USTR Puts Out Its 'Rogue Sites' List... Can't Even Find 20
from the and-for-this-we-need-to-change-the-internet? dept
One of the completely ignored questions in the larger debate over SOPA/PIPA is how big an issue this really is. How many of these dangerous "rogue sites" are there that need to be dealt with? When confronted on the issue, they usually say it's around 50 sites or so. So it seems rather bizarre that we'd want to change the entire legal and technical framework of the internet, along with putting massive compliance costs and liabilities on tech companies who create jobs... just for such a small number of sites. And... it's looking even more ridiculous than before. As you know, every year the USTR comes out with its silly and widely mocked Special 301 report, which takes industry complaints about who's infringing where, rewrites them (with no significant additional investigation) and puts a government seal on top of it. This week, they came out with the "out of cycle" naughty list of evil sites. Again, this involves just asking the big entertainment companies what sites and countries they don't like, and then writing up a report.So, given a chance to highlight just how "big" a problem this is... all the industry could turn up was 19 specific sites that are rogue sites (well, here they're called "notorious"). To be fair, one of the 19 is "Allofmp3 clones" so that could encompass a few more sites. But, really, if the problem is just dealing with a small number of sites, is that really worth such a massive infrastructure change, since pretty much every technically clueful commentator has noted the massive cost on internet security of using these laws?
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: rogue sites, special 301, ustr
Companies: mpaa, riaa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Modchip.ca is a totally legal and legitimate site btw. It's not our fault your laws are braindead so don't mess with our websites.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
{a href="link"}link{/a}
Pretend { is less than sign
and } is greater than sign
Standard html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
a href="http://www.example.com/">example.com/a>
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
<a href="http://www.example.com/">example.com</a>
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Half the document seems to refer to "physical markets", so they're irrelevant.
Many of them seem to be sites hosted in Russia and China, many of which I've never heard of (thanks for advertising them, guys!).
Some seem to rely on biased and/or inaccurate descriptions of what they do - for example, modchip device (which have many legal uses, or at least uses which have nothing to do with piracy).
Many would seem to owe their existence to basic flaws in the business models of the content owners (e.g. TV Ants - I wonder how many people watching the material have any legal way of accessing it).
So, yeah, you want to destroy the internet, due process and freedom speech for this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
USTR Special 301 = YAWN!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Simple Solution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Need another list
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kinda like saying those who were found liable for "notorious" infringement of music files only downloaded just a few because just a few were chosen for purposes of the lawsuits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Status Quo
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't get it - you claim SOPA will be over used, and when they come up with a short list only, you complain because it will be underused?
Are you whacked?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Mike is complaining that it will be abused, not over used.
this article doesn't show that it will be under-used It shows that SOPA is not needed.
I suppose it's a bit much to ask a troll to understand simple concepts like that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It like saying there are 19 incidents a year of people sticking there hand in candy machines, trying to steal candy, while someone is kicking the machine, causes it to fall over then kills the guy with his hand in the machine. So now we have to outlaw all candy machines over 3 feet tall.
The justification for the legislation does not match the scope of the legislation. If you truly want to get rid of those sites, make use a more focused approach.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I think if you go and look, most of those sites will gladly sell to you in the US as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"only to customer's in places where it's completely legal"
But, if you want to make a case for how modchips.ca should be forbidden from shipping to the US, I wouldn't argue. That is a whole different ballgame from taking their website away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Right. There are obviously more than 19 sites, so it is an outright manipulative lie for Mike to say they "can't even find 20." What else would you expect from Techdirt?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It also helps to place things in perspective. This document is ancillary to the much maligned Section 301 report. Has it occurred to anyone that the document may be less about naming "names", and much more about naming "countries of origin", a precursor to future discussions with officials in those countries relating to trade policies?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Meanwhile, the people that read these reports just found new advertising due to the rogue sites list.
What's absolutely amazing is this: If rogue sites are such a large problem, why do they only have a few sites? The music industry has already seized 450 sites with the MPAA and ICE. Obviously, the rogue sites problem is solved by now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Had the document provided 40, you well know it would have been the same headline, with only numbers changed.
As I likewise noted earlier, the headline is in my view quite dishonest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What will be the defense for efforts spent investigating sites like modchips.ca, when your only defense now escapes you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
consolesource.com added
USTR has confirmed for me that consolesource delivers though, so that's enough for me!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm with Mr. Smart***
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This would be funny...if it wasn't so sad
One of the tactics that's now quite common -- because it's also quite effective -- is the use of plausible domain names. Thanks to greedy registrars, obfuscated registration, and complicit hosting companies, it's pretty easy and cheap to register many domains with names along the lines of update-adobe-2011.whatever, update-your-pdf.whatever, fix-adobe-2012.whatever -- and then of course load them up with appropriate malware, spamvertise them, and wait for victims to arrive.
Alright, maybe "common" isn't the right word: let's try "epidemic". Now these domains are clearly "rogue": put aside the IP issues of copyright and trademark for a moment, they exist solely to push malware. That's it. They don't even pretend to have a legitimate purpose. There are new ones every day (as the old ones gradually get blacklisted, confiscated or taken down). So all of us who work in this area see a constant parade of them...thousands of them.
And USTR couldn't come up with ANY?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Missing something?
If SOPA/PIPA are passed that will = filtering the internet = Infringement/Lost sales Problem Solved!
But China currently filters what their citizens see from the internet and yet it is stated that a couple of the biggest offenders are Chinese domains?
So this filtering/blocking/censoring already doesn't work. huh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Btw, SOPA has no effect on Russia/China rogue sites
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You mean like how the government is notorious for upholding corporate interests at public expense? You mean like how Hollywood is notorious for their Hollywood accounting practices? I'm surprised the government hasn't prosecuted Hollywood for GAAP violations by now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh the irony!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
commenting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
techdirt amazing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]