THEN allowed this trash to happen, then why in hell do we NEED SOPA or PIPA, or whatever monstrosity comes out of a House-Senate Resolution Committee??? And why do we have such laws anyway? I don't see how anyone can possibly argue they pass Constitutional muster -- read the 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendments, for starters.
I wrote my Senators and Representative about these proposals, telling them I completely oppose them in ANY form. Got a tinned response from one Senator that completely ignored what I had e-mailed her and made it clear -- but implicitly, not explicitly; she's clever -- that she thinks this kind of abuse of the American citizenry is hunky-dory. So, I wrote her back and told her it's a damned good thing she's retiring, as far as I'm concerned, because not only would I not vote for her again (as I have before) were she to vote for it, but I would do whatever tiny little bit I could do from nearly 9,000 miles away to campaign against her. As I will tell my other Senator and Representative should they respond similarly, as I fully expect them to do, if they bother to respond at all. And they ARE up for re-election, and standing.
This story makes a joke of the American concept of freedom and of our faith in our Constitution.
************************
I'm no lawyer or Constitutional scholar, but I CAN read, and this crap violates the Constitution numerous ways. Plain and simple.
Imagine if a policeman shot and killed someone with dubious cause then said, "Don't worry -- trust me." THEN the court bought that "defense."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The U.S Government...
@ Jay: "But the Pro IP Act allowed the position under Bush so... Yeah."
It would have been even more worrisome under Clinton: "I did not have sexual relations with that bill."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: But Dajaz1 *is* a pirate site, derr
By 'Youtubes' do you mean YouTube videos? If so, it just shows what an idiot you are. Why bother downloading a YouTube vid when it's easier to embed it? Also, YouTube's Terms of Service allow it to sub-licence what you upload to it, which is the main reason for them to insist that you own all the copyrights to your vids, screw Fair Use. And lastly, if the vids were infringing, then it's whoever uploaded them to YouTube that broke the law, not the one who subsequently embedded them on dajaz1.com. You don't have to do any research if you don't want to, but it makes you look less of a Bush.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
What I know
Speaking of Warner Music Group...
This tune's Public Domain
This tune's Public Domain
So it's free, WMG
'Cos it belongs to all!
They can hold a false copyright on the lyrics for as long as they want, but the melody's been ours since 1936. Gotta love being a 'pirate'!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
company
[ link to this | view in thread ]
company
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Legal
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gotta wonder...
Speech in freedom of speech is generally "all expression". Not all expression is protected with evolved exceptions that courts have recognized and evolved standards (or tests) that can involve weighing the "merits" of the expression/speech. Core political speech is the most "meritous" or crucial, and is much, much broader than "for or against" the US government as a whole.
An example of speech or expression that the courts have previously upheld is a t-shirt, worn in a courthouse, bearing an anti-draft message that include a cuss word ("f*** the draft" from memory).
Commercial speech/expression is probably the next most guarded after core political speech/expression.
Essentially all speech/expression was protected and exceptions have evolved so all expression/speech was and is covered by the constitution until some specific legal development excludes it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Gotta wonder...
Actually I think commercial speech is at or near the bottom of the ranking.
Essentially all speech/expression was protected and exceptions have evolved so all expression/speech was and is covered by the constitution until some specific legal development excludes it.
Right on, that's really the main principle to understand in the US.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Gotta wonder...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
-
Cover letter for customer service
[ link to this | view in thread ]
бус под наем
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Are they going to file a lawsuit?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Promotion of your website
This is Albert Johnson, an independent blogger and link builder. I have got access to a number of quality websites in all niches where I'll help you to publish your articles with the back-link(s) to your website. Please get in touch if you’re interested.
Looking forward to hear from you.
Thanks & Regards,
Albert Johnson
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: KanyeWest | The full story
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Scary
[ link to this | view in thread ]
AAAAAAAA
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: But Dajaz1 *is* a pirate site, derr
[ link to this | view in thread ]
AAAAAAAA
[ link to this | view in thread ]
AAAAAAAA
[ link to this | view in thread ]
LinkedIn: Log In or Sign Up
[ link to this | view in thread ]
AAAAAAAA
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Decimals - BrainPOP
[ link to this | view in thread ]