Apparently All That Stuff About Needing SOPA To Go After Foreign Sites Was Bogus

from the just-saying dept

Tue, Nov 27th 2012 8:27am — Mike Masnick

Tim covered the story of ICE doing its annual censorship binge in seizing domain names without adversarial hearings (as we still believe is required under the law). However, there were a couple of additional points worthy of a followup. First off, if you remember, one of the key reasons why we were told SOPA was needed was that for all of ICE's previous domain takedowns it was "impossible" for it to take down foreign domains. Except... as ICE's own announcement here shows that was completely untrue. It seems to have had no difficulty finding willing law enforcement partners around the globe to seize websites without any due process:

...recognizing the global nature of Internet crime, this year the IPR Center partnered with Europol, who, through its member countries, executed coordinated seizures of foreign-based top-level domains such as .eu, .be, .dk, .fr, .ro and .uk. This effort is titled Project Transatlantic and resulted in 31 domain name seizures.

"This operation is a great example of the tremendous cooperation between ICE and our international partners at the IPR Center," said ICE Director John Morton. "Our partnerships enable us to go after criminals who are duping unsuspecting shoppers all over the world.

Yeah. Apparently it's possible for ICE to censor those sites if it actually does a little work and calls up its law enforcement pals. Another example of why SOPA was never necessary in the first place.

The other issue? ICE's own release shows that ICE appears to have no understanding of the intellectual property laws it's seeking to enforce. From that release:

During this operation, federal law enforcement officers made undercover purchases of a host of products; including professional sports jerseys, DVD sets, and a variety of clothing, jewelry and luxury goods from online retailers who were suspected of selling counterfeit products. If the copyright holders confirmed that the purchased products were counterfeit or otherwise illegal, seizure orders for the domain names of the websites that sold these goods were obtained from federal magistrate judges.

Note the confusion (or ignorance) here. Counterfeits are about trademarks, not copyrights. Most of what they discuss are items covered by trademark. But then they say "if the copyright holders confirmed that the purchased products were counterfeit." Yes, there may be some copyright claims mixed in here (especially with "DVD sets"), but for the most part this is about trademark. Why say "copyright holders" unless you're either willfully misrepresenting what's happening... or ignorant of the law you're supposedly helping to enforce?

We've complained before about ICE boss John Morton's apparent deliberate conflation of copyright and counterfeits in the past -- but usually it's just lumping them together. To confuse the two here, in an official release from a government group that's enforcing the law, suggests some serious problems. ICE is either ignorant of the law it's supposedly enforcing... or maliciously misrepresenting itself. That seems like a problem.

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: copyright, dhs, domain seizures, foreign sites, ice, sopa

51 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Atkray (profile), 27 Nov 2012 @ 7:49am

Deja Vu
"Why say "copyright holders" unless you're either willfully misrepresenting what's happening... or ignorant of the law you're supposedly helping to enforce?"

or both.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Nov 2012 @ 9:03am
  
  Re: Deja Vu
  Its pretty clear they're pandering to the copyright lobbyists that get them money. Its not like the lobbyists know the difference. ICE: Dear RIAA/MPAA, please give us more funding! We're stopping copyright infringement, see?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Nov 2012 @ 10:31am
  
  Re: Deja Vu
  Actually knock off products can easily have been a copyright issue rather than trademark if the name-tag is purposefully misspelled or the logo is altered enough to not get into Trademark territory.
  
  Then I am obviously alluding to copyright as an inferior IPR to trademarks, but in punishment-land that is not really the case. Oh, no! In other words, they can easily use copyright as the primary reason for seizings since it covers a wider variety of goods than the trademarks laws.
  
  Copyright is a flypaper for any economic or moral offences taken by creators and especially their employers. Trademark is too narrow for most companies to use. Second to trademark is patents, but they cannot be used for anything. Copyright on the other hand...
  
  Therefore I do not think Mike is correct in claiming that it is a trademark issue(tm). On the other hand it would have been logical to think so.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
rw (profile), 27 Nov 2012 @ 8:17am

We don't need no stinking law...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
G Thompson (profile), 27 Nov 2012 @ 8:39am

There's something else strange here when talking about International sites and Trademark law.

Unlike copyright which is basically a worldwide coverage (Berne Convention covers it) Trademark is a per country situation and has to be actually applied for in EACH individual country, There is no worldwide registry (same as patents actually).

So what might be "unlawful" (or counterfeit) in one country is NOT unlawful in another. I don't think the Mexican iPhone is legal under trademark laws anywhere else in the world other than Mexico, but on the same thing Apple Inc's trademark on their iPhone is unlawful in Mexico.

This is the whole problem with cross jurisdictional warrants and seizure orders from Federal judges. the 'copyright' holder (or IP owner) who resides in the USA has NO nada nix jurisdiction in the rest of the freakin world. And this is even more telling if there is actually NO trademark at all for that product from anyone - like ummm professional sports jerseys and jewellery for example.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Nov 2012 @ 9:15am
  
  Re:
  The United States of Earth has jurisdiction in all of its member states, including England, Australia, and New Zealand, among others.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - PRMan, 27 Nov 2012 @ 10:02am
    
    Re: Re:
    You forgot Sweden...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - MrWilson, 27 Nov 2012 @ 10:12am
    
    Re: Re:
    They recently changed the name actually. The country is now called Oceania, and we've always been at war with copyright-violating counterfeiters.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 27 Nov 2012 @ 10:27am
    
    Re: Re:
    Greetings, fellow Earthicans!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - silverscarcat (profile), 27 Nov 2012 @ 4:22pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      MORBO WILL DESTROY YOU!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Nov 2012 @ 8:51am

I wonder if SOPA and all that crap didn't have a thing to do with the current ITU proposal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Zakida Paul (profile), 27 Nov 2012 @ 8:58am

Unnecessary legislation is what governments are good at and it distracts from the fact they are so woefully inept at creating necessary legislation. Eg Just look at public sector pension reforms in NI or Ireland's inability to legislate for the ex case on abortion rules for 20 years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SolkeshNaranek (profile), 27 Nov 2012 @ 9:02am

Honesty in Politics? (Needing SOPA To Go After Foreign Sites Was Bogus)
How long would Diogenes have to search amongst the politicians?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Nov 2012 @ 9:04am

Herr President
With Obama in power you can expect four more years of this bullshit. All I can say is I'm glad the US has term limits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Silver Fang, 27 Nov 2012 @ 11:29am
  
  Re: Herr President
  Like Romney would've done any different!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 27 Nov 2012 @ 1:14pm
    
    Re: Re: Herr President
    He might have. Take a look at the RNC's copyright memo and ask yourself "what if".
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 27 Nov 2012 @ 1:29pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Herr President
      Then take a look at the retraction less than 24 hours after it was announced. There's your answer to the "what if"
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Alana (profile), 27 Nov 2012 @ 7:42pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Herr President
      Anyone who thinks Romney would have handled a single thing better than Obama is bullshitting themselves, in my opinion. Obama was clearly the lesser of two evils. To me, at least. But feel free to have your own opinion. I disagree.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

out_of_the_blue, 27 Nov 2012 @ 9:07am

ICE itself didn't "take down foreign domains"
I note the point because you end up wandering... into complaining that "copyright" covers several somewhat disparate items -- when it's probably just easier for whoever writer to lump them together, NO further significance. But it's all Mike has for today's episode of Extreme Semantics.

Meanwhile, Mislabeling Mike blithely mis-uses "censor" when in fact the sites were selling counterfeit goods.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Nov 2012 @ 9:14am
  
  Re: ICE itself didn't "take down foreign domains"
  It's a good thing we don't have to take their word for it. After all, there was clearly a trial where evidence and arguments were presented before a judge, who then decided if the website was in violation of the law.
  
  Oh... wait.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - weneedhelp (profile), 27 Nov 2012 @ 9:32am
    
    Re: Re: ICE itself didn't "take down foreign domains"
    OOTB needs a TD award for quickest flagged comments. LOL.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      
      Anonymous Coward, 27 Nov 2012 @ 10:14am
      
      Re: Re: Re: ICE itself didn't "take down foreign domains"
      You misspelled 'censored' as 'flagged'.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 27 Nov 2012 @ 11:04am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: ICE itself didn't "take down foreign domains"
        Could you click on a site blocked under SOPA and view it normally?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - JMT (profile), 27 Nov 2012 @ 1:51pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: ICE itself didn't "take down foreign domains"
        Have you scratched out the word MUTE on your TV remote and written "CENSORED!" in it's place?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Beech, 27 Nov 2012 @ 9:14am
  
  Re: ICE itself didn't
  Allegedly. They were allegedly selling counterfeits. Thats the important part what with "innocent until proven guilty" thing.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    
    Anonymous Coward, 27 Nov 2012 @ 10:18am
    
    Re: Re: ICE itself didn't
    No, not allegedly.
    
    There was prima facie evidence of counterfeit goods being sold. It wasn't a matter of interpretation or open to opinion.
    
    You're a slimy piracy apologist and you and all the others here need to do the world a favor and go die in a fire.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - silverscarcat (profile), 27 Nov 2012 @ 12:44pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: ICE itself didn't
      "No, not allegedly.
      
      There was prima facie evidence of counterfeit goods being sold. It wasn't a matter of interpretation or open to opinion."
      
      Not allegedly, huh?
      
      Ever hear of "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law"?
      
      Until then, it's all alleged stuff.
      
      "You're a slimy piracy apologist and you and all the others here need to do the world a favor and go die in a fire."
      
      Wow, just wow...
      
      If I saw you, I would punch you in the face.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Nov 2012 @ 2:01pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: ICE itself didn't
        Wow, just wow...
        
        If I saw you, I would punch you in the face.
        
        That's a laugh. You may be a "badass" in your LARP league, but your history of getting wedgies, surrendering your lunch money and wearing KICK ME signs suggests that you are still a pussy.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 Nov 2012 @ 2:20pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ICE itself didn't
        Wow, I haven't heard someone use "dweeb" stereotypes as an insult in years. What is this, the '90s?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        martyburns (profile), 28 Nov 2012 @ 5:00am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ICE itself didn't
        What is this, the '90s?
        
        He wishes it was, that way we'd all still be only dial-up and there would be 'no' piracy.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        silverscarcat (profile), 27 Nov 2012 @ 2:34pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ICE itself didn't
        Actually, people went out of their way to avoid pissing me off since I was known for having a violent temper.
        
        I never got a wedgie, had to wear a KICK ME sign and I never had any money stolen from me.
        
        I played defensive lineman in highschool and was on the wrestling team.
        
        You REALLY think I couldn't deck you for being an asshole?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2012 @ 4:44am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ICE itself didn't
        Actually, people went out of their way to avoid pissing me off since I was known for having a violent temper.
        
        Oooooooooo....... we're scared.
        
        What a loser.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2012 @ 9:56am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ICE itself didn't
        +1000
        
        Come find me, scaredcat. I'll knock you on your ass and leave you with the wedgie you never got.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2012 @ 3:33pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ICE itself didn't
        Yes, very mature of you. You'd probably get a job as a prison warden.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Niall (profile), 28 Nov 2012 @ 6:14am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ICE itself didn't
        I'm pretty sure most LARP 'badasses' could pummel you bloody, even with a rubber sword. Not like lardass fantasy football players...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2012 @ 7:26am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ICE itself didn't
        Well, look who's under a Level 5 Delusion Spell.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 Nov 2012 @ 3:34pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ICE itself didn't
        Well, look who had a point to prove and failed at it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- weneedhelp (profile), 27 Nov 2012 @ 9:26am
  
  Re: ICE itself didn't "take down foreign domains"
  "when in fact the sites were selling counterfeit goods."
  
  Dajaz1 was too; Right?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Nov 2012 @ 9:39am
  
  Re: ICE itself didn't "take down foreign domains"
  OOTB: Techdirt's version of the senile old man screaming senselessly into the corner.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - MrWilson, 27 Nov 2012 @ 10:15am
    
    Re: Re: ICE itself didn't "take down foreign domains"
    The irony is that he's the old man who comes onto Mike's lawn to yell at everyone to get off of his lawn.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
ECA (profile), 27 Nov 2012 @ 9:20am

I pointed out an interesting
I pointed out an interesting point long ago, probably in another blog..
Could the USA block access to an international site? YEP.
Very easily.
DNS and the MAIN links to other nations are easy to use, as blocking services.
ITS WHAT OTHERS DO..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Trails (profile), 27 Nov 2012 @ 9:38am
  
  Re: I pointed out an interesting
  Not quite. ICE is seizing american-managed domains. Sites are still often accessible by IP or alternate domains.
  
  What the great firewall of china and similar do are much more complex, involved and invasive. The US does not have similar capabilities (that we know of).
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Trails (profile), 27 Nov 2012 @ 9:40am
    
    Re: Re: I pointed out an interesting
    Just to add though: what ICE has done is in the same vein in terms of results, but is decidedly different, and less oppressive, though being less oppressive than China is hardly an accomplishment.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - ECA (profile), 27 Nov 2012 @ 11:44am
      
      Re: Re: Re: I pointed out an interesting
      Trails,
      But we are OVER reaching into other nations..
      ITS THERE LAWS, that we are trying to change, and According to USA LAW, that is against the law..It was anyway.
      
      Its like going to Taiwan, and spitting on the sidewalk, and being sent to JAIL..
      
      Didnt Sopa DIE??
      ICE has NO jurisdiction in OTHER COUNTRIES...lets ask the UN.
      Or do we have an international police force?
      
      Yes we can setup our servers to NOT register ANY location outside the USA..not hard. but you will restrict a WHOLE BUNCH/BANK of computers.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 27 Nov 2012 @ 10:10am

Mike Masnick just hates it when lawbreakers are busted. What a classy guy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Nov 2012 @ 11:05am
  
  Re:
  So was SOPA needed or not? Answer the question.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ECA (profile), 27 Nov 2012 @ 11:54am
  
  Re:
  Pssst..
  you have rights also..
  Until things are made LAW, you retain those rights.
  Copyright isnt a LAW. it has many flaws. which makes it invalid..
  its not like shooting a person. Its the idea/concept..NOT the real thing.
  How would you like to be prosecuted on 'THOUGHT', 'IDEA'?? Even if you made something BETTER.
  You shouldnt become a target if you can MAKE something, or make it BETTER..
  Do you know how MOST ideas come around? YOU PLAY with what is available. Edison did it..Einstein DID it..
  HOW do you restrict INNOVATION? restrict the products of building NEW products. the PARTS, then copyright Everything in your box. You should lookup the copyrights on cellphones..and the lawsuits, and WHO owns what in a cellphone. ITS STUPID.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Nov 2012 @ 12:15pm

Simply to refresh my recollection, do you recall where within the amended bill the USG was authorized to seize websites located and registered overseas?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 27 Nov 2012 @ 2:54pm
  
  Re:
  Simply to refresh my recollection, do you recall where within the amended bill the USG was authorized to seize websites located and registered overseas?
  
  In the manager's amendment, section 102 defined "foreign infringing sites" which allowed for seizure and forfeiture a la how domestic sites were seized.
  
  And we were told repeatedly that this was necessary since ProIP did not allow them to go after those foreign sites.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
nelsoncruz (profile), 27 Nov 2012 @ 12:36pm

Who cares?
Copyright, trademarks... who cares? It's all "intellectual pooperty" like Nina Paley says.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
whens, 2 Jun 2013 @ 11:10am

obama
With Obama in power you can expect four more years of this bullshit. All I can say is I'm glad the US has term limits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]