Who Needs SOPA When Courts Will Pretend SOPA Already Exists?
from the seems-unfortunate dept
Back in November, we wrote about one of a series of cases we had seen where trademark holders were going to court with a list of domain names that they insisted were selling counterfeit goods and getting the courts to issue injunctions that appeared to be quite similar to what SOPA would have allowed had it passed. That is, basically upon request, a trademark holder was able to get domain registrars to kill domain names, while forcing search engines and social networks to put in place blockades barring such sites from being listed. It appears that more trademark holders are taking notice. Jeff Roberts has the story of (regular IP extremist) Louis Vuitton trying the same thing.Basically, it lists out a bunch of websites that may or may not be involved in the sale of infringing works. Most, if not all of them, are foreign run. However, it is seeking a full injunction against those sites, not just to get them to stop selling any counterfeit goods, but to get the domains themselves turned off, and to block search engines from being able to find them:
Entry of an order requiring the Subject Domain Names, and any other domain names being used by Defendants to engage in the business of marketing, offering to sell and/or selling goods bearing counterfeits and infringements of the Louis Vuitton Marks to be disabled and/or immediately transferred by Defendants, their Registrars and/or the Registries to Louis Vuitton’s control so they may no longer be used for illegal purposes.As we noted back in the fall, there are all sorts of problems with these kinds of rulings (assuming that the South Florida court in this case follows the lead of previous courts). First of all, it's not clear under what authority the courts can issue such broad injunctions. Second, there are serious jurisdictional questions. But the biggest issue of all is that the court seems to be requiring non-parties to the litigation to take pretty drastic action: requiring search engines and domain registrars to effectively kill sites with little in the way of review or recourse. Now, it's likely that most -- or perhaps all -- of the sites in question are selling counterfeit goods. But how long do you think it will be until others use these cases as precedent for taking down all sorts of sites -- even those that are perfectly legitimate?
Entry of an Order that, upon Louis Vuitton’s request, the top level domain (TLD) Registries for the Subject Domain Names and their administrators place the Subject Domain Names on Registry Hold status, thus removing them from the TLD zone files maintained by the Registries which link the Subject Domain Names to the IP addresses where the associated websites are hosted.
Entry of an Order that, upon Louis Vuitton’s request, those in privity with Defendants and those with notice of the injunction, including any Internet search engines, Web hosts, domain-name registrars and domain-name registries or their administrators that are provided with notice of the injunction, cease facilitating access to any or all domain names and websites through which Defendants engage in the sale of counterfeit and infringing goods using the Louis Vuitton Marks.
Entry of an order that, upon Louis Vuitton’s request, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (“ICANN”) shall take all actions necessary to ensure that the Registrars and the top level domain Registries or their administrators responsible for the Subject Domain Names transfer, change the Registrar of Record, and/or disable the Subject Domain Names as directed by the Court.
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: sopa, trademark
Companies: louis vuitton
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You should ask Richard O'Dwyer, Queen Phara, et al and Kim Dotcom about that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Moreover, note how not a single one of those has been fully legitimate.
[ 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:
Just sayin.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Still, better a keyboard anarchist, then a keyboard wannabe lawyer asshole like you. You spend all day on-line, defending who? The MPAA/RIAA and company. Jesus, talk about being pathetic. Shows what kind of person you are. Even Lars Ulrich doesn't love the monopolists as much as you do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think of it like how a pawn can be "volunteered" by a chess player into being sacrificed as a part of their overarching plan. Too bad it doesn't work out too well for the pawn.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think of it like how a pawn can be "volunteered" by a chess player into being sacrificed as a part of their overarching plan. Too bad it doesn't work out too well for the pawn.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Bravo on showing how ineffective that was against piracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm sure one of these days we can change your diaper for you but it's just not today.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Just saying. Baby Wipes are on aisle 14.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Those are all things you're even more guilty of than anyone here. Keyboard anarchist? Check. You're all brave and bold hiding behind that "Anonymous Coward" moniker. Suddenly going dark/disappearing? Check, check. You are one of those same ACs who seems to disappear the moment everyone gangs up on you as far as presenting evidence to contradict and disprove your various claims. Great at talking shit? Sheesh, check major! You're also probably one of the same ACs who calls Mike chubby, the rest of us pirates, and so on.
Our "side" isn't getting killed, unless by our "side" you mean the innocents being caught in the sights of people like you. We're the ones who actually will be affected by the draconian laws, excuse me, "voluntary agreements", your side enacts. Agreements that won't have any actual effect, especially not on piracy itself or gaining you back the customers you've driven away in droves.
Short term SOPA success, huh? You wouldn't be the same AC who said we'd all be crying into towels now would you? Technically, since you're still bitching about SOPA (although trying to play it off by dismissing the people's victory as a minor and temporary occurence), it seems the one crying would be you and your kind.
You guys can't just face the reality. The people are tired of your shit. And the ones you are trying to punish just laugh at you and keep going on unaffected by any of your "agreements and enforcement standards". Rather than focus on your paying customers though, you keep your gaze focused elsewhere and thus neglect those who would give you their money, if you'd only listen to them. Your loss. Again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wait. You're calling me out...... anonymously???
And the ones you are trying to punish just laugh at you and keep going on unaffected by any of your "agreements and enforcement standards".
So then you admit that all of these Chicken Little antics and hysterical predictions about censorship and breaking the internet are so much bullshit. No big surprise there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, I'm pointing out how everything you just called the rest of us out on applies to you much more than it does us. Do try and keep up.
In fact, you're comments since then have been nothing but the antics of a keyboard warrior, not anarchist.
"So then you admit that all of these Chicken Little antics and hysterical predictions about censorship and breaking the internet are so much bullshit. No big surprise there."
No, that is not what I said at all. How you got that from what you quoted I haven't a clue. I said YOUR ACTIONS ARE AFFECTING INNOCENT BYSTANDERS AND NOT THE PIRATES AS INTENDED. There, clear enough for you?
As far as "Chicken Little antics and hysterical predictions", again, you don't see the irony in saying that do you? Nah, wouldn't expect you too. Your reality distortion field is strong. RIAA/MPAA (labels and studios) have been throwing Chicken Little antics for going on over several decades now. Or do I need to point out how the player piano would be the death of musicians and how the VCR was a serial killer looking to rape/murder the movie industry? Oh wait, I just did point that out, guess it was rhetorical. As far as hysterical predictions go, well... let's see... "piracy will lead to these industries dying". Lol. Doesn't get anymore hysterical than that, and yet despite all this "rampant piracy and infringement" [rolls eyes] here we are, decades later and both industries are still around and thriving. I'll just remind you that despite piracy that I'm sure took place The Avengers has grossed over $1 BILLION (with a B) worldwide.
As far as my side's antics and predictions, suffice it to say that since the Patriot Act first took effect and came to be, it's pretty easy to see how things like SOPA would easily lead to and be used for censorship purposes, and when the people who built the internet say it would be broken by such an act, well... bullshit I think it is very much not. And suffice it to say, the guys who built the internet have a lot more credibility than one AC calling it "so much bullshit".
But hey, leave it to an AC of your type to try and spin things that weren't said into something else entirely and attempting to "win" the argument that way. I wouldn't expect anything less from you. You're classy like that. ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
When you find yourself arguing from a position to the right of the Daily Mail......
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You think that's funny?
I think its just a Cargo cult remark.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The trick is to remove the "real" runway before you set up your own runway...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
yes
[ 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:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Would it be the court in the Dajaz case? Hmm, no. Mooo.com? Nope. Megaupload? Nope.
Keep spinning. Maybe you'll get good at it one day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Trying to minimize collateral damage to innocent citizenry and society is childish obstruction? Being engaged and trying to be represented and have a say in legislation affecting us is childish obstruction?
In any case, the "routing around" you mention is ineffective, so it's not actually "routing around" anything at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Trying to minimize collateral damage to innocent citizenry and society is childish obstruction? Being engaged and trying to be represented and have a say in legislation affecting us is childish obstruction?
They're trying to put Justin Bieber in jail!! It will break the Internet!!!! This law will shut down Facebook and YouTube!!!!!
In any case, the "routing around" you mention is ineffective, so it's not actually "routing around" anything at all.
You remind me of the boxer who gets rocked, then shakes his head as if to say he wasn't hurt. If all of these steps were meaningless within the context of SOPA, there'd have been to controversy. If they're meaningless now, Masnick would have nothing to fill these pages with. While these measures are not 100% effective, there's little dispute that a vast number of infringers lack even the rudimentary technical skills to overcome many of these measures.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
How so? I never said he measures didn't affect me. I said they don't appreciably affect piracy. I am not a pirate. If I were, these measures wouldn't bother me.
They can be ineffective (in terms of their stated goal) and harmful to innocent others simultaneously.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Awesome!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Corrected your obvious spelling mistakes. Preview is your friend!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If the site was hosted in Russia, domain registered as a .ca (Canada) TLD, through a registrar based in Sweden, how can the USA claim jurisdiction? Would that not be like them trying to shut down a brick and mortar store in Russia, selling Canadian goods and run through a shell corporation from Sweden, while also forcing the telecom companies to remove all listings from the phone books and yellow pages?
Why do they think that just because it's on the Internet that it's ok?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Under the current situation we now have .com Hong Kong companies using servers located in the US while the executives reside in New Zealand being seized by the US government for actions taken by Canadians located in Europe. Whose judicial authority is this company operating under? Which set of laws?
As long as foreign, non US agencies, use US servers with US based .com addresses expect to have US courts assume that they do have control over such companies. If of course such companies did not want US control and legal structure the would not use US facilities but would use some other countries whose legal system the desired to be under facilitates.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
who fucking needs democracy
damn right to hell with law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
* Bootlegs generally target a really different market. They have no $19 product to offer. Therefore, eliminating bootleggers will not sell any more bags.
* However, paying for endless judicial wrangling does increase your cost of operations, plus it may cause some public distaste.
From a strict business perspective, the endless attempts to preserve and glorify LV's trademarks are a net cost centre. They may as well blow the money on gold plated bathroom fixtures instead.
It amazes me that the stockholders are willing to go along with it. Or have most investors-- even those driven by actual metrics-- drunk the Kool-Aid (tm) on IP enforcement?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ironic
My local community college has a swap meet every weekend where there are many vendors who are selling obviously infringing goods. The college gains some money from the swap meet vendors and, by proxy, sales of counterfeit goods. Let's not forget that the college is a state government institution. I think you can see where this is going.
Getting extremely hard-line about IP just seems to open up so many cans of worms doesn't it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ironic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ironic
From what I've seen, this seems to be pretty standard at swap meets. The vast majority of vendors are selling stuff that's on the up and up, but there's always SOMEONE selling SOMETHING that's an obvious infringement. My point was that the good vendors shouldn't (if we're going to have a real-world analogy) have their forum for selling things shut down because of a few people peddling knock-offs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ironic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Ironic
Ah, but where else am I going to get my crudely colored shirts of Super Mario Galaxy-era Mario holding a Superman symbol medallion?
And yes, most of the knock off stuff is that obvious and that laughable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Names
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Names
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Even more drastic
"[...] those with notice of the injunction, [...] cease facilitating access to any or all domain names and websites [...]"
It does not say "search engines and domain registrars". It says anyone who has ever heard of the injunction. And "facilitating access" could mean something as basic as running a recursive domain name server (something every ISP does), or even routing packets to the websites in question! This is ridiculously over-broad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]