Feds Back To Seizing Websites Over Claims Of Copyright Infringement

from the motherfucking-eagles dept

Wed, Aug 22nd 2012 8:14am — Mike Masnick

While we've written plenty about the US Justice Department and US Homeland Security (via ICE) seizing various websites on questionable legal authority by claiming they were tools used for criminal copyright infringement, a series of pretty massive screwups seemed to have them, at least temporarily, shying away from such seizures around copyright claims. Huge errors like seizing Dajaz1 for over a year and then having to admit they had no evidence and give it back seemed to at least make them a little less cowboyish about the websites they chose to shut down and censor.

But, of course, this is the federal government we're talking about, and they sure loved the ability to shut down speech without any sort of adversarial hearing or, you know, due process. So you just knew it wouldn't last. The latest is that the feds have seized three more domains (applanet.net, appbucket.net and snappzmarket.com), claiming that they were "engaged in the illegal distribution of copies of copyrighted Android cell phone apps." Indeed, a quick look at the internet archive certainly suggests that these sites advertised that you could get "paid" apps for free if you joined. But does that warrant a criminal investigation and seizure? Perhaps there are more details, but given the sketchy details of earlier seizures, I'd wonder.

But, more to the point, if these sites were really engaged in such things, why wouldn't a civil copyright infringement lawsuit suffice? Why should the government get involved, when it involves completely pulling down a website with no warning, no adversarial hearing and no due process for those accused?

The Justice Department seems to indicate that this sort of thing is now a "top priority," because (apparently) they have way too much free time on their hands:

“Cracking down on piracy of copyrighted works – including popular apps – is a top priority of the Criminal Division,” said Assistant Attorney General Breuer. “Software apps have become an increasingly essential part of our nation’s economy and creative culture, and the Criminal Division is committed to working with our law enforcement partners to protect the creators of these apps and other forms of intellectual property from those who seek to steal it.”

“Criminal copyright laws apply to apps for cell phones and tablets, just as they do to other software, music and writings. These laws protect and encourage the hard work and ingenuity of software developers entering this growing and important part of our economy. We will continue to seize and shut down websites that market pirated apps, and to pursue those responsible for criminal charges if appropriate,” said U.S. Attorney Yates.

“The theft of intellectual property, particularly within the cyber arena, is a growing problem and one that cannot be ignored by the U.S government’s law enforcement community. These thefts cost companies millions of dollars and can even inhibit the development and implementation of new ideas and applications. The FBI, in working with its various corporate and government partners, is not only committed to combating such thefts but is well poised to coordinate with the many jurisdictions that are impacted by such activities,” said FBI Special Agent in Charge Lamkin.

One other tidbit of interest. Unlike the previous seizure disasters, this one appears not to have been led by ICE, but directly by the Justice Department (via the FBI). The announcement doesn't name this as a part of "Operation in our Sites" which seems to be a term specific to ICE's controversial program. Either way, they're still certainly using the eagle-heavy "seized" graphic they love to throw around, so, of course, we'd be remiss if we did not remind folks that they can purchase their very own "seized tee," to show what you think of the government's efforts.

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: android, apps, doj, domains, fbi, seizures, websites

313 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

The First Word

“

"There has grown in the minds of certain groups in this country the idea that just because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with guaranteeing such a profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is supported by neither statute or common law. Neither corporations or individuals have the right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back." - Robert A. Heinlein, 1939

—Anonymous Coward

”

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 8:23am

Indeed, a quick look at the internet archive certainly suggests that these sites advertised that you could get "paid" apps for free if you joined. But does that warrant a criminal investigation and seizure? Perhaps there are more details, but given the sketchy details of earlier seizures, I'd wonder.

Mercy me, we wouldn't want to actually enforce the law against those illegally profiting from the work of others, would we.

But, more to the point, if these sites were really engaged in such things, why wouldn't a civil copyright infringement lawsuit suffice? Why should the government get involved, when it involves completely pulling down a website with no warning, no adversarial hearing and no due process for those accused?

Again Masnick, seizure of property is analogous to the arrest of a person and is permissible under the law. Surprisingly, the Court- not you- is the arbiter of due process.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Zos (profile), 22 Aug 2012 @ 8:30am
  
  Re:
  herp derp, derp derp. herp. pirates.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
  
  Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 8:49am
  
  Re:
  Mike has a pretty funny way of looking at things. Even reading his story with his spin on it, I can pretty much figure it out. Giving away "paid" apps to members? I don't even have to work hard to see where this would be an issue.
  
  Mike can't see it because Mike specifically doesn't want to see it.
  
  Stories like this bring the rest of Techdirt into question - if Mike can't see this, what else is he totally missing or intentionally misunderstanding?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    
    Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 9:04am
    
    Re: Re:
    Mike intentionally misrepresents everything having to do with IP enforcement. That's his whole bag in a nutshell.
    
    And yet, he pretends like piracy is not OK. It's hilarious to watch him squirm as the government takes down his pirate friends.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 9:11am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Damn, you got him! Pirate Mike is actually the King of the Pirates, who personally selects and appoints all internet pirates in this country. Guess the cat's out of the bag now.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 9:45am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Damn, you got him! Pirate Mike is actually the King of the Pirates, who personally selects and appoints all internet pirates in this country. Guess the cat's out of the bag now.
        
        Darn, I was hoping to use my insider status to take Australia, but since he can only appoint folks for this country, I'll need to join www.techdirt.co.au.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 7:17pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Mike should change his name to Gol D Rogers
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Rapnel (profile), 22 Aug 2012 @ 9:16am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Actually I think that the nutshell is that current "piracy enforcement" does nothing to actually prevent the piracy because they're smarter than you are and, really, could care less what any gov does. It's the tromping, stomp fest of this that or the other "right" in the process. Not too mention the corrupt bullshit "businesses" that are dangling the fucking money carrot demanding we help prop up woefully outdated business practices so Mr. Fuck can still make his buck.
      
      The successful business model will never result in a continuing prop up of cunts with wishes and kisses.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Ruben, 22 Aug 2012 @ 9:34am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I think the issue here is the utter lack of due process.
      
      What say you to that?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - bratwurzt (profile), 23 Aug 2012 @ 1:20am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Using a pirate king character from anime show that got worldwide recognition because of copyright infringement and fansubbing. Priceless.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        bratwurzt (profile), 23 Aug 2012 @ 1:22am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        sorry - my reply was meant for comment http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120822/07274420123/feds-back-to-seizing-websites-over-claims-copy right-infringement.shtml#c3393
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 9:17am
    
    Re: Re:
    First off, stealing a cheap 99 cent to 10 USD app is a dirt bag thing to do. I know that people will still do this, but I can still feel offended.
    With that said, the DoJ, FBI, ICE, DHS, etc simply seizing these sites isn't doing anything to alleviate the piracy problem. In fact from previous cases, it is simply harming third parties that are not even associated with the problem. Added to the fact that this behavior is pushing back DNSSEC deployment, right after coming off from the DNSChanger virus. They are simply putting the world at risk due to illegal or at least immoral actions (I consider seizure without a trial illegal, as most would.) against mostly foreign individuals that once taken down usually re-appear within days to a few hours.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 9:42am
    
    Re: Re:
    Wait... so all those 'memberships' that I purchased where I received 'free' merchandise are really dirty rotten pirates....
    
    I knew BMG was a scam... those guys need to go die in a fire... they suckered me with 'free' music just for signing up, and I believed them (enough to sign up 5 times to get 50 'free' CD's)...
    
    Wait giving away stuff to entice membership means your site is a pirate and needs to be destroyed?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 10:28am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Wait you mean downloading from links found on The Pirate Bay is really supporting the artists? And all this time I thought people were stealing content.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - crashsuit (profile), 22 Aug 2012 @ 11:01am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Wait you mean downloading from links found on The Pirate Bay is really supporting the artists?"
        
        Yep.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      
      Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 6:30pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "Wait... so all those 'memberships' that I purchased where I received 'free' merchandise are really dirty rotten pirates...."
      
      Dumbass. If they have the rights to give the stuff away, then they can. But if you are giving away stuff you don't have thr rights to, then it's a problem.
      
      Intentionally misunderstanding - a true Techdirt method for ignoring reality.
      
      You can sit on the bench next to Marcus and Paul on the moron side the discussion.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 6:30pm
    
    Re: Re:
    My ISP gives free virus protection. Oh no! They MUST be breaking the law!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 22 Aug 2012 @ 9:08am
  
  Re:
  actually enforce the law against those illegally profiting from the work of others,
  
  Please cite the specific criminal law that applies. (Hint: don't do silly things like mix and match civil and criminal laws.)
  
  seizure of property is analogous to the arrest of a person and is permissible under the law. Surprisingly, the Court- not you- is the arbiter of due process.
  
  And the courts have indicated that in cases where the thing being seized involves speech, such as newspapers and its modern equivalent websites, there is a higher burden on the government to avoid seizing protected speech.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 10:30am
    
    Re: Re:
    So they are writing reviews on this website? I thought they were giving away apps. Are you sure we are talking about the same thing here?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 10:37am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      This may come as a flabbergasting shock to you but websites can be used for more than one thing.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Wally (profile), 22 Aug 2012 @ 7:01pm
    
    Re: Re:
    The article is good. I agree with most of it. It exposes injustices of the DOJ and the FBI quite well. However, I am certain in my mind that the take down of Applanet was legitimate.
    
    Why those DoubleMySpeed websites haven't been taken out is beyond me though....onward to my point....
    
    When the FBI and the DOJ are alone in the take-down of a website, it is usually for consumer fraud. I did some digging about in regards to Applanet to find that the apps being sold were not only NOT getting the money earned to the creators of those works, they were distributing older versions of the software being sold as "up to date" compared to Google Play. Amongst those files were apps that had been pulled from Google Play that had caused viruses to be spread around.
    
    While I am all for alternate methods of content distribution and/or sales (GoodOldGames, Steam, Macintosh Garden (Free legacy Abandoned Mac OS software/games))even if you have to use Bit-Torrent to get the content (OCremix.org), I do not think it is right to not pay developers of Apps of their earnings or creative works....Google Play and iTunes alike...when there is a price on the item at hand. Applanet made no such contributions to the developers.
    
    The first smoking gun I saw on the Applanet page was the PayPal Button, which is almost ALWAYS consistent on almost EVERY page i have seen the icon on. I have never seen the Word Donate in Droid font below the word "PayPal" or any associating fonts but the one default PayPal always uses with their icon.
    
    Second Smoking Gun was this text:
    "Access Paid Apps for FREE!
    
    Applanet's massive database contains more than 14,000 Android applications. You have access to the latest version of both free and paid applications found in the Android Market and even some you can't find and will not need to pay for anything! Applanet is your one-stop alternative app market."
    
    Think about how it was worded. "You have access to the latest version of both paid and free applications on the market"
    Given the site's "Donation" button and that wording, they use the money to buy ONE copy of the app and distribute it many times to make it "free" and "you don't pay a thing".
    
    Then we have the consumer fraud side of things (which I believe the ICE was not involved in the take-down of this website) where i managed to find a complaint here:
    
    http://www.droidxforums.com/forum/droid-x-general-discussion/11265-do-not-use-app-applanet. html
    
    and here:
    http://androidforums.com/android-lounge/310926-applanet-net-legit-no.html
    
    So to review for everyone else what I just wrote:
    They take your money through "Donations" and are not claiming not-for-proffit.
    They buy one App and distribute many times as well as claim it to be up to date and the developers don't see a dime of their work.
    Has an illegitimate donation button From PayPal where the wording, the font, and the icon are all completely different from the usual PayPal donation button.
    
    That screams more of illegitimate use. Look at the WayBack Machine link givine in the article to see what i mean.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Prisoner 201, 22 Aug 2012 @ 9:16am
  
  Re:
  "Mercy me, we wouldn't want to actually enforce the law against those illegally profiting from the work of others, would we."
  
  Silly troll, if they were following the law and the constitution - you know, due process and such, then there would be no complaint.
  
  But you are stuck in a "ends justifies the means" mindset, so there is little point arguing with you.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 10:32am
    
    Re: Re:
    So all the drug dealers should be given their drugs back and allowed to sell them until they are up for trial? And people who steal your car should be allowed to keep it until the trial?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Rikuo (profile), 22 Aug 2012 @ 10:54am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Are drugs and cars methods of speech? No?
      
      Then your analogy is just wrong. Try again
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Another AC, 22 Aug 2012 @ 10:55am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      The difference is that the drug dealers and car thieves are arrested, and are allowed to plead their side to get their property back if indeed they are successful. These websites get no such favor.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Ninja (profile), 22 Aug 2012 @ 11:17am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Even drug dealers deserve due process. There's a big difference between a full criminal investigation having proven the guy is a drug dealer and thus having a JUDICIAL WARRANT to seize his assets and jail him. I haven't gone through much detail in this case but if there's no WARRANT with EVIDENCE backing it up and it doesn't follow due process then yes, even if the guy IS a drug dealer he should go free. If due process is followed you won't have to free the guy and give him his assets back afterwards.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Wally (profile), 22 Aug 2012 @ 7:04pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I would like to point out that in the case of a Drug Dealer in the US, it has to be probable cause for the arrest and seizure.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 9:23am
  
  Re:
  Again Masnick, seizure of property is analogous to the arrest of a person and is permissible under the law. Surprisingly, the Court- not you- is the arbiter of due process.
  
  EXACTLY. And the people responsible for these sites were arrested and.....oh, there haven't been any arrests yet? OK, well, since property has been seized, there is obviously a trial or at least a hearing set up for some time in the very near future to make sure these sites were properly taken down and that it wasn't just a mistake, right? No? No trial? No due process? OK, then....um.....IF YOU'RE NOT FOR THIS YOU OBVIOUSLY HATE FREEDOM AND AMERICA AND THE CHILDREN!
  
  That sound about right?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 9:30am
  
  Re:
  You didn't answer the question. Why wouldn't a civil copyright lawsuit, which would allow for a hear on injunctive relief, suffice? What makes this a criminal case worth of seizure? "Because they can" does not answer those questions.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 9:40am
    
    Re: Re:
    The forfeiture actions are civil proceedings, not criminal. The websites are given an opportunity for a hearing, after the seizure has occurred. Just like criminals get arrested first and given a chance to argue their case later, property suspected of being used for crime gets seized first too. Yes, they could do it differently, but they don't have to.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 22 Aug 2012 @ 10:01am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      The forfeiture actions are civil proceedings, not criminal.
      
      The websites are given an opportunity for a hearing, after the seizure has occurred.
      
      Like Dajaz1 was? You know, after a year of the government stalling, missing multiple deadlines to return the seized property or allow a hearing as the law requires? After a year of waiting for the RIAA to provide evidence that it should have had before seizure? That all evidence turned out to be completely non-existant?
      
      Would you care to address the argument that the government appears to be completely inept when it comes to seizing anything on the grounds of copyright infringement?
      
      Would you care to address the argument that in some cases it is blatantly obvious that the government is denying constitutionally protected rights of its citizens?
      
      Would you care to comment on whether this shows that if the government wishes to continue seizing websites, it should hold a hearing on the merits of the evidence prior to seizure?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 10:35am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The Dajaz1 case was dropped the site was returned, are you arguing FOR or AGAINST the fact that the site owners can get the site back? It's kinda hard to tell when you are citing a case in which the site was returned.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Rikuo (profile), 22 Aug 2012 @ 10:56am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        AFTER A FUCKING YEAR!
        
        Get that through your head. A YEAR! A full year went by when the owners of Dajaz1.com were forbidden to speak on the site and there never was a trial.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Ninja (profile), 22 Aug 2012 @ 11:20am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        He wouldn't mind if his house was seized for an year with bogus accusations then gave back with not further detail after all it was properly given back. After all it's the law (Mars law it seems).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 12:08pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        After which I'm sure Dajaz1 lost many users.
        
        It's the same as giving you back your house after smashing all the windows, knocking down every 5th load-bearing wall and cutting holes in the pipes and letting local vagrants shit in the corners for months.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 8:39pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yeah, but you can always move into another house.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        bratwurzt (profile), 23 Aug 2012 @ 1:29am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yeah - but almost nobody who visited you before would know where you live. For a year. It's not seizing a house - it's more like destroying all information that can lead people to your house, erasing phonebook entries for you phone number, deleting you address from public view...but you still have your coordinates (IP address), right?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 10:29am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "The websites are given an opportunity for a hearing, after the seizure has occurred."
      
      Tell that to Puerto 80, who obviously have not broken any Spanish laws and probably not even US laws. And yet the domains are still seized, without any civil or criminal trial against them.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 10:33am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Puerto 80 is challenging the seizures before two different courts to this day. Not sure I get your point. They've got great lawyers working on the cases.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 10:42am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The point is that Puerto 80 is challenging the seizure before two different courts to this day.
        
        Were you always this obtuse or did you take lessons?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 10:45am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And Rojadirecta was back up and running on another domain name within days. So what? All that proves is that this is not like where a quantity of books is seized. Lawsuits take time, especially when there are novel issues involved.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 1:28pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And piracy remains.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 22 Aug 2012 @ 8:01pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And Rojadirecta was back up and running on another domain name within days.
        
        Yes, they were.
        
        First, the courts have said that doesn't make the tiniest difference when determining if constitutional rights were violated - the government cannot seize one newspaper and say no rights were violated because there happens to be another newspaper in town.
        
        Second, if seizing the websites is completely ineffective in stopping or even minimally inconveniencing those committing copyright infringement, and also raises significant constitutional issues, then why the hell is the government doing it? It is just a waste of resources on every possible level.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 10:43am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        They seized the domains without any criminal/civil wrongdoing ever being present (since obviously no charges were ever brought against them), yet they still have to argue in court about getting their property back?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 10:47am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        A judge issued a warrant after probable cause was established. That's what due process looks like.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 11:01am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Well, I hope they decide to seize your house for about a year for some criminal act that you didn't commit, but decide never bring any charges against you. I'm sure you would feel the same way, since a judge issued a warrant based on evidence from a corporation that is known to give incorrect and/or blatantly false statistics on both income and damages to their business.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        velox (profile), 22 Aug 2012 @ 11:46am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Puerto 80 is challenging the seizures before two different courts to this day. Not sure I get your point. They've got great lawyers working on the cases.
        "
        Ah yes. Great lawyers are at work and all's right with the world.
        
        Of course at least half of the reason for this whole IP morass is to keep as many lawyers employed for as long as possible.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 10:43am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      You really don't see a problem with your 'they're civil proceedings... just like criminals' logic do you?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 11:36am
  
  Re:
  I sure do like the government deciding it needs to be judge, jury, and executioner when it wants to because they suddenly decided someone online had a website with content that may-be-sort-of-illegal-i-guess.
  
  We need to wrap up our fight against pirates so we can start firebombing jaywalkers anyway.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 8:33am

Mike Masnick just hates it when copyright law is enforced, don't you, Mike?

fucking douchebag...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 9:01am
  
  Re:
  No, you've got it all wrong. Mike thinks piracy is not OK. Can't you tell?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
  
  Rapnel (profile), 22 Aug 2012 @ 9:07am
  
  Re:
  Well aren't you the fucking cunt of the day.
  
  Your bullshit soapbox broke so you're stuck here now?
  
  Personally, I think the FBI et al are the douchebags.
  
  "Woe is my business model. The free market is breaking me. My 1000 year copyright race is hampered.
  
  You're a fucking one trick prick. Pussy.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    
    Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 9:11am
    
    Re: Re:
    My business model involves repeatedly kicking you in the balls. I'll just assume you don't mind if we ignore the laws on such things.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Rapnel (profile), 22 Aug 2012 @ 9:22am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Have at it. Hell, I might even pay you if you can land even one. I do so love tricks. Better yet you may want to get some CIA/blackOps contractor ass and get yourself some rendition going to assist you in the support of your new business model. What's a little rendition amongst reciprocal pole lickers?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 9:26am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Mind? He sure would, but you're still missing the point. To build on your "business model" analogy, what laws could possibly be passed to prevent kicking someone in the balls? Sure, we already have assault laws and the threat of civil lawsuits, but how can you *prevent* it without needing to go through all of that "proof" crap that just slows down the righteous hammer of justice?
      
      Since you've threatened bodily harm, and you're wearing shoes, I'd guess you don't mind if we arrest you and anyone you've had contact with in the last 48 hours while we sort it out, do you?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 9:20am
    
    Re: Re:
    "The free market is breaking me."
    
    When someone is stealing your content that you work on for months and then giving it away. You think that is ok?? So if I come into your place of business and steal your shit and then give it away you would be ok with that?
    
    I don't have a problem if someone wants to develop an app and then give it away for free. That is their business decision to make. I have a problem with people taking that which does not belong to them (the rights of distribution which are protected by copyright law).
    
    You can call it anything you want (infringement, sharing, hugging - yes I added that last one to show how ridiculous the vocabulary arguments have gotten here), it doesn't matter it's still a violation of copyright law.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 9:29am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Damn right, because a law was "obviously" broken, the criminals have been arrested, read their rights, tried, and found guilty in a timely manner, and now we're to the point of punishment.
      
      Right?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 9:35am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        If you deal drugs, traffic stolen property, etc. that property is seized until the trial. So are you arguing that property shouldn't be seized before the trial, and crimes should be allowed to continue?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 22 Aug 2012 @ 9:47am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        If you deal drugs, traffic stolen property, etc. that property is seized until the trial. So are you arguing that property shouldn't be seized before the trial, and crimes should be allowed to continue?
        
        For the sake of having it evidence to prevent it from being destroyed. Nice to see you twist that to this case which is wholly different. Nice to also see you ignore that there are reasonable alternatives that don't violate our basic principles of due process.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 9:48am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        For the sake of having it evidence to prevent it from being destroyed.
        
        That is not the law. Why do you keep pretending that it is?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Ninja (profile), 22 Aug 2012 @ 11:18am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You know, laws enacted on Mars don't apply to Earth. We are discussing Earthly laws here, specifically, United States laws.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 11:35am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No, it's the law in the United States. Mike Masnick hates that. That's why he always runs and hides when he's called out on it.
        
        Because he's an intellectually dishonest, slimy douchebag.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Cory of PC (profile), 22 Aug 2012 @ 11:49am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        ... Much like any other AC trolls and shills (and maybe you)? Although I wouldn't exactly you "intellectual."
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 10:38am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        What are those "reasonable alternatives that don't violate 'our' basic principles of due process."? Censoring the site? I know you would bitch about that as well. So how do you force a site to take down stolen intellectual property, when that is primarily all they do?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Ninja (profile), 22 Aug 2012 @ 11:23am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        What are those "reasonable alternatives that don't violate 'our' basic principles of due process."?
        
        Open a criminal investigation, collect evidence showing that the site is violating the law (criminal law in the case), find out about jurisdiction and pursue the owners in that jurisdiction (obtain a warrant in a court etc etc). And most importantly, go after the source so it won't resume doing the same damn thin elsewhere till you have seized every fucking url available in a futile cat and mouse game.
        
        Now go sodomize yourself with a big retractable due process baton.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 11:38am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Open a criminal investigation, collect evidence showing that the site is violating the law (criminal law in the case), find out about jurisdiction and pursue the owners in that jurisdiction (obtain a warrant in a court etc etc).
        
        That's exactly what happened, you fucking dolt.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 11:45am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        +1 funny
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Ninja (profile), 23 Aug 2012 @ 4:09am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        O rly? So I take it the owners of those sites are already being questioned and properly prosecuted? We also know exactly where these people are from and it's being all done within their jurisdiction, right?
        
        Wrong, they went after the domains only as far as we can see right now. As details on the case unfold we might see there was due process from the beginning. But as Mike said:
        
        Perhaps there are more details, but given the sketchy details of earlier seizures, I'd wonder.
        
        I'm wondering too and I will not assume anything before more details come. Unlike you.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        ltlw0lf (profile), 22 Aug 2012 @ 9:55am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        If you deal drugs, traffic stolen property, etc. that property is seized until the trial. So are you arguing that property shouldn't be seized before the trial, and crimes should be allowed to continue?
        
        So they seize the server which contains the illegal items, right? No, they don't? They just take away the domain and you can still get to the site using the IP address?
        
        Usually when law enforcement seizes something, it is to prevent evidence from being destroyed or further harm, but in this case, they aren't preventing further harm or preventing the destruction of evidence. They are only making it marginally more difficult for the person who is alleged to be breaking the law. The person gets another domain or publicizes the IP address to the server and the problem continues. And it opens the process to abuse, ala Dejaz1. If they have enough evidence to prosecute, get a search warrant to seize the server. Seizing the domain does nothing.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 9:34am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      we see here the false stealing analogy in it natural environment, deeply embedded in the troll. The two form a symbiotic relationship, the troll can excrete a putrid substance with the help of the false stealing analogy and the false stealing analogy gets to meet new and interesting internet message boards. This relationship truly is one of the wonders of our horrifying planet.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 9:38am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The thing that is taken is the right of distribution which is a vital part of copyright law. You can try to "put lipstick on the pig" or "sugar-coat it" all you want. If you are pirating, you should feel like a piece of shit.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 9:51am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Obviously you're not that bright, because if the right of distribution were taken, they wouldn't be able to distribute something still. As in, there'd be nothing for them to do because they'd have nothing period.
        
        If you are making overly broad generalizations and comments about people, you should feel like a piece of shit (because you very much are a piece of shit).
        
        Also, it's worth noting, that outside of the United States, a great many countries (some of which are huge and filled with smartphone users) HAVE NO ACCESS to the Play Store, through which Android applications are available. Meaning, the only way for them to even get apps is through websites such as those seized. Now, you might say, well tough. But a reasonable mind would say, well if they are legally unable to get the applications for whatever reason, there is no harm being done by them gaining access to said apps. Again though, it depends on the situation and whatnot.
        
        Do try and take your head out of your ass though before you speak again. You come off as an extremist. (Probably because you are one.)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 10:46am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The right of distribution is the SOLE right of the rights holder. That means if you are distributing without explicit permission (note that does not prevent the rights holder from also distributing) you are violating copyright law.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 11:30am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "The thing that is taken is the right of distribution which is a vital part of copyright law."
        
        But it isn't taken is the point I was making, which was contrary to what you had stated (which I just quoted).
        
        That right has NOT been taken, merely been infringed upon.
        
        Also, I did not say that copyright law hasn't been violated. I merely pointed out the error in what you stated.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 11:40am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No, that right has been TAKEN away from him.
        
        He DOESN'T have it anymore.
        
        IOW, stealing.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 9:35am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I think I'm not far off of your position. Let's both agree that copyright infringement is bad and wrong. Here's where I think (please correct me) we're going to disagree:
      
      What are you going to do about it?
      
      I can't imagine an answer that you, me, or anyone else will come up with that will stop *all* infringement, so it's going to continue at some level in the future. Even turning off the internet will just increase the sneakernet. I guess one option is to call in the troops at any hit of infringement and hope that you can either reduce it, or scare people into being your customers.
      
      My major concern is that this approach tends to have quite a bit of collateral damage for dubious benefit. Wouldn't it be better to change the problem at the source (the business) rather than call in someone else (the government) to fix it for you?
      
      Again, don't get distracted in thinking that I somehow "approve" of infringement. I'm merely suggesting that we can both extrapolate that it will happen, regardless of it legality, in the future, just like vandalism, assault, and other crimes continue to happen today.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 10:52am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It isn't my place to dictate to any other person how they should run their business. If someone develops a product, service, song, movie, software, whatever, they are entitled to market that in any way they see fit. The public has the RIGHT to refuse to agree to those terms and can demonstrate that right by refusing to purchase, download, etc... The public has absolutely no right to steal that app, song, movie, car, etc...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        btrussell (profile), 22 Aug 2012 @ 1:22pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No one is stealing anything. They are exercising the natural right to copy.
        
        I have no wish to dictate how to run your business either, but if it is easily, cheaply reproduced, there are other business'.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 1:32pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "There has grown in the minds of certain groups in this country the idea that just because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with guaranteeing such a profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is supported by neither statute or common law. Neither corporations or individuals have the right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back." - Robert A. Heinlein, 1939
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 3:40pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Well aren't you the fucking cunt of the day.
    
    Your bullshit soapbox broke so you're stuck here now?
    
    Personally, I think the FBI et al are the douchebags.
    
    "Woe is my business model. The free market is breaking me. My 1000 year copyright race is hampered.
    
    You're a fucking one trick prick. Pussy.
    
    Oooooo, a TD keyboard tough guy. You might be able to intimidate the boys down at the LARP league with that, but I doubt you've accomplished anything more here than making yourself a figure of fun.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Wally, 22 Aug 2012 @ 11:02pm
  
  Re:
  The only douche-bags (you misspelled it) I see are you and your sock puppets..which means you.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 8:37am

Would engaging in some actual due process have made the outcome any different? What are the Feds so afraid of if this is such a priority? You'd think that adhering to due process would make for a tighter case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 8:44am
  
  Re:
  Where is the violation of due process? Property used in the commission of a suspected crime is seized all of the time. The cops stop a guys car and find a kilo of suspected coke and $100,000 in cash you'd better believe that the car, cash and coke will all be seized. All consistent with due process.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - E. Zachary Knight (profile), 22 Aug 2012 @ 8:55am
    
    Re: Re:
    There are a number of people in this country who feel that such forfeitures and seizures are a violation of due process. To allow the government to basically steal stuff from citizens with little more than a gut feeling that the property was used in a crime is an outrageous violation of an individual's right to property.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      
      Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 8:58am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "little more than a gut feeling"?
      
      You're a completely unconvincing, willfully blind asshat.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Rapnel (profile), 22 Aug 2012 @ 9:09am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You're a corrupt prick. What's your point?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Wally (profile), 22 Aug 2012 @ 11:04pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Easy there tiger, hes a senseless troll....you must resist such insults back to him and his sock puppets.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 9:36am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Sometimes I check what's under the 'This comment has been flagged' message and find some kernels of point hidden beneath the layers of vitriol and bile. This was not one of those times.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Infamous Joe (profile), 22 Aug 2012 @ 9:49am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        On this post, at the time of this writing, the only posts down-voted are truly report-worthy-- they hold no value.
        
        This is not always the case, as sometimes a mere dissenting voice gets flagged-- which is sad.
        
        I hope this is a new trend.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - The Mighty Buzzard (profile), 22 Aug 2012 @ 9:47am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yeah, it's fine to skip due process when it's obvious that a crime has been committed. That whole jury of your peers and being able to challenge evidence against you in a court of law before your property rights are taken away is just a waste of time.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 10:55am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yeah, its fine to skip justice when it's obvious that someone is giving away someone else's app. That whole idea of justice is over-rated anyway, who knows maybe they have the permission of Tom-Tom to give away their $50 app for free.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Rikuo (profile), 22 Aug 2012 @ 11:21am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And with this, you have proven you completely loathe justice. The point of laws is to give those accused their fair day in court, which the US government has demonstrated, at least in copyright infringement concerns, it does not want to do. So at this point, the accused is damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. Once here, the point of obeying the law gets thrown out the window: if the government is simply going to stomp all over you, why bother obeying the law?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 9:11am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      There are a number of people in this country who feel that such forfeitures and seizures are a violation of due process.
      
      Unfortunately for you, none seem to be judges.
      
      To allow the government to basically steal stuff from citizens with little more than a gut feeling that the property was used in a crime is an outrageous violation of an individual's right to property.
      
      Law enforcement and the Court calls it "probable cause". Even the Lord High Piracy Apologist admits that there's something suspect about a website offering "free paid apps" if you join.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - The Infamous Joe (profile), 22 Aug 2012 @ 9:20am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Maybe they give out app store gift cards?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 9:22am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        If you would have researched this more you would have discovered that the FBI downloaded THOUSANDS of infringing apps during their investigation.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Infamous Joe (profile), 22 Aug 2012 @ 9:25am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        How did they know they were infringing?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The eejit (profile), 22 Aug 2012 @ 10:52am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Because of the trace amounts of Handwavium found in the FBI agent's bloodstream.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 10:58am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Maybe because they coordinated with the people who OWN the rights to app? I guess The Infamous Joe is the "Lord High Piracy Apologist" referred to within this thread, that makes sense.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Ninja (profile), 22 Aug 2012 @ 11:27am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So they must have a detailed list of the infringing apps and they presented it before a court to get a warrant to subpoena the domain registrar and find out who is the person behind the site and then seize their assets and the domain name. You know, all with due process.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 11:46am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        That's what was done, you fucking dolt.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Wally (profile), 22 Aug 2012 @ 11:07pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Let me say this now before I ream your ass...Shut up, stop using sock puppets, you are not welcome here if you make these insults and claim them as arguments.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Ninja (profile), 23 Aug 2012 @ 4:15am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I don't see it anywhere, please specify with links to the proper warrants and official sources telling who was behind these sites and so on.
        
        I'm fairly sure they were engaged in criminal activity but I can't see due process followed here.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Infamous Joe (profile), 22 Aug 2012 @ 12:10pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Maybe? "Maybe" is a flimsy excuse to route around the constitution. "Maybe" you've done something illegal, and deserve to lose your rights, too. Who can know? Who needs to? "Maybe" is all it takes, it seems.
        
        Turn yourself in, it will make things easier on you, criminal.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        That One Guy (profile), 22 Aug 2012 @ 9:38am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Ah, but the question is: were they illegal before the FBI had someone have a good long talk with them, maybe pointing them to a few illegal phones they could be installed on, perhaps offering them a few hours on an unsecured connection they could use...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        dennis deems, 22 Aug 2012 @ 2:09pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        ... the FBI downloaded THOUSANDS of infringing apps during their investigation.
        
        OMG, how can they live with themselves now? Filthy pirates.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Gwiz (profile), 22 Aug 2012 @ 9:29am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Law enforcement and the Court calls it "probable cause". Even the Lord High Piracy Apologist admits that there's something suspect about a website offering "free paid apps" if you join.
        
        I agree that this particular site was probably violating the law. That's not my concern here. I fear the the precedence this type of activity sets.
        
        The precedence that should be getting set is that in order for a website to get seized there should be a adversarial hearing first. Not so sure why that is such a problem.
        
        Issue an injunction to stop the activity, hold an adversarial hearing, then seize. If the defendant fails to respond to the adversarial hearing then also proceed with the seizure. Please explain exactly why is this such a hardship for the Goverment to do?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 11:04am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You and I both know that the Techdirt community wouldn't go for it. Any activity that results in the closure of a pirate site will be deemed unacceptable. This site is filled with people who think it is their duty in life to defeat Hollywood, EA, Nashville, etc. - pretty much any content creation industry that doesn't give their content away for free.
        
        If you don't want to pay the price at which something is offered, don't buy it. But don't use it either, you are not ENTITLED to take that which you didn't create, purchase or license.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gwiz (profile), 22 Aug 2012 @ 11:24am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You and I both know that the Techdirt community wouldn't go for it. Any activity that results in the closure of a pirate site will be deemed unacceptable. This site is filled with people who think it is their duty in life to defeat Hollywood, EA, Nashville, etc. - pretty much any content creation industry that doesn't give their content away for free.
        
        Most excellent broad-brush stoke there. While you are at it, why not just lump me in with those filthy Commie Liberals who want their Constitutional protections and Civil Rights preserved.
        
        If you don't want to pay the price at which something is offered, don't buy it. But don't use it either, you are not ENTITLED to take that which you didn't create, purchase or license.
        
        Are you on the right article? Tim points out the stupidity of this argument on the very next article.
        
        http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120815/18483620066/stupidity-just-go-without-argument .shtml
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Ninja (profile), 22 Aug 2012 @ 11:29am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Man, he is agreeing the site is engaging in criminal behavior (scamming ppl). It's not about entitlement to download anything. He's agreeing with the course of action he described. Are you that retard?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 4:11pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        If you don't want to pay the price at which something is offered, don't buy it. But don't use it either, you are not ENTITLED to take that which you didn't create, purchase or license.
        
        Actually, since copyright exists to serve the public domain, I think we are in fact entitled to these works. Problem is, copyright has deviated so far from its originally intended purpose, that these works will not enter the public domain until long after I'm dead. It would seem piracy is Robin Hood of the digital age.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 11:14am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Why is a website like this deserving different treatment than a pawn shop selling mostly selling stolen goods. In my state pawn shops have been seized for selling several stolen items over an extended period. I can promise you that if there was a shop selling nothing but, they wouldn't last a week before the sheriff was padlocking the doors.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gwiz (profile), 22 Aug 2012 @ 11:29am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Why is a website like this deserving different treatment than a pawn shop selling mostly selling stolen goods. In my state pawn shops have been seized for selling several stolen items over an extended period. I can promise you that if there was a shop selling nothing but, they wouldn't last a week before the sheriff was padlocking the doors.
        
        You misconstrue. I really don't care at all about these particular websites. I care about the precedence of such actions.
        
        And pawnshops rarely would involve Speech and First Amendment issues. Now if you are comparing seizing websites to seizing a printing facility, you might have a point.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 11:49am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And pawnshops rarely would involve Speech and First Amendment issues.
        
        And neither do these websites that draw visitors looking to freeload.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gwiz (profile), 22 Aug 2012 @ 12:19pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And neither do these websites that draw visitors looking to freeload.
        
        And how exactly is that determined without an adversarial hearing?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        RD, 22 Aug 2012 @ 11:32am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Why is a website like this deserving different treatment than a pawn shop selling mostly selling stolen goods. In my state pawn shops have been seized for selling several stolen items over an extended period. I can promise you that if there was a shop selling nothing but, they wouldn't last a week before the sheriff was padlocking the doors."
        
        Because a website is, first and foremost, a de-facto vehicle for speech (see any supreme court rulings on this topic). The fact that websites are *capable* of allowing media/software/files to be downloaded does not invalidate their primary function as expressive speech. If someone chooses to misuse it also does not invalidate. A determination must be made that rules out first amendment conflicts first.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 11:50am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Because a website is, first and foremost, a de-facto vehicle for speech.
        
        No it isn't.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Infamous Joe (profile), 22 Aug 2012 @ 12:11pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        [Citation needed.]
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 11:51am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I guess that you missed post #148
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Chris-Mouse (profile), 22 Aug 2012 @ 8:59am
    
    Re: Re:
    When illegal drugs are seized, they are evidence of a crime. What's more, that evidence may well disappear or be destroyed before the case ever comes to court unless seized.
    A domain name is not evidence of anything other than the fact that the server for a particular domain name is located on a computer that responds to a particular IP address. What's more, the act of seizing the domain name changes the information, thus rendering the domain name useless for any purpose.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - MrWilson, 22 Aug 2012 @ 9:22am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      The AC trolls would like to argue that seizing a domain "that has been used in the commission of a crime" is exactly like taking the truck that a drug dealer used to transport his illegal drugs.
      
      The technical reality is that they're stealing the address sign off of the mailbox and high-fiving each other for a job well done. Mission accomplished!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 9:23am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So now you are arguing that hey can simply move the site to another address? So why are you all bitching about how terrible this is, if it is so easy to move to another site?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 9:31am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Because, you flaming turd, you don't want your mailbox sign stolen over and over for no reason, it's annoying!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 22 Aug 2012 @ 9:36am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Because, even if the FBI seized something that can easily be replaced, the FBI seized something owned by someone else. A something that is not relevant to a case, won't stop the illegal activities, and is probably illegal to seize. The FBI is wasting resources on actions that do nothing except warn criminals (Assuming they are criminals).
        
        Using the incorrect illegal drugs seizure metaphor, it's like taking the address sign off the mailbox but leaving the drugs and criminals alone and un-monitored.
        
        That's why we're bitching about how terrible this is. Not that we support piracy, we just support actions that actually do something.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Rikuo (profile), 22 Aug 2012 @ 11:26am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Okay, I'm going to the FBI now, and telling them you allow downloads of movies off your site (assuming you have a website).
        Your site is now shut down, but no biggie, right? You can just set up another one, since you're obviously innocent.
        
        Oops. Guess I went to the FBI again and had them shut that site down too. And the next one. And the one after that.
        (By the way, you won't get your fair day in court)
        
        See what's happening here? Or do you need a brain transplant, so you can have a brain capable of comprehending what's going on?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 1:36pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So now you are arguing that hey can simply move the site to another address? So why are you all bitching about how terrible this is, if it is so easy to move to another site?
        
        So it's ineffective. Great law enforcement tool.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The eejit (profile), 22 Aug 2012 @ 9:07am
    
    Re: Re:
    There is a fundamental difference between tangible evidence (e.g. actual drugs) and intangible evidence (e.g. a file). A file a fundamentally 0s and 1s. the bytes are fundamentally the same. The onyl difference is what's done to them.
    
    The difference in websites is that it's not necessarily the host who is the problem. Perhaps it is the users of a site.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Gwiz (profile), 22 Aug 2012 @ 9:10am
    
    Re: Re:
    All consistent with due process.
    
    Maybe. But not all consistent with Constitutional protections. In A Quantity of Books v. Kansas the Supreme Court said that seizures involving potentially protected speech should not be seized prior to an adversarial hearing to avoid First Amendment conflicts.
    
    Why exactly is that such a problem? Have a hearing with both sides and then seize it if it's deemed appropriate.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Mike Masnick (profile), 22 Aug 2012 @ 9:16am
    
    Re: Re:
    Where is the violation of due process? Property used in the commission of a suspected crime is seized all of the time. The cops stop a guys car and find a kilo of suspected coke and $100,000 in cash you'd better believe that the car, cash and coke will all be seized. All consistent with due process.
    
    As you well know, the purpose of such seizures -- especially when it comes to any form of expression -- is solely for the purpose of preventing evidence destruction. But that's not an issue with digital content than can just be copied.
    
    You will argue that they also want to stop the activity, but that is just as easily accomplished with an injunction, which would allow the accused a chance to present a defense before the site is shut down.
    
    That would be consistent with due process. Flat out seizing a website (a form of expression) without any adversarial hearing is not due process in any sense.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 9:33am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      As you well know, the purpose of such seizures -- especially when it comes to any form of expression -- is solely for the purpose of preventing evidence destruction. But that's not an issue with digital content than can just be copied.
      
      That is absolutely not true, as has been explained many, many times in the comments. You can point to nowhere in the actual law that says it must be "solely for the purpose of preventing evidence destruction."
      
      I must assume (i.e., I know for a fact) at this point that you are intentionally misrepresenting the law. The reason the property is seized is to prevent its continued use in the suspected wrongdoing.
      
      While you're busy looking at the pretty eagles, you should be looking at the law. Remember this from Puerto 80? They can't claim "substantial hardship" if:
      
      (8) This subsection shall not apply if the seized property--
      
      (A) is contraband, currency, or other monetary instrument, or electronic funds unless such currency or other monetary instrument or electronic funds constitutes the assets of a legitimate business which has been seized
      
      (B) is to be used as evidence of a violation of the law;
      
      (C) by reason of design or other characteristic, is particularly suited for use in illegal activities; or
      
      (D) is likely to be used to commit additional criminal acts if returned to the claimant.
      
      18 U.S.C.A. � 983 (West).
      
      The fact that you're even making the "it must be for the purpose of preserving evidence only" argument at this point shows the incredible bad faith you have in discussing this stuff. It proves that you're just a pirate apologist who has no intention of ever discussing things honestly.
      
      You will argue that they also want to stop the activity, but that is just as easily accomplished with an injunction, which would allow the accused a chance to present a defense before the site is shut down.
      
      They could file suit and get an injunction. So what? I doubt many of the sites would even show up. Federal law permits seizure, and the government is using the law. Due process is not violated.
      
      That would be consistent with due process. Flat out seizing a website (a form of expression) without any adversarial hearing is not due process in any sense.
      
      That would be consistent with due process. But this is also consistent with due process. You're mixing up the First Amendment claim with the due process claim. I know you're not a lawyer, but you really sound like a total noob. And the fact that you ignore everyone who explains the actual law to you so you can continue to whine about the law being violated is just shows your bad faith and willful blindness.
      
      You're as transparent as a new pane of glass, Mike. It's obvious where your priorities lie.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 9:45am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You're doing the same thing the government did in that case. You're mixing and matching civil and criminal law while at the same time conflating the domain name itself with infringing files.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 9:49am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Please be more specific.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Ninja (profile), 22 Aug 2012 @ 11:31am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        He can't be more specific. But it seems you can be more obtuse.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Gwiz (profile), 22 Aug 2012 @ 9:52am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        As it's been stated a few times on this page - mistakes and First Amendment conflicts could easily be averted by issuing an injunction, holding an adversarial hearing and then seizing if appropriate.
        
        Why exactly are you arguing against this? For what purpose do you deem it necessary to circumvent the Constitution in these cases? What is your motivation to be opposed to this? I am asking genuine questions here because I fail to see the upside of your arguments.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Mike Masnick (profile), 22 Aug 2012 @ 10:03am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I must assume (i.e., I know for a fact) at this point that you are intentionally misrepresenting the law. The reason the property is seized is to prevent its continued use in the suspected wrongdoing.
        
        That you and I interpret the law differently does not mean that either of us are "intentionally misrepresenting the law." Of course, that you lead off with an ad hom suggests the true strength of your argument.
        
        When it comes to *expressive* content, seizure is for the purpose of evidence. Check out Marcus v. Search Warrant, A Quantity of Books v. Kansas and Heller v. NY. Those cases show that when seizing such content without a sufficient hearing, it should only be for the purpose of preserving evidence.
        
        The fact that you're even making the "it must be for the purpose of preserving evidence only" argument at this point shows the incredible bad faith you have in discussing this stuff. It proves that you're just a pirate apologist who has no intention of ever discussing things honestly.
        
        Ad hom, in ignorance of the named case law. Fascinating.
        
        You're as transparent as a new pane of glass, Mike. It's obvious where your priorities lie.
        
        Yes, with protecting due process and being concerned about over aggressive enforcement.
        
        You, on the other hand, appear to be very focused on trying to smear me by lying about me. Telling.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 10:22am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        That you and I interpret the law differently does not mean that either of us are "intentionally misrepresenting the law." Of course, that you lead off with an ad hom suggests the true strength of your argument.
        
        And the fact that you know nothing about these three sites yet will defend them at all costs shows your true self.
        
        When it comes to *expressive* content, seizure is for the purpose of evidence. Check out Marcus v. Search Warrant, A Quantity of Books v. Kansas and Heller v. NY. Those cases show that when seizing such content without a sufficient hearing, it should only be for the purpose of preserving evidence.
        
        What expressive content was on these sites, Mike? You don't know. You're just jumping to conclusions.
        
        Nor can you explain how the reasoning from obscenity cases where materials were seized without adequate determination of their illegality applies to copyright cases where the seizure of the property used to commit infringement (and not of any materials themselves) is for the purpose of subsequent forfeiture.
        
        Those cases don't apply here. Obscenity is a subjective determination that must have more safeguards because of the First Amendment aspects. Copyright enforcement is the enforcement of proprietary rights.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 10:28am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You're not seriously suggesting that copyright violation isn't a subjective determination are you?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 10:32am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Of course it's not subjective. It doesn't turn on social norms as obscenity does. No court has ever found the procedural safeguards the Court dictates are necessary in an obscenity case apply when it's the enforcement of proprietary rights like copyright. Courts *have* explicitly rejected the argument. None have ever accepted it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 10:54am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Because the only way for it to be subjective is for it to turn on social norms?
        
        Have you ever heard of Fair Use? It's a subjective determination.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 10:58am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        From the FBI release Mike linked to:
        
        During the operation, FBI agents downloaded thousands of copies of popular copyrighted mobile device apps from the alternative online markets suspected of distributing copies of apps without permission from the software developers who would otherwise sell copies of the apps on legitimate online markets for a fee.
        
        Sounds like fair use to you?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 11:00am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Which of the fair use factors is subjective, by the way? I don't see it. And you do realize that the Techdirt-accepted argument is that fair use is an *easy* determination to make, not a hard one, right?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The eejit (profile), 22 Aug 2012 @ 3:09pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        In the US, fair use doctrine does not protect you from liability. IT is merely somethign to be conisdered by a judge.
        
        If that is not subjective, then I have no idea what is.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gwiz (profile), 22 Aug 2012 @ 10:56am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You haven't answered my questions.
        
        What is your motivation for opposing adversarial hearings before seizing websites?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 22 Aug 2012 @ 10:40am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And the fact that you know nothing about these three sites yet will defend them at all costs shows your true self.
        
        It's easy to stick up for the rights of people that agree with you. But if you're sticking up for the rights of people who you disagree with, or who may be breaking the law, then it shows you care about the rights, justice, and equality under the law, and not the people involved.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 22 Aug 2012 @ 10:47am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And the fact that you know nothing about these three sites yet will defend them at all costs shows your true self.
        
        Ok. Once again, you prove that you are not here for a legitimate debate. I am not "defending them at all costs." I directly pointed out that they appeared to be doing something questionable, and I also pointed out that all I was asking for was that they be afforded an adversarial hearing first. In these very comments, I made the point that I was fine with them being stopped via injunction.
        
        Why are you such a flat out liar?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 10:53am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You are assuming that these sites were bastions of free speech, without any knowledge whatsoever that any protected speech was actually occurring there. You don't have the "look, message boards" like you do with Puerto 80.
        
        Care you explain how the obscenity cases apply here? That's a discussion that's worth having.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Ninja (profile), 22 Aug 2012 @ 11:35am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        He is not assuming anything, you just made that straw man. He is point the problem is not really the seizure but the damn lack of due process. Stop and read carefully, stop focusing on smearing Mike and you'll see you are completely wrong. The issue here is due process, no matter how guilty one seems to be EVERYBODY is entitled to due process.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 11:37am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Masnick's declaration that it is a violation of due process does not make it so. How about a case citation where a judge has held that such types of seizures violate due process. I'll be here waiting.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 11:57am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        crickets...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gwiz (profile), 22 Aug 2012 @ 2:18pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Masnick's declaration that it is a violation of due process does not make it so.
        
        Nor does you saying that it is due process make it so. And Mike isn't "declaring" anything, he is stating his opinion on his interpretation of the law. Just like you are.
        
        How about a case citation where a judge has held that such types of seizures violate due process. I'll be here waiting.
        
        Umm. None of these cases have proceeded far enough yet, Sparky. The USG only started seizing websites for copyright violations in the last year and a half or so. I believe the Rojadirecta defense team has brought up Constitutional issues, but have not had their day in court about it yet. So we all have to wait and see.
        
        The Rojadirecta defense is also claiming that the DOJ is conflating criminal and civil copyright infringement in order to justify the seizure in the first place.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 3:10pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Nor does you saying that it is due process make it so. And Mike isn't "declaring" anything, he is stating his opinion on his interpretation of the law. Just like you are.
        
        Where's the argument that it violates due process? I see him whining about his misunderstandings of prior restraint. Gee, Gwiz, if he doesn't even know the difference between the two, maybe he doesn't know what he's talking about.
        
        Typical Techdirt idiocy. Mike, working backwards, declares the seizures violative of due process. When called out, he spouts First Amendment doctrine. And idiots like you drink it up. Classic.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 Aug 2012 @ 11:08am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I think things are too bright for you out here. Go back into your dark hole and maybe your vision might clear up.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 22 Aug 2012 @ 12:45pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You are assuming that these sites were bastions of free speech, without any knowledge whatsoever that any protected speech was actually occurring there.
        
        I never said they were "bastions of free speech" just like I don't believe that porn producers are bastions of free speech. Unlike you, however, I recognize that even people we dislike and speech we dislike, gets protected under the law.
        
        That you feel that it's okay to wipe away a certain type of speech because you don't like it, well that says an awful lot about you, none of which is good.
        
        Care you explain how the obscenity cases apply here? That's a discussion that's worth having.
        
        You're falsely narrowing it down to "obscenity." The point of the cases is that if there is expressive content involved, then the higher barrier applies. A website is expressive content. Yes, there may be infringing content on there and that infringing content is not protected -- we agree on that -- but that doesn't mean there isn't protected speech at issue, and that speech requires the higher bar.
        
        In the meantime, you still haven't explained why you continue to lie about me and smear my name falsely? Why are you such a liar?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 1:03pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Only a sociopath like yourself would go around hypocritically calling people liars.
        
        A website can't engage in some free speech and then use that as teflon against massive amounts of lawbreaking.
        
        And you're a buffoon for suggesting such.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gwiz (profile), 22 Aug 2012 @ 1:24pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        A website can't engage in some free speech and then use that as teflon against massive amounts of lawbreaking.
        
        Show me where anyone is making this argument.
        
        Can you explain why you are so dead-set against having an adversarial hearing prior to seizure?
        
        If the site is blatantly violating the law, then it should be a slam-dunk case to prove in an adversarial hearing and then the speech is declared unprotected. Then it's a win-win for everyone - the illegal site gets taken down in the end AND everyone's Constitutional protections are preserved.
        
        I really don't understand why you would argue against this. It baffles me.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 3:21pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I got a ticket and the cop took my license. I demand an adversial hearing.
        
        Oh wait, no I don't, because I understand what due process is and I'm not a complete fucking idiot like you are.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 4:09pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        When does that happen? When you are "ticketed" for wreckless driving or DUI or the license is expired. They don't take your license for running a stop sign unless you have warrants out or are obviously a danger on the road. They'll take your car too, since you can't be trusted to drive it.
        
        Even then, you have a right to a hearing. You just gotta take the bus.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 22 Aug 2012 @ 4:06pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        A website can't engage in some free speech and then use that as teflon against massive amounts of lawbreaking.
        
        Sometimes I wonder if the usual crew of critics can even read basic English.
        
        Okay, let's make this simple: show me where I said that the free speech argument was a complete shield against legal action?
        
        You can't, because I never said, nor suggested that. In this very thread I made it clear that the sites look questionable and explained what I would argue is the more appropriate legal process for taking them down.
        
        And you interpret that to mean that I'm saying they can hide all their activities behind the First Amendment.
        
        And you think I'm the one who's sociopathic? Holy fuck.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 4:22pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        In this very thread I made it clear that the sites look questionable and explained what I would argue is the more appropriate legal process for taking them down.
        
        You don't have enough information to say if the sites are illegal, but you then argue that it violates due process and is a prior restraint. Funny how your lack of information doesn't stop you from deciding that it's unconstitutional. Almost like you're just working backwards. LMAO! You clearly are just defending pirates, which is all that you ever do. Just because you admit that the site my be illegal doesn't mean that you're not at the same time defending them. You're way more obvious than you apparently think you are.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 4:27pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And you do realize too that if the seizures were prior restraints (which they're not), then a preliminary injunction would be a restraint too (which it's also not). Funny thing is, the Copyright Act permits preliminary injunctive relief. Funny that. If enforcement of copyright implicated the First Amendment, like you erroneously say it does as in the obscenity cases, then preliminary injunctions would be prior restraints. Fact is though, such injunctions happen all the time as a matter of course, and it's not a prior restraint.
        
        Oh look, more case law:
        Following the logic in Arcara, forfeiture may be ordered for assets used in, to promote, or obtained from a criminal violation, whether or not these assets "incidentally" happen to include expressive materials. Under such logic, the forfeiture is not "prior restraint."
        Am. Library Ass'n v. Thornburgh, 713 F. Supp. 469, 486-87 (D.D.C. 1989).
        
        Weird. It's almost like I've researched the shit of this and have a Word document with tons of cites ready to go.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 6:55pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Okay, let's make this simple: show me where I said that the free speech argument was a complete shield against legal action?"
        
        Let's go back to the seizure of the rap music "blogs" that appeared mostly to copyright cesspools, full of "user submitted content" and other fine stuff.
        
        Your arguments there were that there was a lot of free speech being stopped, so seizing of the sites was too much. You were certainly saying there that the amount of free speech stopped was excessive compared to the unproven amount of copyright violations.
        
        Your point there was pretty much until the court case had gone through and the copyright violations 100% proven, that there should be no seizure.
        
        There is no right in the constitution to continue to operate an illegal business.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 3:01pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I never said they were "bastions of free speech" just like I don't believe that porn producers are bastions of free speech. Unlike you, however, I recognize that even people we dislike and speech we dislike, gets protected under the law.
        
        And you don't know that there was any protected speech on those sites. As I said, you can't point to the message boards like you can with Puerto 80. You just jumped to that conclusion based on no evidence.
        
        That you feel that it's okay to wipe away a certain type of speech because you don't like it, well that says an awful lot about you, none of which is good.
        
        LMAO! I know you're just writing this stuff to save face with your readers, but c'mon, really? I appreciate free speech and all the other laws more than you do. And again, what speech was on these sites that was protected? Oh yeah, you don't know. You just jumped to that conclusion. Unlike you, I need facts.
        
        You're falsely narrowing it down to "obscenity." The point of the cases is that if there is expressive content involved, then the higher barrier applies. A website is expressive content. Yes, there may be infringing content on there and that infringing content is not protected -- we agree on that -- but that doesn't mean there isn't protected speech at issue, and that speech requires the higher bar.
        
        You are such a noob when it comes to constitutional law. OMG. You *really* don't understand these doctrines at all. You cited three cases, all of them obscenity cases. The logic in those cases doesn't apply when it's IP, because, as I said, enforcing proprietary rights is different. Yes, a website can have expressive content. It can even have protected expression. So what? You haven't shown why the procedural safeguards that are needed when it's obscenity apply when it's IP. I quoted a case that says prior restraint isn't in play when it's IP. Shall I quote the Lemley/Volokh article again and run through the arguments again? You don't ever listen, so what's the point? You just do what you always do and start with your conclusion (unconstitutional!) and work backwards from there.
        
        In the meantime, you still haven't explained why you continue to lie about me and smear my name falsely? Why are you such a liar?
        
        And why are you such a dishonest twit? Why don't you explain how due process has been violated? And perhaps don't change the subject to the First Amendment next time. Do you not know the difference between prior restraint and due process? You're just a total noob with this stuff, and we all know that you'll end on "unconstitutional" no matter what. It's hilarious. What a fucking idiot.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 3:35pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Poor Masnick, getting punked again.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 22 Aug 2012 @ 4:24pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Once again, just because you *disagree* with my opinion, it does not make me dishonest. But, keep flinging the ad homs. It shows everyone here that you have no argument but to throw around personal insults.
        
        Is that what they teach you at that third tier law school of yours? When you've lost the argument, insult those who know better than you? Ask for your money back then.
        
        And you don't know that there was any protected speech on those sites.
        
        It's a *website*. There is speech on the website: it's called the content on the website. Websites *are* expressive.
        
        I appreciate free speech and all the other laws more than you do.
        
        And yet you have no problem shutting down websites with no adversarial hearing. You have no respect for free speech.
        
        OMG
        
        Oh great, I'm debating a 12 year old.
        
        You cited three cases, all of them obscenity cases.
        
        All of which deal with the bar needed for expressive content. And you know that. Or, again, your law school has failed you.
        
        The logic in those cases doesn't apply when it's IP,
        
        Changing the argument. We're not talking about *THE IP INFRINGING CONTENT* but the *EXPRESSIVE CONTENT ON THE SITE*.
        
        Yes, a website can have expressive content. It can even have protected expression. So what?
        
        So, you need to reach a higher bar before seizing it. Otherwise you get massive fuckups like Dajaz1. That you would support such a thing is disgusting.
        
        I quoted a case that says prior restraint isn't in play when it's IP.
        
        And again, you pretend we're only discussing IP. Because you're not very good at the law.
        
        And why are you such a dishonest twit?
        
        My *opinion* that you don't know what you're talking about does not make me "dishonest." It means I have a different opinion than you. Normal thinking people comprehend basic English. You don't.
        
        Why don't you explain how due process has been violated?
        
        If you don't understand it, you have no business commenting here. You have demonstrated a complete lack of comprehension of the issues as explained by many commenters above.
        
        Keep flailing.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 4:28pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Why don't you explain how due process has been violated?"
        
        If you don't understand it, you have no business commenting here. You have demonstrated a complete lack of comprehension of the issues as explained by many commenters above.
        
        No answer, huh Masnick?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 4:35pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Of course he has no answer. It's his third-grader if-you-don't-understand-it-then-you're-an-idiot response. HILARIOUS!
        
        I'm ready to dig into the case law on due process too. Clearly Mike is not. Too bad, I've got a whole Word document with cites for that as well.
        
        What a noob.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 4:37pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I'm sure he's waiting for Karl to come to his rescue--again. LOL!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 22 Aug 2012 @ 5:48pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Ah, great. Now we reach the point at which the clueless pretend that we haven't answered the questions we've already answered. That's the point where it's clear they've completely lost it.
        
        Flail, flail, flail.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 11:53pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It's because you didn't answer their question, except to say that they wouldn't understand anyway. Talking down to people is one of your truly bad habits.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        bratwurzt (profile), 23 Aug 2012 @ 1:59am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Are you kidding me? He answered it and you didn't like it.
        
        Answer was: Website got shut down with no adversarial hearing for a year.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 4:31pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        OMG, ROFLMAO! When you start insulting my education, I know you have nothing. Funny how you haven't addressed any of my legal points, nor have you shown even a basic understanding of constitutional law. You're confused about which Amendment you're even arguing. It's hilarious.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 22 Aug 2012 @ 5:54pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        OMG, ROFLMAO! When you start insulting my education, I know you have nothing.
        
        Oh, I should follow in your footsteps and start each comment with twelve year old slang, followed by telling you to "fuck off and die" and accuse you of being a "slimey fuck"
        
        Oh, I forgot: that's how you argue.
        
        Look: we disagree on our interpretations. Fair enough. I think you don't know what you're talking about and I've explained why.
        
        You think I don't know what I'm talking about and your response is to throw a temper tantrum.
        
        We'll see what the courts decide. Remember when you threw a temper tantrum insisting Righthaven was legit? Yeah. Good times.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 6:01pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Hey Masnick!!! How do your friends at Google and developer buddies feel about this? Obviously, since you and your flock of parrots believe that these seizures are only done at the behest of the corporate beneficiaries- I can only conclude that Google and/or Android software developers were the force behind these seizures. How ironic, some of the mightiest forces aligned against SOPA are now going to the FBI to protect their intellectual property by seizing websites. Weren't these the guys wringing their hands about censorship just 7 months ago? I guess they think it's not censorship when the website is trafficking in their product.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        bratwurzt (profile), 23 Aug 2012 @ 2:02am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        wow... this argument is so full of logical fallacies that I thought it's taken from conservapedia.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 Aug 2012 @ 5:18am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Really? every time there's a seizure or enforcement action there are scores of claims that it is done at the behest (if not direction) of the companies whose copyrighted products are being pirated. Why is this situation any different?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        bratwurzt (profile), 23 Aug 2012 @ 6:10am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yes. Really. Oh, you meant it as a rhetorical question? Too bad - not going to feed the troll with explaining his own logical fallacies.
        
        "Why is this situation any different?"
        
        I don't know - maybe because google does not own any copyrights on android apps? link to my comment
        
        Also problems with SOPA were elsewhere - hindering free speech among others.
        
        Just because irony is hard to grasp you shouldn't use it whenever you want to be seen as smart. Doesn't work that way - it is actually counterproductive.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 Aug 2012 @ 1:15pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Ummm... I'm not sure about the copyright angle but clearly they have a financial interest as many of the apps are offered for a fee on Google Play.
        
        http://www.informationweek.com/government/policy/android-app-piracy-leads-feds-to-seize-w/240006 013
        
        "Google has tried to limit the unauthorized copying of Android apps through the introduction of its Android licensing service in 2010 and its implementation of device-specific encryption for paid apps sold through Google Play in June. In July, author Godfrey Nolan said Google needs to extend encryption to all Android apps due to the ease with which they can be decompiled. "
        
        Also problems with SOPA were elsewhere - hindering free speech among others.
        
        Really? You're saying there are no free speech issues in seizing these Android app sites? Glad to hear it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        bratwurzt (profile), 24 Aug 2012 @ 12:14am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Of course developers have financial interest as does google. Aaand in a true troll fashiion you haven't shown the whole picture, have you?
        
        http://blog.gsmarena.com/google-disables-jelly-bean-app-encryption-after-issues-with-several -paid-apps/
        
        http://www.androidpolice.com/2012/08/08/jelly-bean-app-encryption-breaks-thousands-of -apps-in-the-play-store-google-disables-drm-for-now/
        
        Really? You're saying there are no free speech issues in seizing these Android app sites? Glad to hear it.
        
        No, I'm not - how did you jump to that conclusion? You do understand that it's harder to troll here than youtube? People that read the comments of this blog have a brain and they use it. Try it sometime.
        
        Any website is speech. I know you understand that but shills will be shills.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Wally (profile), 23 Aug 2012 @ 6:39am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I am a moderate conservative and my wife is all out conservative so here is a message from her:
        
        " I see gaps in that AC's logic :-) My husband calls it Bat Shit Crazy."
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 7:44pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You haven't explained anything, Mike. If you ever want to talk about the actual law, you let me know. We'll use big-boy cites and everything.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Wally (profile), 22 Aug 2012 @ 8:30pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Translation "Derp derp derp derp derp Pirate Mike derp derp derp derp".
        
        He has explained it quite clearly. Shut up before you get ahead of yours....no it is too late, you're ahead of yourself keep on derping to invalidate you're argument.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 Aug 2012 @ 6:44am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "We'll see what the courts decide. Remember when you threw a temper tantrum insisting Righthaven was legit? Yeah. Good times."
        
        Actually, what is funny here is that you have confused a bunch of different AC posters as this one, and you are tilting at windmills as a result. It's rare to see you lose your cool like this.
        
        As for the quote, perhaps you should do that too, wait for the courts to decide. For the moment, things appear to be legal because nobody is in front of a judge trying to get relief.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 Aug 2012 @ 7:58am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Actually, what is funny here is that you have confused a bunch of different AC posters as this one, and you are tilting at windmills as a result. It's rare to see you lose your cool like this.
        
        I have a magical way of getting under his skin and pushing his buttons. Too fun.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gwiz (profile), 23 Aug 2012 @ 10:14am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Actually, what is funny here is that you have confused a bunch of different AC posters as this one,...
        
        Well maybe if these AC's had stones enough to at least use a consistent handle that wouldn't happen.
        
        But, alas, I know that's not gonna happen either. They are wussies who are too chickshit to have their past comments used against them.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 4:33pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So, for the record, you refuse to explain your due process argument. Hilarious. Try not to talk about the First Amendment next time you cite due process. It only makes you look like an idiotic noob. LMFAO ROFLMAO!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Cory of PC (profile), 23 Aug 2012 @ 11:15am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I'm now wondering who's the bigger "noob" here: a random AC using slang, or the more mature owner of a tech blog?
        
        My brain hurts from trying to figure out the missing logic in these idiotic claims.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 5:00pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Oh look, even more case law:
        Defendants argue that this injunction is overly broad and represents an unconstitutional prior restraint on freedom of the press. We have repeatedly rejected First Amendment challenges to injunctions from copyright infringement on the ground that First Amendment concerns are protected by and coextensive with the fair use doctrine. See Twin Peaks, 996 F.2d at 1378; New Era Pubs. Int'l, ApS v. Henry Holt & Co., 873 F.2d 576, 584 (2d Cir.1989) (�[T]he fair use doctrine encompasses all claims of first amendment in the copyright field.�); Wainwright, 558 F.2d at 95 (�Conflicts between interests protected by the first amendment and the copyright laws thus far have been *75 resolved by application of the fair use doctrine.�). We have already determined that, as to the copyright claim, Comline's infringing abstracts were not fair uses of the Nikkei articles, and accordingly we reject defendants' First Amendment challenge.
        Nihon Keizai Shimbun, Inc. v. Comline Bus. Data, Inc., 166 F.3d 65, 74-75 (2d Cir. 1999).
        
        It's almost like I have a law degree and you don't. It's almost like I know what I'm talking about and you can't tell the difference between the First and Fifth Amendments. Tell me again how you're the law stud and I'm an idiot. Weird! Why so quiet, Mike? I can't wait to hear your due process argument. Can't wait. Trust me, I'll understand whatever you say. LOL! Do you really believe that anyone believes you don't want to talk about it because *I'm* too dumb to understand? What a cop out. Obviously you don't want me to school you on that as well. You're a one-trick pony, Mike. And dishonest as the day is long.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 5:31pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        We have repeatedly rejected First Amendment challenges to injunctions from copyright infringement on the ground that First Amendment concerns are protected by and coextensive with the fair use doctrine. See Twin Peaks, 996 F.2d at 1378; New Era Pubs. Int'l, ApS v. Henry Holt & Co., 873 F.2d 576, 584 (2d Cir.1989) (�[T]he fair use doctrine encompasses all claims of first amendment in the copyright field.�); Wainwright, 558 F.2d at 95 (�Conflicts between interests protected by the first amendment and the copyright laws thus far have been *75 resolved by application of the fair use doctrine.�).
        
        That's the second circuit in 1999 making the exact same mistake that Justice Ginsburg pointed out in Eldred (2003):
        
        We recognize that the D. C. Circuit spoke too broadly when it declared copyrights "categorically immune from challenges under the First Amendment." 239 F. 3d, at 375.
        
        Copyright law is not categorically immune to first amendment challenge. The second circuit is overruled.
        
        Now Justice Ginsbug did go on to say that when Congress has not altered the traditional contours of copyright, then further first amendment scrutiny is unneccessary.
        
        But these domain seizures are not within the traditional contours of copyright.
        
        First, the domain name system is relatively new: The courts must carefully scrutinize the application of copyright law to this new technology.
        
        Second, the seizure of a domain name is not at all like an injunction against an allegedly infringing item. The government can point to no substantial similiarity between the accused domain name and whatever works may have been infringed. The government does even allege that accused domain name is a �copy� of some other name.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 7:40pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        That's the second circuit in 1999 making the exact same mistake that Justice Ginsburg pointed out in Eldred (2003):
        
        We recognize that the D. C. Circuit spoke too broadly when it declared copyrights "categorically immune from challenges under the First Amendment." 239 F. 3d, at 375.
        
        Not at all. The D.C. Circuit said that copyright was immune from First Amendment challenges. The 2d Cir., on the other hand, is clearly recognizing that fair use limits copyright, i.e., that copyright is *not* immune to First Amendment challenges. So you completely misunderstand the point. Nor is that even relevant here because fair use (nor the idea/expression dichotomy) is in play. Unless either of those two are present, the First Amendment is not invoked. And under Techdirt-approved logic, fair use (or lack thereof) is simple to determine.
        
        Copyright law is not categorically immune to first amendment challenge. The second circuit is overruled.
        
        Nope. The Supreme Court agreed that fair use limits copyright. 2d Cir. affirmed on the point.
        
        Now Justice Ginsbug did go on to say that when Congress has not altered the traditional contours of copyright, then further first amendment scrutiny is unneccessary.
        
        But these domain seizures are not within the traditional contours of copyright.
        
        First, the domain name system is relatively new: The courts must carefully scrutinize the application of copyright law to this new technology.
        
        Second, the seizure of a domain name is not at all like an injunction against an allegedly infringing item. The government can point to no substantial similiarity between the accused domain name and whatever works may have been infringed. The government does even allege that accused domain name is a �copy� of some other name.
        
        The traditional contours are simply fair use and the idea/expression dichotomy, neither of which is applicable here. You might want to reread Eldred and Golan, since you don't appear to know what the traditional contours are.
        
        And you seem to misunderstand that the domain names aren't being seized because they are infringing. They are being seized because they are the instrumentality of infringement. That's partly why the comparison to the seizure of allegedly obscene materials fails. It's not the seizure of materials, it's the seizure of property used to facilitate infringement. A better analogy to obscenity would be to say it's the seizure of the presses used to print obscenity, not the obscene materials themselves. It's an instrumentality.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 6:45pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "I never said they were "bastions of free speech" just like I don't believe that porn producers are bastions of free speech. Unlike you, however, I recognize that even people we dislike and speech we dislike, gets protected under the law."
        
        Yet, you are faced with the courts, which have ruled before that some free speech may get hurt in the process of stopping illegal or unprotected speech from occurring.
        
        Let's use an example. A literary work, perhaps a great novel or a political opinion, 100 pages long, printed as a book. If that book contained a child porn image every 5 pages, would you think that the books should be seized before trial, or should they be left on sale? What if there was only one image, and it was "questionable"? Where do you draw the line?
        
        Clearly, seizing the material before a court case and stopping the sale would occur, even though there is an incredibly huge amount of free speech being stopped.
        
        "You're falsely narrowing it down to "obscenity." "
        
        Actually, what he is doing it showing you why things happen that you don't like. You may not like sites that are profiting from piracy being shut down, but honestly, what are the options? Leaving the site open means that the illegal acts continue unabated, which flies in the face of common sense.
        
        We do not arrest drug dealers and let them keep their crack and money for now, until they are found guilty. We arrest them, we seize their property (seemingly illegal, but not truly so until proven in court) and they are either detained until trial or bailed out on restrictive terms. We don't just let them walk until we have a conviction.
        
        When you pay attention to the criminal side (rather than civil side) cases, you would understand that seizure before judgement, the sealing of businesses, and the like are NOT unusual. Someone selling counterfeit DVDs at a flea market is very likely to have their entire inventory seized, as well as potentially the car used to transport them, the bags, and the like, and all held until the trial is completed. That can take years.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 6:48pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "I never said they were "bastions of free speech" just like I don't believe that porn producers are bastions of free speech. Unlike you, however, I recognize that even people we dislike and speech we dislike, gets protected under the law."
        
        Yet, you are faced with the courts, which have ruled before that some free speech may get hurt in the process of stopping illegal or unprotected speech from occurring.
        
        Let's use an example. A literary work, perhaps a great novel or a political opinion, 100 pages long, printed as a book. If that book contained a child porn image every 5 pages, would you think that the books should be seized before trial, or should they be left on sale? What if there was only one image, and it was "questionable"? Where do you draw the line?
        
        Clearly, seizing the material before a court case and stopping the sale would occur, even though there is an incredibly huge amount of free speech being stopped.
        
        "You're falsely narrowing it down to "obscenity." "
        
        Actually, what he is doing it showing you why things happen that you don't like. You may not like sites that are profiting from piracy being shut down, but honestly, what are the options? Leaving the site open means that the illegal acts continue unabated, which flies in the face of common sense.
        
        We do not arrest drug dealers and let them keep their crack and money for now, until they are found guilty. We arrest them, we seize their property (seemingly illegal, but not truly so until proven in court) and they are either detained until trial or bailed out on restrictive terms. We don't just let them walk until we have a conviction.
        
        When you pay attention to the criminal side (rather than civil side) cases, you would understand that seizure before judgement, the sealing of businesses, and the like are NOT unusual. Someone selling counterfeit DVDs at a flea market is very likely to have their entire inventory seized, as well as potentially the car used to transport them, the bags, and the like, and all held until the trial is completed. That can take years.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 6:48pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "I never said they were "bastions of free speech" just like I don't believe that porn producers are bastions of free speech. Unlike you, however, I recognize that even people we dislike and speech we dislike, gets protected under the law."
        
        Yet, you are faced with the courts, which have ruled before that some free speech may get hurt in the process of stopping illegal or unprotected speech from occurring.
        
        Let's use an example. A literary work, perhaps a great novel or a political opinion, 100 pages long, printed as a book. If that book contained a child porn image every 5 pages, would you think that the books should be seized before trial, or should they be left on sale? What if there was only one image, and it was "questionable"? Where do you draw the line?
        
        Clearly, seizing the material before a court case and stopping the sale would occur, even though there is an incredibly huge amount of free speech being stopped.
        
        "You're falsely narrowing it down to "obscenity." "
        
        Actually, what he is doing it showing you why things happen that you don't like. You may not like sites that are profiting from piracy being shut down, but honestly, what are the options? Leaving the site open means that the illegal acts continue unabated, which flies in the face of common sense.
        
        We do not arrest drug dealers and let them keep their crack and money for now, until they are found guilty. We arrest them, we seize their property (seemingly illegal, but not truly so until proven in court) and they are either detained until trial or bailed out on restrictive terms. We don't just let them walk until we have a conviction.
        
        When you pay attention to the criminal side (rather than civil side) cases, you would understand that seizure before judgement, the sealing of businesses, and the like are NOT unusual. Someone selling counterfeit DVDs at a flea market is very likely to have their entire inventory seized, as well as potentially the car used to transport them, the bags, and the like, and all held until the trial is completed. That can take years.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 Aug 2012 @ 2:45pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "I may disagree with what you say, but I respect your right to be punished for it." is a quote on my boss's wall....
        
        which is a knock-off from the more common, "I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to my death your right to say it."
        
        It's easy to stand up for things we believe in, it's more difficult to stand up for principles when we know the other party 'MAY' 'ALLEGEDLY' be guilty of some crime...
        
        Government Censorship and making citizens 'criminals' for common activities (sharing things we purchased) are the first steps down the slippery slope....
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Wally, 22 Aug 2012 @ 6:31pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I give you my legitimate use of a comment where I am simply trying to be on the same page as you are my dear sir. The following is not at all meant for ammunition towards you, I just want to be on the same page.
        
        Before I remotely start on my comment I would like to add that there has been so much arguing and bickering and trolling that my iPod (which is iPhone 4 equivalent without cellular antenna, GPS or any vibrating parts) keeps crashing its web browser due to the huge response over the article. I am forced to use my computer so good luck to all with my grammar...at least my spelling will be correct.
        
        I am not here to call you out, I just want to see if we are on the same page. I understand in full your views on this matter but I ask that you please hear me out if you can. I am just looking for some common ground as i have with other writers and users of TechDirt. My other intent is that you have an alternative point of view. While it will seem like at times what I am about to say may seem like I am trying to troll you, my only intent is to give you an alternate perspective...so I do agree with some things you say, just not on the whole.
        
        Mike, the article is good. I agree with most of it. It exposes injustices of the DOJ and the FBI quite well. However, I am certain in my mind that the take down of Applanet was legitimate.
        
        Why those DoubleMySpeed websites haven't been taken out is beyond me though....onward to my point....
        
        When the FBI and the DOJ are alone in the take-down of a website, it is usually for consumer fraud. I did some digging about in regards to Applanet to find that the apps being sold were not only NOT getting the money earned to the creators of those works, they were distributing older versions of the software being sold as "up to date" compared to Google Play. Amongst those files were apps that had been pulled from Google Play that had caused viruses to be spread around.
        
        While I am all for alternate methods of content distribution and/or sales (GoodOldGames, Steam, Macintosh Garden (Free legacy Abandoned Mac OS software/games))even if you have to use Bit-Torrent to get the content (OCremix.org), I do not think it is right to not pay developers of Apps of their earnings or creative works....Google Play and iTunes alike...when there is a price on the item at hand. Applanet made no such contributions to the developers.
        
        The first smoking gun I saw on the Applanet page was the PayPal Button, which is almost ALWAYS consistent on almost EVERY page i have seen the icon on. I have never seen the Word Donate in Droid font below the word "PayPal" or any associating fonts but the one default PayPal always uses with their icon.
        
        Second Smoking Gun was this text:
        "Access Paid Apps for FREE!
        
        Applanet's massive database contains more than 14,000 Android applications. You have access to the latest version of both free and paid applications found in the Android Market and even some you can't find and will not need to pay for anything! Applanet is your one-stop alternative app market."
        
        Think about how it was worded. "You have access to the latest version of both paid and free applications on the market"
        Given the site's "Donation" button and that wording, they use the money to buy ONE copy of the app and distribute it many times to make it "free" and "you don't pay a thing".
        
        http://web.archive.org/web/20110629034336/http://www.applanet.net/
        
        Then we have the consumer fraud side of things (which I believe the ICE was not involved in the take-down of this website) where i managed to find a complaint here:
        
        http://www.droidxforums.com/forum/droid-x-general-discussion/11265-do-not-use-app-applanet. html
        
        and here:
        http://androidforums.com/android-lounge/310926-applanet-net-legit-no.html
        
        So to review for everyone else what I just wrote:
        They take your money through "Donations" and are not claiming not-for-proffit.
        They buy one App and distribute many times as well as claim it to be up to date and the developers don't see a dime of their work.
        Has an illegitimate donation button From PayPal where the wording, the font, and the icon are all completely different from the usual PayPal donation button.
        
        That screams more of illegitimate use and distribution more than it does piracy.
        
        Mike, I think you for your time.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 12:44pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Obscenity is a subjective determination that must have more safeguards because of the First Amendment aspects.
        
        The most famous prior restraint case on the books was not about obscenity at all.
        
        In New York Times v United States (1971) the government sought a prior restraint prohibiting �New York Times and the Washington Post from publishing the contents of a classified study entitled �History of U. S. Decision-Making Process on Viet Nam Policy.�� That was a national security issue.
        
        Nevertheless, in the court's per curiam opinion:
        
        "Any system of prior restraints of expression comes to this Court bearing a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity." Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan (1963); see also Near v. Minnesota (1931). The Government "thus carries a heavy burden of showing justification for the imposition of such a restraint." Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe (1971).
        
        The first amendment bar against prior restraints runs much deeper than just obscenity.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 1:50pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The first amendment bar against prior restraints runs much deeper than just obscenity.
        
        It does. Mike cited the obscenity cases, so that's the point I addressed. Those cases say there are extra procedural protections that are necessary. None of the reasoning that applies in those obscenity cases applies when it's copyright. Mike doesn't understand this.
        
        What's more, these seizures aren't "restraints" to begin with though, since there is no injunction and there is no licensing scheme. A piece of property has been seized so it can be forfeited. The owners are free to say whatever they want--there is no restraint.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 3:00pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        ... these seizures aren't "restraints" to begin with though, since there is no injunction and there is no licensing scheme.
        
        Alexander v United States (1993) is considered one of the better expositions of modern prior restraint law. In Alexander, Chief Justice Rehnquist recites a litany of prior restraint cases, and places among those both Marcus v Search Warrant ((1961) and Quantity of Books v Kansas (1964).
        
        The constitutional infirmity in nearly all of our prior restraint cases...
        
        Marcus v Search Warrant was a seizure case.
        
        This appeal presents the question whether due process under the Fourteenth Amendment was denied the appellants by the application in this case of Missouri's procedures authorizing the search for and seizure...
        
        (Emphasis added.)
        
        Quantity of Books v Kansas was also a seizure case.
        
        Under a Kansas statute authorizing the seizure...
        
        (Emphasis added.)
        
        Prior restraint cases are not limited to just injunctions. Indeed, in Marcus, Mr Justice Brennan teaches:
        
        The use by government of the power of search and seizure as an adjunct to a system for the suppression of objectionable publications is not new. Historically the struggle for freedom of speech and press in England was bound up with the issue of the scope of the search and seizure power.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 3:13pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Snorezville, dude. Yes, prior restraints are bad. These aren't restraints. What speech is being restrained (i.e., enjoined or subject to a licensing scheme)? None. Piece of property used for crime got seized. That's not a restraint on speech, even if the property is used for speech. They can say whatever they want, they just can't used this particular piece of property. And you're looking at the obscenity cases just like Mike. And of course, just like Mike, you don't apparently understand the *reasoning* of why prior restraints are an issue there. That reasoning doesn't apply when it's IP.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 22 Aug 2012 @ 5:57pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Snorezville, dude.
        
        Someone demonstrates that you don't know what you're talking about, and that's your response. You're such a winner.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Wally (profile), 22 Aug 2012 @ 7:41pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Mike, I think you're feeding the problem when you respond to a few of those particular AC's....let alone like that. Best thing to do is just hit the report button and move on. It doesn't help to feed a sock puppet/bot/troll more reason or logic because they will just use it as ammo to learn more of our human language.
        
        Stay cool :-) im on your side.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 7:52pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Best thing to do is just hit the report button and move on.
        
        Techdirt in a nutshell. You don't like what someone says or if you don't agree with it, report it and move on. Whatever you do, don't engage that person or try and understand their point of view. Report it! You fit right in, Wally.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Wally (profile), 22 Aug 2012 @ 8:22pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Techdirt in a nutshell. You don't like what someone says or if you don't agree with it, report it and move on. Whatever you do, don't engage that person or try and understand their point of view. Report it! You fit right in, Wally."
        
        I find it hilariuosly ironic that you complain of people reporting you and your
        sock puppets because all you ever do is harass and claim it a valid
        argument. I disagree with Mike at times
        but that does not mean I constantly hound him. I try to at least
        give a logical, well thought out, quick to the point argument counterpoints.
        All I ever see in your comments to Mike are:
        "Derp derp derp derp derp pirate Mike derp derp derp
        copyright law your view is wrong I'm right because
        derp derp derp derp."
        
        Get off your high horse. You're nothing but a troll.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 22 Aug 2012 @ 8:24pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Mike, I think you're feeding the problem when you respond to a few of those particular AC's
        
        It was a little experiment. I wanted to see how they acted if I responded *exactly* the way they do. I even tried to mimic some of their exact language choices. And they flipped out.
        
        They have no self-recognition.
        
        Anyway.
        
        Point proven.
        
        Sorry, though for mucking up the comments. It was a "controlled" explosion to see what would happen and it confirmed a few theories.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Wally, 22 Aug 2012 @ 8:36pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No trouble at all :-) Sometimes controlled fires sometimes fun because we can see how thin and long the posts get. *thinking face* I wonder how long it would take to get 1 character per row in a set of replies....
        
        "It was a little experiment. I wanted to see how they acted if I responded *exactly* the way they do. I even tried to mimic some of their exact language choices. And they flipped out."
        
        I've grown to appreciate the irony in it :-)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        bratwurzt (profile), 23 Aug 2012 @ 2:45am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I love experiments with trolls! I made a java program that takes comments of x posts from techdirt (I keep x low and save data to disk afterwards to keep traffic strain low) and tried to do sentiment analysis/opinion mining on anonymous ones. Not there yet but getting closer. If you're interested I could post code to github.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 Aug 2012 @ 4:28am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Wow. You really are just pandering to the masses and you have no intention of discussing the actual law. I'm realizing now it's because you don't understand it.
        
        I use to think you were just evil, but now I see you're just dumb. It's all making sense to me now.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Cory of PC (profile), 23 Aug 2012 @ 11:28am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I'm sorry, but when a troll makes sense, we got problems.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Ninja (profile), 23 Aug 2012 @ 4:32am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I thought it was weird from you. But It was a pretty interesting experiment. There's no end to their torllish behavior. The best course is indeed to ignore. But still, the replies to their clueless comments were too damn enlightening. So in the end while it may clutter the comments there are times we should go along with the trolling. I left this discussion with much more knowledge.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        nathandog0$2yshoo.com, 24 Aug 2012 @ 12:41pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "But still, the replies to their clueless comments were too damn enlightening."
        
        And a few quite entertaining insults as responses to the trolls as well ^_^
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 Aug 2012 @ 7:20am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Sorry, though for mucking up the comments. It was a "controlled" explosion to see what would happen and it confirmed a few theories."
        
        I think the only theory you confirmed is that you lost it, got childish about it, and now you are trying to shake if off by saying "I planned that".
        
        Sad, sad, sad.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Infamous Joe (profile), 23 Aug 2012 @ 7:32am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Objection; Conjecture.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 Aug 2012 @ 11:18am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Objection; Conjecture."
        
        it's why I started with "I think". Only Mike knows for sure, and at this point, he seems to be working really, really hard to cover for what was clearly a major blowup.
        
        The funny part? He still didn't address the points, he just glossed over them and then blandly said "the courts will decide".
        
        This goes down as a truly classic thread. Mike finally lost it and actually showed a bit of his true colors, enough that it even disturbed the sheeple!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 Aug 2012 @ 7:58am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I think the only theory you confirmed is that you lost it, got childish about it, and now you are trying to shake if off by saying "I planned that".
        
        Exactly. This is one of my favorite threads of all time. Mike couldn't look any stupider.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Cory of PC (profile), 23 Aug 2012 @ 11:27am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I... How... *sigh* Screw it, you're blind. If I were to get a mirror, you'll probably see Mike there and will continue your blind rampage.
        
        I really can't come up with anything to describe how idiotically dumb you are! After reading all of your posts, I believe that you're blind and that's it. I can't help you with your problem, other than to tell you to please stop and take a moment to rest. You're not going to get Mike to change his position if you continue to spout utter nonsense and ad homs, or otherwise behaving like a 12 year old. If you (and/or maybe the other critics of TD) were to behave like an adult, then maybe he'll take you a little more seriously. But since that isn't going to happen, you're going to behave like a troll until this site is offline and you have no place to complain (unless you find another site to troll.)
        
        So, I'm asking you nicely, please leave and go back to your dark cave. Perhaps the light is too bright for you and maybe the darkness will help you see better.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 Aug 2012 @ 12:57pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Masnick is the the douchebag teenager showing off on his skateboard who does a face plant and hops and and says: "I meant to do that".
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 7:49pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Someone demonstrates that you don't know what you're talking about, and that's your response. You're such a winner.
        
        Nope. I explained to him that these aren't even restraints because no one is prohibited from saying anything. There is no injunction, there is no licensing scheme. Prior restraints are content-based restrictions. Copyright laws are laws of general applicability that are content-neutral. No speech is being restrained because of its viewpoint or subject matter. No speech is even being restrained. I know you don't understand any of this, but big boys who have actual law degrees look at the actual law and draw conclusions. We don't work backwards and latch on to anyone's argument because we like the conclusion no matter how terrible the reasoning. I know, that's not your style. Can't help you there, bud.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        bratwurzt (profile), 23 Aug 2012 @ 3:50am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Patronizing comment. Ignored.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 22 Aug 2012 @ 10:13am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        They could file suit and get an injunction. So what? I doubt many of the sites would even show up. Federal law permits seizure, and the government is using the law. Due process is not violated.
        
        Did you just make the argument that because some individuals might not show up to defend themselves, it is perfectly ok to violate the rights of others under similar circumstances?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 11:18am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Flat out seizing a website (a form of expression) without any adversarial hearing is not due process in any sense.
      
      Care to cite an actual court finding that says that?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 11:27am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        He can't. But I can find cases that say the opposite:
        Furthermore, it is well-settled law that the prior restraint doctrine is inapplicable in cases where one's proprietary interests are at stake, such as infringements of copyright or trademark. See e.g., Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders, Inc. v. Scoreboard Posters, Inc., 600 F.2d 1184 (5th Cir.1979). In upholding a preliminary injunction in a case involving a potential copyright infringement, the Fifth Circuit noted that �[t]he first amendment is not a *931 license to trammel on legally recognized rights in intellectual property.� Id. at 1188 (citing Zacchini, 433 U.S. at 577, 97 S.Ct. 2849).
        Bosley v. Wildwett.com, 310 F. Supp. 2d 914, 930-31 (N.D. Ohio 2004).
        
        He claims he's not pro-piracy, but all roads lead to "unconstitutional" with him and these seizures. The actual law be damned.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 11:39am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        +1
        
        *cockroaches scurrying*
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gwiz (profile), 22 Aug 2012 @ 11:57am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I have asked the AC you are responding to this question and now I will ask you:
        
        What is your motivation to opposing and adversarial hearing prior to the seizure of a website?
        
        The way I see it, such a rule would provide due process and avoid Constitutional conflicts. It doesn't seem that it would be any undue burden on the Government.
        
        What are your personal reasons for opposing such a thing so vehemently? I am genuinely curious to know, because I still fail to see any upside to your arguments.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 11:58am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        What is your motivation in defending blatant lawbreakers?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gwiz (profile), 22 Aug 2012 @ 12:02pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        What is your motivation in defending blatant lawbreakers?
        
        Once again, you misconstrue my intentions. I really don't care about these particular sites. It looks to me they were violating the law. I care about the precedence of such actions.
        
        Just like I prefer the corner drug dealer be arrested, I don't condone the police beating him within inches of life with batons in the process.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gwiz (profile), 22 Aug 2012 @ 11:59am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        err... *an adversarial hearing
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 5:11pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Because the law doesn't require it. Because when the issue is NOT that the so-called "speech" is at issue; but instead the matter is one of criminal infringement of copyrighted content and the extraordinary protection afforded unpopular, objectionable, political, religious or dissenting free speech need not be applied.
        
        Your side totally falls down when it tries to stretch the legitimate aims of the First Amendment to protect the unlawful marketing copyrighted content.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gwiz (profile), 22 Aug 2012 @ 7:38pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Your side totally falls down when it tries to stretch the legitimate aims of the First Amendment to protect the unlawful marketing copyrighted content.
        
        Not sure what "side" you are referring to. If a website is breaking the law. Prosecute it to your little heart's content. (Although, as a taxpayer, I prefer you don't use my tax dollars to do so)
        
        Making sure beforehand that protected speech doesn't get caught up in such an action, seems like a prudent, American thing to do to me, whether current law requires it or not. I really don't understand your desire to trample on the Constitution.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 23 Aug 2012 @ 8:28pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        How is having the grounds for seizure of a website double-checked by a court beforehand an "extraordinary protection"? It's part of the whole checks and balances thing. Things like this have to go through the courts first, because otherwise dajaz1 would have a lot more company.
        
        Note that this means allowing the accused to tell their side of the story. Why shouldn't the owners of the site be able to defend themselves before having the website taken down? Why should the government be able to take down any site without warning based on a mere accusation? Because the site, in the course of providing its service, "harms" certain corporate interests, who by the way out-budget this website by orders of magnitude?
        
        Whether or not the site owners actually did break the law is irrelevant. They are innocent until proven guilty.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 24 Aug 2012 @ 5:14am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        How is having the grounds for seizure of a website double-checked by a court beforehand an "extraordinary protection"? It's part of the whole checks and balances thing. Things like this have to go through the courts first, because otherwise dajaz1 would have a lot more company.
        
        Probable cause was demonstrated to a neutral magistrate who issued a seizure warrant. This is how people and property are arrested. Been that way since day one in this country.
        
        Whether or not the site owners actually did break the law is irrelevant. They are innocent until proven guilty.
        
        The property is innocent until proven tainted. But it still gets seized once probable cause is demonstrated and a warrant issues. It's not "proven guilty in a court of law, then arrested." It's "arrested first, prove guilt later."
        
        You guys apparently think trials come before arrests. Don't you watch movies/TV?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gwiz (profile), 22 Aug 2012 @ 12:27pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You realize you have just strengthened Mike's argument don't you?
        
        From the quoted part of your comment:
        
        In upholding a preliminary injunction in a case involving a potential copyright infringement, the Fifth Circuit noted that �[t]he first amendment is not a *931 license to trammel on legally recognized rights in intellectual property. emphasis mine
        
        You are referring to an injunction, not a forfeiture. Mike's position was to issue an injunction, have a adversarial hearing, then forfeiture.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 1:52pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        First, there is not even an allegation that what the government actually seized �the domain name� is itself protected by copyright Nor could it be. The copyright office rejects attempts to register words and short phrases.
        
        We are not talking about seizing some book or periodical which has a copyright registration with the Library of Congress.
        
        The government may not just yell �Copyright�, no matter how emphaticaly, and thereby gain a backdoor past the First Amendment.
        
        �
        
        Second, and more fundamentally, to the extent that there may be some irreconciliable conflict between a statute enacted by Congress under Article I, Section 8, Clause 8, and the prohibition upon Congress under the First Amendment, then it is the duty of the court to apply the general rule that amendment must govern the amended.
        
        In the leading case on prior restraints, Near v Minnesota (1931), Mr Chief Justice Hughes quoted Blackstone:
        
        "The liberty of the press is indeed essential to the nature of a free state; but this consists in laying no previous restraints upon publications...
        
        (Emphasis added).
        
        In the American understanding of the First Amendment, there has been some debate over whether the narrow, Blackstonian view should prevail, or a broader more generous view of free speech and free press. In recent decades, that latter, better view has held�but that argument is immaterial: Both sides agree that First Amendment lays a heavy presumption against prior restraints.
        
        If the copyright clause purports to give the government the power to seize expression whenever the government yells, �Copyright!� then that purported power has been amended away.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 3:07pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        First, there is not even an allegation that what the government actually seized �the domain name� is itself protected by copyright Nor could it be. The copyright office rejects attempts to register words and short phrases.
        
        It's seized because it's property used to commit copyright infringement. Says so right underneath the eagles. Whether the domain name itself is copyrighted is irrelevant.
        
        Second, and more fundamentally, to the extent that there may be some irreconciliable conflict between a statute enacted by Congress under Article I, Section 8, Clause 8, and the prohibition upon Congress under the First Amendment, then it is the duty of the court to apply the general rule that amendment must govern the amended.
        
        The Court has said the definitional balance between copyright and the First Amendment comes from the idea/expression dichotomy and fair use. So what? What's your point? That's got nothing to do with this.
        
        In the leading case on prior restraints, Near v Minnesota (1931), Mr Chief Justice Hughes quoted Blackstone:
        "The liberty of the press is indeed essential to the nature of a free state; but this consists in laying no previous restraints upon publications...
        (Emphasis added).
        
        And that's applicable here how? There is no restraint with these seizures. People are free to say whatever they want.
        
        In the American understanding of the First Amendment, there has been some debate over whether the narrow, Blackstonian view should prevail, or a broader more generous view of free speech and free press. In recent decades, that latter, better view has held�but that argument is immaterial: Both sides agree that First Amendment lays a heavy presumption against prior restraints.
        
        Yep, but irrelevant.
        
        If the copyright clause purports to give the government the power to seize expression whenever the government yells, �Copyright!� then that purported power has been amended away.
        
        No expression has been seized. A piece of property that there was evidence to show facilitated criminal infringement has been seized. That the property was also used for protected expression, which with these seizures has not been shown, is irrelevant.
        
        Do you work for the EFF? 'Cause your arguments sound like the nonsense they spout.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 12:47pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Oh yes, serving papers on these characters has proven so easy. Why bother if the law does NOT require it?
      
      And P.S. the way these sites were seized IS consistent with due process.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 11 Sep 2012 @ 4:47pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      a web site offering illegal apps isnt in the business of "free speech" its in the business of comiiting a crime, and doesnt get a hearing about it
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), 22 Aug 2012 @ 9:27am
    
    Re: Re:
    Due process isn't when somebody who doesn't like you calls the cops and says you're doing something illegal and the cops, on that person's word alone, without a court order, seize your property.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 11:20am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I believe that agents downloaded the infringing apps. Painful as it must be for you, that's very different.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Rikuo (profile), 22 Aug 2012 @ 11:37am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yes...and guess who was the person who said those apps the FBI agents were downloading were infringing? The guy making the accusation.
        In the case of Dajaz1, there were some specific tracks in question. The RIAA labels said those specific tracks were infringing. If I recall correctly, three were sent to Dajaz1 by the labels deliberately for marketing purposes, and the last was for a non-RIAA artist.
        It's quite clear here the FBI, at least in these matters, don't know how to establish what evidence is actually infringing.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 11:42am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yes...and guess who was the person who said those apps the FBI agents were downloading were infringing? The guy making the accusation.
        
        Well, I guess we will soon see in Android developers and/or Google is to be lumped into the same category as the AA's.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        bratwurzt (profile), 23 Aug 2012 @ 4:28am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I get google but what do you have against android developers? you do realize that a lot of them are into open source?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - The eejit (profile), 22 Aug 2012 @ 3:15pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So, by their logic in other cases, those agents are now aiding and abetting criminal copyright infringement.
        
        Can we arrest them and have them locked up on charges?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - btrussell (profile), 23 Aug 2012 @ 2:46pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Freetard Bureaucratic Imbeciles
        
        Breaking the law one download at a time.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 8:43am

not bad! the FBI foil terrorist plots which dont exist after planting operatives who are themselves reported to the FBI (the reporters are then put under investigation because they reported possible terrorist plots! you couldn't make this shit up!) and the DoJ take down websites, seize assets and arrest people in other countries where they have no right to do so, under orders of the entertainment industries and senior government officials. why should anyone worry about what is happening with this? Google couldn't have been too worried. it didn't shut these android sites down! i suppose they had to do this to distract people from the previous balls ups and take the heat off the movie studios etc!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Infamous Joe (profile), 22 Aug 2012 @ 8:57am

Who needs a site?
1. Root phone
2. Buy app
3. Back up app using Titanium Backup, or equivalent
4. Refund app
5. Restore app
6. Use app

Piracy isn't going away. Adapt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ninja (profile), 23 Aug 2012 @ 4:36am
  
  Re: Who needs a site?
  Epic.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
blakey, 22 Aug 2012 @ 8:58am

"advertised that you could get "paid" apps for free if you join""
sounds a bit like get a free pen when you sign up for a bank account. It is not necessarily pirating apps. Unless of course you been to this site and know for sure??

But what the hell, just take it down anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 9:02am

Eagles make me smile.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thomas (profile), 22 Aug 2012 @ 9:03am

The DOJ
is just an enforcement arm for the content industries. Their top priority is no longer protecting American citizens, but in helping businesses. Considering how much money the entertainment industry contributes yearly in "gifts" plus the number of attorneys from the content industries who now work for various parts of the DOJ. They would much rather take down some possibly infringing sites than capture some terrorists who might kill thousands of americans.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 9:09am
  
  Re: The DOJ
  Capturing terrorists who might kill thousands of Americans is the FBI's job, and let's recall that they are really good at it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 9:08am

Hey Masnick,

What happens when law enforcement catches a drug dealer with drugs, SEIZURE OF PROPERTY. Law enforcement organizations aren't out on a witch hunt. Do they make some mistakes, yeah just like everyone else. You need to look at the equation from BOTH sides, would it be unfair to the creator of the apps to allow the pirated apps to CONTINUE to be offered for download? Copyright laws are written to protect the rights of the OWNER of the creative work. If someone is violating those rights seizure is the only way to stop that from happening.

Just as law enforcement shouldn't return drugs to drug dealers waiting for their trial, or stolen cars to car thieves, they shouldn't return web sites to content thieves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Gwiz (profile), 22 Aug 2012 @ 9:15am
  
  Re:
  Because Speech is protected by the Constitution and requires a higher bar for seizure than drugs or stolen cars.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 12:01pm
    
    Re: Re:
    What speech?
    
    You can't go around breaking the law and say, "but, but, I was also exercising my freedom of speech at the same time!". LOL
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Gwiz (profile), 22 Aug 2012 @ 12:36pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      You can't go around breaking the law and say, "but, but, I was also exercising my freedom of speech at the same time!". LOL
      
      Never said that, nor implied such a thing.
      
      All I am saying is that the the speech needs to be determined unprotected (via an adversarial hearing) prior to seizure.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 9:15am
  
  Re:
  Copyright laws were originally written to benefit the public by expanding the public domain. But I guess they don't teach that in Troll University.
  
  (BTW, is it true that graduates get a free "I HATE PIRATE MIKE" t-shirt? I've always wondered.)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 12:03pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Here we go.
    
    Now that it's been shown there's due process in the seizures, the freetards revert back to complaining about copyright law. lol
    
    STALE.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - bratwurzt (profile), 23 Aug 2012 @ 4:29am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Now that it's been shown there's due process in the seizures
      
      Shown where?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Infamous Joe (profile), 22 Aug 2012 @ 9:17am
  
  Re:
  Copyright law wasn't written for the reason you think it was written. It was written to give incentive to creators-- *not* to protect them.
  
  The type of drugs seized by LEOs are illegal in-and-of themselves. An app, or an mp3, or a video file *by itself* isn't illegal-- it depends on if its creation was authorized. There is no real way to tell the difference between an authorized mp3 and an unauthorized one after the act of creation-- so you have to witness that act of creation to know if it's illegal; you don't have to witness a kilo of cocaine being made to know it's illegal.
  
  That's why these "well, drugs are seized" arguments are illogical. They're seized because their mere existence is illegal. This doesn't hold true for copyright infringement.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 9:28am
    
    Re: Re:
    Wrong, the TYPES of drugs are NOT always illicit, there are various classifications of drugs that can be seized. Drug dealers aren't just pushing CRACK, they sell perscription medications as well. So are you suggesting that if a drug dealer is selling Oxycotin or Ritalin that those drugs should not be seized?
    
    If the site isn't seized the crime continues. The only way to stop the crime it to bring down the site or have someone scrub the site of all infringing content.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The Infamous Joe (profile), 22 Aug 2012 @ 9:35am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      If an accused drug dealer has Oxycontin in his house, that doesn't not mean he can have his house seized. He has to have a quantity such that it is obvious he is selling, or they have to catch him selling it.
      
      The problem with you statement is that it assumes guilt without due process. If there is a crime, it must be proven, *then* it can be stopped. That's how it works. That's how you *want* it to work, trust me.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The eejit (profile), 22 Aug 2012 @ 10:56am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      In the UK that's not the case. I'm guessing here, but I'd be willing to put money on the fact that the seizure of illegal drugs can take place at any time, provided you are given a notice that the goods have been seized.
      
      That hasn't happened here. Just gone from working to seized with no apparent in-between stages.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 9:31am
    
    Re: Re:
    Copyright law was written to encourage creators to create by PROTECTING them from people stealing their works.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - RD, 22 Aug 2012 @ 10:00am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "Copyright law was written to encourage creators to create by PROTECTING them from people stealing their works, for a LIMITED TIME, for the ultimate benefit of the PUBLIC."
      
      FTFY
      
      Not surprising you ShillTrolls(tm) always, always, ALWAYS leave off the last, and most important, part of the Copyright Bargain.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 11:09am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      FTFY...
      
      Copyright law was written to provide monopoly 'rights' to non-rights holders (aka publishers....) so that they could profit off the work of others.
      
      If we are going to talk about the origins of the law, lets at least be honest with ourselves... nobody cared about the 'artists' rights when these laws were established, all they cared about was creating a 'market' for the re-selling of others work that they could profit off of...
      
      And they have been trying to hold onto that monopoly ever since (by lying, stealing, misleading, bribing, accusing, fraud, and various other 'crimes' that have probably held back our cultural development by at least 50 years...
      
      If not for these 'asshats' we could have had 'lolcats' 30 years ago....
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 22 Aug 2012 @ 9:27am
  
  Re:
  Didn't you pay attention? No property was seized, just domain names.
  
  Assuming for a second that the sites were truly illegal, wouldn't seizing the servers and/or documents before warning the owners be wise? Now the owners, still assuming that they are criminals, have all the time in the world to destroy evidence. A domain name isn't going to give the FBI shit. If the website was truly illegal, then why didn't the FBI follow standard procedure and seize the actual evidence?
  
  So yeah, have fun thinking this is all on the up and up.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 9:29am
    
    Re: Re:
    Have you ever heard of a network trace? All the evidence they need will be included in the data collected.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 22 Aug 2012 @ 9:39am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Then why did they take the domain name and warn the people running the website to get the hell out of Dodge (And wipe the hard drives first)?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 10:15am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I have heard of a network trace, and know what it does, which given what you typed, you do not.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 9:36am
  
  Re:
  I'm sure the hollycrooks would love for infringement to be a 4th amendment curtailment just like with dealing drugs. Being accused of dealing drugs here allows seizure of pretty much everything without recourse.
  
  If individual sites are subject to seizure without due process, the same must apply to CNN and Disney.com
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 22 Aug 2012 @ 9:44am
  
  Re:
  What happens when law enforcement catches a drug dealer with drugs, SEIZURE OF PROPERTY.
  
  For the purpose of using it as evidence. That's not the case here.
  
  Law enforcement organizations aren't out on a witch hunt. Do they make some mistakes, yeah just like everyone else.
  
  And those mistakes would be greatly minimized with an adversarial hearing upfront.
  
  Copyright laws are written to protect the rights of the OWNER of the creative work.
  
  No, copyright laws are written to benefit the public by encouraging greater creation of content for the purpose of learning.
  
  If someone is violating those rights seizure is the only way to stop that from happening.
  
  That you think it is "the only way" does not mean it is "the only way." It is not at all difficult to go to a court and ask for an injunction, which would allow the opposing party to present their case. If, as may be the case here, the opposing party doesn't show up, even easier. You'd get a quick default judgment and injunction. But at least they'd have a chance to make their case first.
  
  What do you have against that process?
  
  Just as law enforcement shouldn't return drugs to drug dealers waiting for their trial, or stolen cars to car thieves, they shouldn't return web sites to content thieves.
  
  Again, that can be taken care of with an injunction.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 9:47am
    
    Re: Re:
    For the purpose of using it as evidence. That's not the case here.
    
    That is not the law, Mike. You can point to nowhere in the law that says it must be for the purpose of preserving it as evidence. Why do you keep misrepresenting the law? Are you that desperate that you can't even be honest about it? Apparently so.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Mike Masnick (profile), 22 Aug 2012 @ 10:20am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      That is not the law, Mike. You can point to nowhere in the law that says it must be for the purpose of preserving it as evidence. Why do you keep misrepresenting the law? Are you that desperate that you can't even be honest about it? Apparently so.
      
      "But seizing films to destroy them or to block their distribution or exhibition is a very different matter from seizing a single copy of a film for the bona fide purpose of preserving it as evidence in a criminal proceeding..." -- US Supreme Court
      
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 10:27am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "But seizing films to destroy them or to block their distribution or exhibition is a very different matter from seizing a single copy of a film for the bona fide purpose of preserving it as evidence in a criminal proceeding..." -- US Supreme Court
        
        It's customary to cite the case name when quoting the Court. I know the quote well though. It's from Heller v. New York. Again, what does that obscenity case, where actual materials suspected to be obscene were seized without an adequate determination beforehand by a neutral magistrate, have to do with this case?
        
        Copyright enforcement is the enforcement of property rights. What is being seized here is a property used to facilitate the commission of infringement, not a quantity of allegedly obscene books. The determination of obscenity is subjective and must be done judicially because of the First Amendment implications (the works may turn out to be protected). None of that applies here. It's just wishful thinking. Sorry.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 10:32am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        What does that obscenity case, where actual materials suspected to be obscene were seized without an adequate determination beforehand by a neutral magistrate, have to do with this copyright case, where actual materials suspected to be infringing were seized without an adequate determination beforehand by a neutral magistrate?
        
        As much as you like to pretend otherwise copyright is subjective and must be done judicially because of many factors including First Amendment implications (the use may turn out to be fair in which case it's constitutionally protected speech).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        btrussell (profile), 22 Aug 2012 @ 12:18pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Copyright enforcement is the enforcement of removing most peoples natural rights.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Rapnel (profile), 22 Aug 2012 @ 10:21am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Waning. That law thing.
      
      However... motherfucking eagles on the other hand:
      
      http://bit.ly/RD9wrz
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 9:56am
  
  Re:
  And boy do they ever make mistakes...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
John Doe, 22 Aug 2012 @ 9:13am

They have time on their hands
Since they only have their own terrorist plots to stop, they obviously have plenty of time on their hands to dabble in censorship. What's next, setup their own website, have it seized and then claim victory in the press?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Beech, 22 Aug 2012 @ 9:15am

Yeah, pirate Mike, if piracy is bad, why are you so critical of complete suspension pof habeus corpus to stop sites that may allegedly be doing it?

If jaywalking is against the law, why don't you support the cops beating jaywalkers, taking all the money out of their wallets, seizing their house and car, and indefinitely detaining them without trial? Are you trying to say jaywalking is OK?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 9:18am
  
  Re:
  Habeas corpus? LMAO!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Beech, 22 Aug 2012 @ 6:31pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Hey! I'm pretty sure this orange snowflake AC is either a member of the FBI, or quoting their handbook.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 9:21am
  
  Re:
  you're an idiot. lay off the glen beck re-runs for a day.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The Infamous Joe (profile), 22 Aug 2012 @ 9:27am
    
    Re: Re:
    You've been hit by Poe's Law, my friend.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - That One Guy (profile), 22 Aug 2012 @ 9:30am
    
    Re: Re:
    To both AC's above:
    
    You done been whooshed.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
That One Guy (profile), 22 Aug 2012 @ 9:27am

�Cracking down on piracy of copyrighted works � including popular apps � is a top priority of the Criminal Division,�

Ouch, sounds like the paymasters are cracking the whip again.

Still, it's good to hear that all the real, verifiably harmful crimes have been stamped out, and they now have the ability to focus, and put top priority on, app piracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Infamous Joe (profile), 22 Aug 2012 @ 9:36am
  
  Re:
  Well, their work load has gone down now that they only have to worry about legitimate rapes.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 22 Aug 2012 @ 10:58am
  
  Re:
  And all this around the same time as some idiot up for election says "You can't get pregnant from illegitimate rape."*
  
  Makes you think, doesn't it?
  
  *rape is always illegitimate, regardless of any "justifications" made.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 11:29am
  
  Re:
  �Cracking down on piracy of copyrighted works � including popular apps � is a top priority of the Criminal Division,�
  
  Ouch, sounds like the paymasters are cracking the whip again.
  
  You are right. Those Android app developers seem to see the virtue in stopping the piracy of their creativity and sought the intervention of law enforcement.
  
  I wonder if Google had a hand in pressuring this enforcement or not?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - bratwurzt (profile), 23 Aug 2012 @ 5:29am
    
    Re: Re:
    The only walled garden Google controls is Google Play store. It seems you don't understand open nature of software on Android - android users have NO problem installing 3rd party apps directly from file. While developers might be angry Google certainly doesn't give a f***.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Wally (profile), 23 Aug 2012 @ 6:20am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      That also applied to Apple products....especially iPhones. Also, because of the official BitTorrent Application for windows, I can install anything I want on my iPod without Jailbreaking or rooting :-)
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Indy, 22 Aug 2012 @ 9:36am

Seizing Domains...
I love the image they used. It's now my front page. I suggest everyone replace their domains with this image to let the DOJ/ICE know they are the boss.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 9:45am

Like drugs?
I like how the trolls are trying to justify this crap by comparing it to what happens in drug cases. Reminds me of the morons who try to justify the gov's actions by comparing to places like Burma. The stupid, it burns!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- JP (profile), 22 Aug 2012 @ 12:47pm
  
  Re: Like drugs?
  Actually, comparing it to drugs makes complete sense. In the 80s and 90s, the government successfully won the War on Drugs. So it only makes sense to apply the same philosophy to the War on Mike ... err, umm, I mean Piracy!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 1:34pm
    
    Re: Re: Like drugs?
    Actually, comparing it to drugs makes complete sense. In the 80s and 90s, the government successfully won the War on Drugs.
    
    If by "won" you mean got the majority of americans to say nothing of curtailing the 4th amendment, then no doubt or mfeagle about it.
    
    It was a massive success for popular fascism.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
G Thompson (profile), 22 Aug 2012 @ 10:37am

Apple will be pissed...
Hmmmmm. On a sidenote people:

�Cracking down on piracy of copyrighted works � including popular apps � is a top priority of the Criminal Division,� said Assistant Attorney General Breuer. �Software apps have become an increasingly essential part of our nation�s economy and creative culture, and the Criminal Division is committed to working with our law enforcement partners to protect the creators of these apps and other forms of intellectual property from those who seek to steal it.� [emphasis added]
and
�Criminal copyright laws apply to apps for cell phones and tablets, just as they do to other software, music and writings. These laws protect and encourage the hard work and ingenuity of software developers entering this growing and important part of our economy. We will continue to seize and shut down websites that market pirated apps, and to pursue those responsible for criminal charges if appropriate,� said U.S. Attorney Yates. [emphasis added]
So in the above two statements both a US Attorney and an Assistant AG call the Android software apps Thius absolutely negating Apple Inc's claim to the name for their online shop.

Fan-bloody-tabulistic! Oh and as official Government endorsed report/release this can be used to show that the name "app" is both generic and ubiquitous negating any trademark action as well

I wonder if the US Govt knows that Apple now hate it with a vengeance ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
technomage (profile), 22 Aug 2012 @ 10:48am

for all the AC comments, we need a license plate cover with the "seized" tshirt motif.

officer: "you have drugs in your front seat, I'm going to have to seize your license plate"

dealer: "NOOOOOOO...I paid good money for the plate CRK2KDS"

officer: "your loss..we might get in touch in a decade or two to take to to trial, and try not to get rid of the drugs first please, so we actually have evidence when you go to court...maybe...someday.....got any donuts?"

[mystery machine/eagle mobile drives off with eagles instead of plates]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Overcast (profile), 22 Aug 2012 @ 10:57am

All this other debate aside..

It's obvious they (government/law enforcement) can't enforce the law properly, as we see a clear violation of due process - which is also 'law' - right? So they are breaking one in order to conceptually enforce another? How does that work in a society that's supposedly governed by 'the rule of law'?

"The rule of law" is **clearly** breaking down, government can't be bothered to follow even *their own laws* now - so what's left is/will be defined as a tyranny, which, historically speaking - will most certainly fall apart eventually - like all others have, with no exceptions. But it'll be different this time, right? (Go use that concept in the stock market, hehe... )

So there's no sense in trying to enforce these laws, as this type of enforcement will destroy the system it's trying to protect anyway.

So why are they trying to enforce anything at all, if they are breaking other laws in the process?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 11:34am
  
  Re:
  ...as we see a clear violation of due process - which is also 'law' - right? So they are breaking one in order to conceptually enforce another? How does that work in a society that's supposedly governed by 'the rule of law'?
  
  I don't suppose you'd care to cite a case where an actual judge has deemed the seizure of a website in similar circumstances to be a violation of due process. BTW, you should take time to look over the ProIP Act where such authority is derived from.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 11:54am
    
    Re: Re:
    There's a case mentioned in the very article that shows an instance where due process was clearly violated.
    
    http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/12/ice-admits-months-long-seizure-of-music-blog-was-a-mi stake/
    
    Plus I don't see why you think judges themselves can't become corrupt. So far there only seems to be a handful of judges ICE is using to make these rulings. You're pretty naive to think that if a government agency has no problem breaking the laws, they couldn't find a judge more than willing to do so either.
    
    Time to call me a douchebag because you literally have no other argument but appeal to authority.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 1:29pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Perhaps you could cite where there was a finding that due process was violated. I understand its your opinion, but there is no such finding by a court. And you are a douchebag for trying to pass off your opinion as a finding of fact.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 11:39am

ONCE AGAIN, MIKE HITLER MASNICK DEFENDS PIRATES AND EVILDOERS EVERYWHERE

Mike why do you hate job creators and successful people? Why do you have a picture of Stalin hung above your bed that you salute every night?

FUCKING MASNICK STOP HITLERING MY FREEDOMS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That One Guy (profile), 22 Aug 2012 @ 12:51pm
  
  Re:
  I... honestly can't tell if that's actual trolling or not, which really says a lot about the state of the trolls these days I suppose.
  
  8/10, afraid you got dinged two points for not mentioning google, and whatever the troll buzzword is this week.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 4:45pm

Hey Masnick!!! How do your friends at Google and developer buddies feel about this? Obviously, since you and your flock of parrots believe that these seizures are only done at the behest of the corporate beneficiaries- I can only conclude that Google and/or Android software developers were the force behind these seizures. How ironic, some of the mightiest forces aligned against SOPA are now going to the FBI to protect their intellectual property by seizing websites. Weren't these the guys wringing their hands about censorship just 7 months ago? I guess they think it's not censorship when the website is trafficking in their product.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Aug 2012 @ 4:53pm
  
  Re:
  LOL! Good point. Don't expect an honest or direct answer out of him. He doesn't do honest and direct. He only does slimy, insulting, and evasive.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Wally (profile), 22 Aug 2012 @ 8:54pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I can translate what the AC's above are saying to common English:
    
    AC#1 : "Pirate Mike derp derp derp derp derp derp Google derpderpderp"
    AC#2: "Good point derp derp derp"
    
    Ok, the reason why I point this out to everyone is that these are purely personal attacks and not opinions. You may use both of the above as a template to determine as such.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - RT Cunningham (profile), 23 Aug 2012 @ 3:16am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      This is absolutely the truth. Every time a troll appears, it's a personal attack. It's the one reason I don't read comments as much as I used to.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Wally (profile), 23 Aug 2012 @ 1:50pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        That's the purpose of my pointing it out. Two ways can stop them with or without reason I can tell you both.
        
        Without Reasoning Skills:
        Point it out to them that you see them as a troll and nothing more than that. I usually never get back talk because I'm either really mean in my logic, or try to be nice as possible. I make my point clear so it's extremely difficult for them to rebuttal in trollish. My end goal is to open up and establish dialouge and team them the moment they use a personal attack....this is called positive reinforcement because I give them an incentive to calm down. I find that most trolls respond (or stop responding) when you make your mean point clear. I myself have established myself to be mean and downright nasty to a troll of that level.
        
        With Logic And Reasoning:
        A troll is a troll is a troll at certain levels. The more you try to reason with them, the more ammunition they get. Be harsh, but kind about it. If they keep going insult them back but not in their way. Be firm, stay nice, don't argue about their lack of logic that's how they suck you in.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wally, 22 Aug 2012 @ 4:52pm

Maybe legitimate
Appnet's takedown may have been legitimate.

http://www.droidxforums.com/forum/droid-x-general-discussion/11265-do-not-use-app-app lanet.html

I'll keep posting links as I find them.

However, given Google's recent behavior toward competing markets (almost as bad as Apple, close, but not as bad) I wouldn't be surprised that if it turned out not to be legitimate, that Google was behind it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wally, 22 Aug 2012 @ 5:12pm

Reason
I can only think of one simple reason why ICE wasn't involved in the takedown. Consumer fraud is not within their jurisdiction. It's up to the FBI, the DOJ to handle most consumer fraud cases.

I did a search on Applanet Scam and this was at the top of the list:

http://www.droidxforums.com/forum/droid-x-general-discussion/11265-do-not-use-app-applanet. html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wally (profile), 22 Aug 2012 @ 6:37pm

My two cents (yes I finaly logged in)
Before I remotely start on my comment I would like to add that there has been so much arguing and bickering and trolling that my iPod (which is iPhone 4 equivalent without cellular antenna, GPS or any vibrating parts) keeps crashing its web browser due to the huge response over the article. I am forced to use my computer so good luck to all with my grammar...at least my spelling will be correct.

Mike Mansick, I am not here to call you out, I just want to see if we are on the same page. I understand in full your views on this matter but I ask that you please hear me out if you can. I am just looking for some common ground as I have with other writers and users of TechDirt. My other intent is to give you an alternative point of view.

Mike, the article is good. I agree with most of it. It exposes injustices of the DOJ and the FBI quite well. However, I am certain in my mind that the take down of Applanet was legitimate.

Why those DoubleMySpeed websites haven't been taken out is beyond me though....onward to my point....

When the FBI and the DOJ are alone in the take-down of a website, it is usually for consumer fraud. I did some digging about in regards to Applanet to find that the apps being sold were not only NOT getting the money earned to the creators of those works, they were distributing older versions of the software being sold as "up to date" compared to Google Play. Amongst those files were apps that had been pulled from Google Play that had caused viruses to be spread around.

While I am all for alternate methods of content distribution and/or sales (GoodOldGames, Steam, Macintosh Garden (Free legacy Abandoned Mac OS software/games))even if you have to use Bit-Torrent to get the content (OCremix.org), I do not think it is right to not pay developers of Apps of their earnings or creative works....Google Play and iTunes alike...when there is a price on the item at hand. Applanet made no such contributions to the developers.

The first smoking gun I saw on the Applanet page was the PayPal Button, which is almost ALWAYS consistent on almost EVERY page i have seen the icon on. I have never seen the Word Donate in Droid font below the word "PayPal" or any associating fonts but the one default PayPal always uses with their icon.

Second Smoking Gun was this text:
"Access Paid Apps for FREE!

Applanet's massive database contains more than 14,000 Android applications. You have access to the latest version of both free and paid applications found in the Android Market and even some you can't find and will not need to pay for anything! Applanet is your one-stop alternative app market."

Think about how it was worded. "You have access to the latest version of both paid and free applications on the market"
Given the site's "Donation" button and that wording, they use the money to buy ONE copy of the app and distribute it many times to make it "free" and "you don't pay a thing".

http://web.archive.org/web/20110629034336/http://www.applanet.net/

Then we have the consumer fraud side of things (which I believe the ICE was not involved in the take-down of this website) where i managed to find a complaint here:

http://www.droidxforums.com/forum/droid-x-general-discussion/11265-do-not-use-app-applanet. html

and here:
http://androidforums.com/android-lounge/310926-applanet-net-legit-no.html

So to review for everyone else what I just wrote:
They take your money through "Donations" and are not claiming not-for-proffit.
They buy one App and distribute many times as well as claim it to be up to date and the developers don't see a dime of their work.
Has an illegitimate donation button From PayPal where the wording, the font, and the icon are all completely different from the usual PayPal donation button.

That screams more of illegitimate use and distribution more than it does piracy.

Mike, I think you for your time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wally (profile), 22 Aug 2012 @ 7:19pm

Smoking Gun
Looking back to the links provided on the article I found a smoking gun or two on Applanet's website.

Take a good look at the PayPal Donation button. I saw this and had to double take for a moment. On a PayPal donation the button usually should say just "PayPal". PayPal over the word Donation (the latter in the Droid logo font)is never used.

Then take the words on the site itself:
"Applanet's massive database contains more than 14,000 Android applications. You have access to the latest version of both free and paid applications found in the Android Market and even some you can't find and will not need to pay for anything! Applanet is your one-stop alternative app market.'

So the big question is, once they buy the app from the android market and slap the free tag on it and distribute it as such....where does that lay legally? Grey area at best. But is it consumer fraud? In my view, it is. Some of the apps were just older versions of the apps being offered on Google Play.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Aug 2012 @ 2:16pm

Wow Mike. You won't explain your due process argument to a lawyer because you claim they won't be able to understand it? That's just sad. I haven't seen you look this bad in a while. It's ok to just admit you don't know something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- btrussell (profile), 23 Aug 2012 @ 3:32pm
  
  Re:
  "You won't explain your due process argument to a lawyer because you claim they won't be able to understand it?"
  
  WTF does a real estate lawyer know about Imaginary Property?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 23 Aug 2012 @ 6:05pm
    
    Re: Re:
    WTF does a real estate lawyer know about Imaginary Property?
    
    Real estate lawyer? Where'd you get that? And what does IP have to do with due process?
    
    Fact is, I've taken numerous classes in constitutional law and I have a law degree, so the notion that I wouldn't understand Mike's due process argument is just laughable on its face. I've researched the due process issues with these seizures extensively.
    
    Obviously Mike is just being his usual, slimy self. Too desperate, dumb, and sad to have a normal, human conversation about anything piracy-related. He really showed his true colors in this thread, attacking his critics like a little whiny child. It's hilarious to watch the "real Mike" come out.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - btrussell (profile), 24 Aug 2012 @ 3:29am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "Real estate lawyer? Where'd you get that? And what does IP have to do with due process?"
      
      You say lawyer. The above quote shows three different fields of specialty lawyers. Lawyer alone means nothing.
      
      Keep practicing though! One day you will get it right.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 24 Aug 2012 @ 5:16am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        All lawyers learn what due process means. Some know more than others, but all know the basics. So Mike, who has no formal legal training, won't say anything that a lawyer, who does have formal legal training, won't understand. If you can't see that he was just trying to duck out of a conversation, you're not very insightful.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]