Magistrate Judge Recommends That Copyright Misuse Defense Be Allowed Against Copyright Troll Malibu Media

City Of London Police Keep Shutting Down Websites With No Court Order

from the how-is-that-legal? dept

Tue, May 27th 2014 2:03pm — Mike Masnick

We've highlighted a number of stories recently about the City of London Police, who have partnered with a few legacy players from the entertainment industry, and are using a bunch of taxpayer money to try to shut down websites the copyright industry doesn't like -- based on no clear legal reasoning or authority. They often seem to just rely on their name and bogus threats to get registrars to kill sites -- a process that has been found to violate ICANN policies for registrars. However, most registrars just give in, because the City of London Police just look so damn official.

Over the weekend TorrentFreak noted that a few more sites have been shuttered based on no court order, no judicial findings, but just the City of London Police's say so. This includes FileCrop, a site that hosted no infringing files at all, but which is just a search engine. Once again, the police make no effort whatsoever to hide the fact that they're doing the bidding of the legacy entertainment industry -- directly linking to their favored sites and flat out saying that they're supported by BPI, IFPI, FACT and the Publishers Association.

Whether or not the sites that are being taken down are, in fact, violating the law, everything about this process is highly questionable. Taking down websites without a court order is a blatant attack on free speech. And, yes, while the UK does not have the same free speech traditions as the US, it does still hold itself out as being a believer in free speech. It is difficult to see the shuttering of a website without any due process as little more than blatant censorship.

Perhaps even more troubling is the fact that this censorship is proudly done to support legacy industries who see the internet as something to be shunned and attacked. How would people respond if the City of London Police suddenly, with no court order, shut down BSkyB and proudly announced it was doing so with the support of the BBC? Or shut down AirBnB and announced it was doing so with the support of the British Hospitality industry? Or shut down EasyJet and did so with the support of British Air? Wouldn't people be outraged?

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: city of london police, domains, restistrars, search engines, takedowns
Companies: bpi, fact, filecrop, icann, ifpi, publishers association

101 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 27 May 2014 @ 12:41pm

I'm just quibbling here, but the taxpayers of the City of London are probably fully supportive of the City of London Police shutting those websites down (even in the knowledge that it has no real authority), since the taxpayers to the City of London are mostly large corporations including those legacy entertainment companies. There's a really good reason that its the City of London Police doing so - they're basically owned by those corporations.

City of London does not equal what most people think of as London. It's basically a couple city blocks where the original London was over 1000 years ago. My description wouldn't do it justice, so go to CGP Grey's youtube channel, he has 2 or 3 videos on it that explain in detail what it is (and yes, he cites his references).

And again, I'm just quibbling over the inference that taxpayers wouldn't be supportive of those actions. I personally find them to be reprehensible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 May 2014 @ 2:34pm
  
  Re:
  The only quibble I have with your assertion is the conflation of taxes with corporate bribery.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Weisshaupt, 28 May 2014 @ 1:20pm
    
    Corporate Bribery
    Which way does the money go? From the Corporations to the Govt. Be that as taxes or Lobbying (or direct bribery) - the people in charge are not the Corporations, though the corporations are often working hand in hand with the Big State Agenda. Because you see, the power to tax is the power to destroy. Don't want to be destroyed? Do the bidding of the politicians. But as long as you are paying protection money anyway, and you can't beat em, why not join them? The system is called Fascism, used to great success by the Socialist Left in Nazi Germany and elsewhere. (See USA) The Big Govt Statists get the propaganda they want, and the CEOs get the regulation and mandatory requirements to break their smaller competition with compliance costs ( often at the price of taking on more taxes..which are but a drop in the bucket compared to not having to compete with small businesses and gaining a near monopoly)
    
    The funny part is when the left calls for more power for govt to regulate big business, which of course only grants more power to extort more businesses into the whole corrupt enterprise-- not less.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Roger, 27 May 2014 @ 2:49pm
  
  Re:
  The City of London, like Washington DC and the Vatican are the only 3 tax-free zones in the world.
  Thus Tax-Payer = every tax-payer in UK not quite as you describe but the connotations are true.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 27 May 2014 @ 5:09pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Washington DC is tax free? Perhaps you should visit rather than talk out of your ass.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 27 May 2014 @ 7:38pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      tax free for the uber riche
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - John Fenderson (profile), 28 May 2014 @ 7:56am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Hmm, a quick web search reveals that Washington DC has an income tax, not to mention a sales tax and (probably) all the other usual taxes (business, etc.)
        
        What is the tax-free part?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Roger, 28 May 2014 @ 10:45am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      HAHAHA yeh my bad about DC I was mis-informed, but the general point of my comment is true.
      Visit Washington? You must be joking, I guess I'll have to continue talking of my arse.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Pegr, 27 May 2014 @ 4:12pm
  
  Re:
  So receiving such an order from the City of London would carry approximately the same legal weight as receiving the same order from the Principality of Sealand?
  
  (Not that Prince Roy would tolerate such shenanigans.)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Duke (profile), 27 May 2014 @ 5:26pm
  
  Re:
  CoLP's PIPCU people are funded by the UK's Department of Business, Innovation and Skills, not the City of London Corporation. BIS is responsible for many copyright things (including the proposed copyright exceptions) and I it is possible they agreed to fund PIPCU for two years (�2.5m in total) in exchange for alphabet-soup not putting up too much of a fight about the copyright exceptions. Of course, that hasn't worked, and the important ones have been delayed for months (possibly indefinitely) due to the record label lobby groups, but that's politics for you...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 May 2014 @ 11:54pm
  
  Re:
  The big corporations in London paying their taxes? That'd be a thing!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 28 May 2014 @ 12:18am
  
  Re:
  "I'm just quibbling here, but the taxpayers of the City of London are probably fully supportive of the City of London Police shutting those websites down"
  
  What about the taxpayers in other parts of London and the UK who are not supportive of the websites being shut down? Shouldn't they get a say? The actions taken don't just affect the City.
  
  The problem isn't the police and taxpayer resources being wasted on actions that will never achieve the supposed aim, it's the fact that these sites are being shuttered with no due process on the say-so of a biased 3rd party. Who pays the enforcement bill is irrelevant.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- sestamibi, 28 May 2014 @ 7:07pm
  
  Re:
  That's no longer true. London has been consolidated for many years now, with Ken Livingstone serving as its first mayor, and current mayor Boris Johnson.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Internet Zen Master (profile), 27 May 2014 @ 2:16pm

Spread the word
Someone needs to spread the word to other registrars that unless the police have a court order, they shouldn't shut down the sites because it goes against ICANN policies, regardless of how official the law enforcement looks.

Bending to the whims of a pack of technological dinosaurs who despise the technology [the Internet] your very business model relies on is bad for business in the long run.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Greevar (profile), 27 May 2014 @ 3:09pm
  
  Re: Spread the word
  Except The City of London is not part of the sovereign nation of Great Britain. They are not bound by due process like the UK is.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Duke (profile), 27 May 2014 @ 5:30pm
    
    Re: Re: Spread the word
    Except The City of London is not part of the sovereign nation of Great Britain.
    Technically this is true, but only because Great Britain isn't a country that exists any more. While the City of London's governance is weird and it has some special treatment, it is still bound by the laws of the UK, including issues of due process. The way the police can get around this is by asking DNS providers to hand over the stuff voluntarily. Then if anyone is breaking the rules it is the DNS provider and the police are in the clear.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 27 May 2014 @ 8:21pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Spread the word
      It is a little weirder: the City of London was never annexed into either the UK or an of the precursor kingdoms, and this independence is recognised by a few minor ceremonial points. However, the Lord Mayor and the Corporation know full-well that they only have that independence as long as they never actually exercise it, and so all laws and regulations which apply across England are automatically applied in the City of London.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Niall (profile), 29 May 2014 @ 5:31am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Spread the word
        No, it is part of the UK (and Great Britain, which still exists until September at least). However, it is ceremonially a separate COUNTY, not COUNTRY. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_london)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Blaine (profile), 27 May 2014 @ 2:18pm

Wouldn't people be outraged?
I'm sure people are outraged here also....

Just not the 'right' people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 27 May 2014 @ 2:22pm

Lol

Mike Masnick still thinks he can pretend iTunes, amazon, netflix, spotify, beats, etc etc, don't exist and that punishing guilty parties involved in infringement is about entertainment companies not liking the internet.

Totally convincing, Masnick. Keep up the great work...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 May 2014 @ 2:39pm
  
  Re:
  punishing guilty parties involved in infringement is about entertainment companies not liking the internet.
  
  When has vigilante action been the best way forward for society, because the actions under discussion are no more than vigilante actions, carried out by a small police force at the behest of large companies.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    
    Anonymous Coward, 27 May 2014 @ 2:53pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Enforcing copyright law is being a vigilante? Lol.
    
    You're a complete fucking moron, aren't you? Move out of your parent's basement and get a life.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Ruben, 27 May 2014 @ 2:59pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      There was no enforcement of any laws here. It was a unilateral action undertaken by a cronied up police force. There was no judge, no decision, no due process.
      
      You're the moron here.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 May 2014 @ 4:43pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Actually, this is more akin to an "arrest" of property. Surely you aren't suggesting that a judge is necessary for a cop to make an arrest, are you?
        
        You retain the moron trophy. Congratulations!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 May 2014 @ 8:31pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Actually, it's not.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Just Another Anonymous Troll, 28 May 2014 @ 8:19am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        *steals moron trophy from Ruben and hands it to you* I think this is yours...
        You can only arrest people. You seize property. If you get arrested, there is still due process, i.e. warrant, breathalyzer, etc. You are only allowed to seize property if a) you have a warrant or b) if it appears to be evidence. Neither criteria is met here, there is barely even a crime.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2014 @ 5:24pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        steals moron trophy from Ruben and hands it to you* I think this is yours...
        You can only arrest people. You seize property. If you get arrested, there is still due process, i.e. warrant, breathalyzer, etc. You are only allowed to seize property if a) you have a warrant or b) if it appears to be evidence. Neither criteria is met here, there is barely even a crime.
        
        So you jaywalk or spit on the sidewalk there won't be a warrant or breathalyzer. Unexplained, large amounts of cash get seized all of the time. And like it or not, property does not have the same presumption of innocence as a person.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 29 May 2014 @ 6:21am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Presumption of innocence? By the same token it doesn't have a presumption of guilt, either. It is an inanimate object, itself incapable of guilt.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Dave, 28 May 2014 @ 11:01am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        This, as we say in the UK, is total cobblers. Police have grossly overstepped the mark in this case and some bigoted folk don't seem to have realized that small fact. Do you want them seizing anything and everything on the whim of an international consortium that has all the cash and clout available to slap you down without going through a court of law? I think not.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 27 May 2014 @ 3:03pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      FromVigilante
      Vigilante justice" is rationalized by the idea that adequate legal mechanisms for criminal punishment are either nonexistent or insufficient. Vigilantes typically see the government as ineffective in enforcing the law; such individuals often claim to justify their actions as a fulfilment of the wishes of the community.
      Describes the actions rather well.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Shadow Dragon (profile), 27 May 2014 @ 3:07pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Pot kettle
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - RD, 27 May 2014 @ 4:50pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "Enforcing copyright law is being a vigilante? Lol."
      
      You cant enforce the LAW without a COURT.
      
      Fuck you.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 27 May 2014 @ 5:04pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So let these guys sue for the release of their property in court. Just like a citizen would have to do if found with a large bag of unexplained cash during a routine traffic stop.
        
        I'm sure the rights holders would be happy to greet them on the courthouse steps with a few subpoenas of their own.
        
        But they located their site in Ukraine for a reason, so I don't expect they'll do shit in a UK court.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Just Another Anonymous Troll, 28 May 2014 @ 8:21am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Suing costs money, money they shouldn't have to pay because their site was taken down with no due process or good reason. It's also a huge hassle. Are you going to pay their legal bills and organize everything, or are you just armchair quarterbacking?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2014 @ 5:28pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Litigation is a cost of doing business and should be considered when developing ones business model. In other words, Yuri knew or should have known the infringement model was high risk. Tough shit.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2014 @ 2:47pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So let these guys sue for the release of their property in court. Just like a citizen would have to do if found with a large bag of unexplained cash during a routine traffic stop.
        
        Here in the U.K. the police can only hold such finds for a limited time, unless they can produce enough evidence to proceed to court. If they cannot find evidence of illegality and bring charges within a limited time, they have to return the cash or other sized property.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        John Fenderson (profile), 28 May 2014 @ 2:57pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Here in the US, they keep it until you actively try to get it back. Often, but not always, this requires a lawsuit. This is mainly because such seizures have become a major source of revenue for the cops (making them extortionists.)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Anonymous Coward, 27 May 2014 @ 2:44pm
  
  Re:
  I agree, Mike, keep up the good work.
  
  Never-mind this troll who cannot parse that there was no court case and therefore no guilty party.
  
  Oh well, proper fertilization requires good manure.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    
    Anonymous Coward, 27 May 2014 @ 2:49pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Guy runs a red light and gets his license taken from him right there. Wasn't in court so he must be innocent.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Ruben, 27 May 2014 @ 3:05pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      But the cops don't take his car.
      
      Try again, Lowery.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 May 2014 @ 4:39pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No one "took" the website either numb nuts.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Just Another Anonymous Troll, 28 May 2014 @ 8:15am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        They just prevented anyone from using it. Technically, it is impossible to steal a web site and so your argument is invalid.
        If I run a red light and lose my license, my friend can still use my car.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Shadow Dragon (profile), 27 May 2014 @ 3:11pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Haven't you read reports of cities purposely shortening the Times of yellow lights,just get more people running the red light for money.What about all those for-profit prisons getting kickbacks for twisting the laws to suit their own benefit.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 27 May 2014 @ 3:13pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      As far as I know he will also be cited for a court appearance, so the license is only suspended until the matter gets sorted out in court.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 May 2014 @ 5:07pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Just like Yuri and the boys can appear in a UK court and get their website back. But guess what? He won't. Because even if you and your fellow Techdirtbags want to deny the obvious- Yuri knows he is in the wrong and appearing in court would allow him to be served with a pile of civil (and criminal) complaints.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 28 May 2014 @ 12:26am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Just like Yuri and the boys can appear in a UK court and get their website back"
        
        Yeah, you can just have your property removed until you go to court at your own expense. that's justice, alright.
        
        That's astounding stupid, even for you.
        
        "Yuri knows"
        
        Cite?
        
        Look, you can argue all you want, but you're an utter failure at guessing the actions, motivations and opinions of others. You're always wrong.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2014 @ 4:55am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yeah, you can just have your property removed until you go to court at your own expense. that's justice, alright.
        
        That's astounding stupid, even for you.
        
        God, you're a moron Paul. What happens when you get stopped by a traffic cop and he finds a large bag of money in the back seat? You know it gets confiscated.
        And how do you get it back? You go to court at your own expense. The law is different on the internet. Sorry.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2014 @ 4:56am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        *isn't*
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PaulT (profile), 28 May 2014 @ 5:36am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "You know it gets confiscated."
        
        No, I don't. I've never looked into the rules when driving, to be honest as they've never affected me. I know the rules for customs though, and they sure as hell don't allow indefinite seizure unless accompanied by a court order.
        
        Maybe that's fine in your screwed up country, but we're not talking about that. In the civilised world I'd hope that it only gets seized if there's other charges and/or evidence of other criminal activity, or at least the opportunity to prove that I got it through legal means. Not because a civilian 3rd party claims it's suspicious.
        
        Again, you apparently think it's OK for someone to have their property seized forever because someone "thinks" there might be something wrong, not because a person is proven to be breaking the law. It's telling that you not only don't see the problem here, but actively defend it.
        
        Oh well, at least you're basing an argument on reality this time rather than whatever idiotic fantasy about me jumps into your head. That's a start.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
  
  Anonymous Coward, 27 May 2014 @ 4:23pm
  
  Re:
  Lol
  
  Mike Masnick still thinks he can pretend iTunes, amazon, netflix, spotify, beats, etc etc, don't exist and that punishing guilty parties involved in infringement is about entertainment companies not liking the internet.
  
  Totally convincing, Masnick. Keep up the great work...
  
  Couldn't be more true. And pretending that filecrop is some innocent bystander is one more of Masnick's litany of excuse-making for grifters, charlatans and crooks. Filecrop is a database of all the cyberlockers out there. It basically searches through the web for infringing files and stores links and the source of the link in its database. You search the name of a file and filecrop search through all those cyber locker (megaupload, fileserver, hotfile, filesonic) and provide you a list of download links it found, for you to download.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Anonymous Coward, 27 May 2014 @ 4:40pm
    
    Re: Re:
    And what is the illegal act?
    
    Same info is available elsewhere.
    
    Search engines are not illegal.
    
    Oh, and, citation please.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 27 May 2014 @ 5:49pm
    
    Re: Re:
    No one believes you, troll boy.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - JMT (profile), 27 May 2014 @ 5:51pm
    
    Re: Re:
    "...grifters, charlatans and crooks."
    
    If we wanted to sit around and call people names, we could point out that these labels can be easily applied to record labels, movie studios and book publishers, all of whom have a long and inglorious history of ripping artists and consumers off for their own monetary gain. You have no moral high ground here so stop acting like you do.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 27 May 2014 @ 8:32pm
    
    Re: Re:
    So...a search engine.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2014 @ 1:11am
    
    Re: Re:
    "...litany of excuse-making for grifters, charlatans and crooks."
    
    No. That's *your* thing, not Masnick's.
    
    You need to stop lying.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - PaulT (profile), 28 May 2014 @ 1:24am
    
    Re: Re:
    "Mike Masnick still thinks he can pretend iTunes, amazon, netflix, spotify, beats, etc etc, don't exist"
    
    He admits they all exist. After your backward heroes have stopped spending their lives trying to force iTunes to change their pricing to make up for imaginary losses, withholding content from all of those sources, restrict them geographically, whine that giving them 80%+ of their grosses isn't enough profit, etc., then maybe we can address some of the other real reasons why these other services exist in the first place.
    
    But, every time these are brought up, liars like yourself attack the people pointing out that making content available is the best way to stop infringement as being "pirates". That's why you always fail. You can't even address the words people are really saying, let alone the reality of the modern marketplace.
    
    "Filecrop is a database of all the cyberlockers out there."
    
    So, a search engine. You admit that Filecrop don't store files themselves, they only link elsewhere. You admit that they list all files on the cyberlockers, legal or not. You admit that someone finding a file through that service will have to go to a different source to download the content. You admit that the service only returns results of what the person is looking for, that they don't encourage them to look at specific content. In other words, you admit that everything they do is already available elsewhere, and shutting them down has no effect on piracy.
    
    Why do you insist on attacking 3rd parties in ways that will have no positive effect on sales rather than addressing the real problems?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 May 2014 @ 11:56pm
  
  Re:
  Guilty? Where did you get that verdict from? I don't see any court cases...
  
  obvious troll is obvious though I guess
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 May 2014 @ 2:35pm

why are the web sites being taken down not going to ICANN or the courts and suing the registers for illegally taking down their sites?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 May 2014 @ 2:48pm
  
  Re:
  The cost of lawyers is a huge impediment to a small players ability to defend themselves from large bullies.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
  
  Anonymous Coward, 27 May 2014 @ 2:50pm
  
  Re:
  Because they're guilty, you fucking idiot freetard.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - JMT (profile), 27 May 2014 @ 5:59pm
    
    Re: Re:
    So in your warped worldview, illegal behavior justifies illegal behavior, right? You know these takedowns wouldn't withstand full legal scrutiny, but you don't care because you know they can probably get a way with it. These websites have committed the serious crime of jeopardizing corporate profits, so the laws be dammed!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      
      Anonymous Coward, 27 May 2014 @ 6:52pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Illegal behavior? What illegal behavior? Has a judge ruled that the City of London has committed an illegal act?
      
      I guess such consideration only applies to grifters, huh? You know what they do wouldn't withstand full legal scrutiny but you don't care because most probably get away with it and it means you and your freeloading friends can continue to enjoy the creative output of others without paying a single dime.
      
      Eat shit, you slimy piracy apologist.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 May 2014 @ 6:53pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        *they too*, not they do. Sorry for the typo.... asshole.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Anonymous Coward, 27 May 2014 @ 7:55pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Foot...Mouth...this is how you get together, pay attention!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - That One Guy (profile), 27 May 2014 @ 9:51pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Illegal behavior? What illegal behavior? Has a judge ruled that the accused sites have committed illegal acts?
        
        Really now, might want to make sure your own arguments can't be turned against you so easily in the future, or don't be surprised when your comments do nothing more than showcase your double-standards when it comes to the law.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2014 @ 7:30am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The question still remains, "What illegal behavior?"
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 29 May 2014 @ 6:28am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Overstepping the bounds of their authority. Only the courts can order a site taken down unless it violates ICANN's or the registrar's rules.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - JMT (profile), 28 May 2014 @ 6:02pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Eat shit, you slimy piracy apologist."
        
        It's extraordinary how the 'arguments' some of the more vocal anti-piracy, pro-copyright types devolve so quickly into childish insults and name-calling. It's like listening to an under-achieving teenager. You're trying to convince us that we shouldn't take stuff for free and should give you money instead, and this is the approach you think will work?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2014 @ 6:13pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Reason and appeal to your morality has proven to have failed.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        JMT (profile), 29 May 2014 @ 3:27am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Saddest excuse ever. Copyright maximilism and hyper-focus on anti-piracy measures are the antithesis of good reason. And trying to paint piracy as a morality issue was a stupid strategy doomed to fail, because it's so far off the mark.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        John Fenderson (profile), 29 May 2014 @ 9:53am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So, ignoring that perhaps the arguments have failed because they are unconvincing, you advocate shouting and insulting instead? There's a word for that: trolling.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Dave, 28 May 2014 @ 10:45am
    
    Re: Re:
    Oh, so you want a police state do you? Police have no right whatsoever to act as judge and jury, as I suspect you well know. Let's see YOU become the victim of something like this and see if you have the same battle cry afterwards. It's been said long and hard.....DUE PROCESS are the words you need to get into that lump of half a brain that you appear to possess, that is if you actually have that quantity of cells in your thick, bigoted head.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 May 2014 @ 2:44pm

One of the websites whose domain The City of London Police got suspended was Torrentz.eu see http://torrentfreak.com/torrentz-eu-domain-suspended-uk-police-request-140526/ and that website has now had the suspension lifted see http://torrentfreak.com/torrentz-eu-domain-suspended-uk-police-request-140526/

Now why is The City of London Police getting a website suspended and shutdown when the website in question has already been previously blocked months previously by the ISP's in the UK by a High Court ruling to block access to the website. What a waste of effort to shutdown a website by a country to whom access from to the website is already blocked and no access can be made.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 May 2014 @ 2:51pm
  
  Re:
  Because the traditional publishers are a world wide cartel, and wish sites blocked on a world wide basis.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 May 2014 @ 2:44pm

I wonder, can we hit them back for some kind of monopolistic advertising for those recommended sites?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bengie, 27 May 2014 @ 2:53pm

First off
They need to decide if it's a criminal issue or a civil issue. If it's criminal, they show the judge's orders in reviewing the evidence, if it's civil, then stop using the police.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 May 2014 @ 3:14pm

isn't that a little bit out? they keep on convincing the registrars etc to shut them down, yes! where it's wrong of course is that they think they can do whatever they like, regardless of the law. if any of these websites are breaking the law, then get the court orders and take them to court. this is a problem made worse by the person who is supposed to be running the show. he is an ex-entertainment industries employee, just like Judge Howell, and is obviously as bias as fuck (cheeky bastard expects the UK tax payer to continuously fund this fucking exercise! but then, the UK government is obviously out to please someone here, so i suppose it will!)! if he were not, or if the UK wanted to do the right thing, they would get the entertainment industries to produce proof positive of the tremendous financial loss these alternative sites are causing, not just the figures the industries pull out of their arse each time, throwing figures like �400 million around. then they would make those same industries do what anyone would do if they were running a business and have web sites of their own put up with content on them as fast and in as good a quality at least as the other sites. then instead of continuously wasting tax payers money on financing all this fucking bullshit, i would make the industries pay for the work themselves. why the hell should money meant for something far more important be used to finance an industry that is so friggin backward that it expects the world and his wife to pay to keep them in the pre-digital age? if that's where they want to stay, then stay! and dont keep grizzling about fantasy losses when the income is greater every year!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 May 2014 @ 3:18pm

problem with the Brits, they're too bloody slow to catch a cold! they dont do anything to prevent something happening, they wait till it's happened and they have lost out, then kick up. they haven't realised yet that it's a lot easier to prevent losing something than it is to get it back!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Violated (profile), 27 May 2014 @ 6:52pm
  
  Re:
  And just should be done about an out-of-control police unit who ignores and abuses the law? Government sanctioned I should add with taxpayer funding.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    
    Anonymous Coward, 27 May 2014 @ 6:55pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Why not go "Occupy The City Of London". Make sure to wear your Techdirt hoodie and an Guy Fawkes mask so the cops know who needs teargassing the most.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Violated (profile), 27 May 2014 @ 10:46pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Knowing the UK I could be the only one.
      
      I would also prefer to have PIPCU face the law that they are choosing to ignore and abuse. How a third person can do that is hard to say when I have no financial stake.
      
      So only bitching and moaning here or there. Maybe a petition to politicians could help pointing out how PIPCU ignores the law and justice.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 27 May 2014 @ 11:07pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Using tear gas against peaceful protestors, even though protesting isn't a crime and there's no due cause for such force. But, no, we're not the criminals, they are!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Mark Noo, 27 May 2014 @ 11:37pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Do the police swear any sort of oath to uphold the law? Where are the NSA, the London police, and other agencies finding these Gestapo sort of people. There has been a rash of big governments doing anything they want. Russia and the Ukraine. The NSA adn wiretaps.
    I am not a fan of the IRS or the Tea Party but that sort of thing ain't right. What about the Benghazi massacre and the ensuing cover up.
    It is like Girls Gone Wild with governments. I want to see Barack Obama give Putin a little tongue.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
john howard (profile), 27 May 2014 @ 3:44pm

Re:
Is this physically deleting the website, or getting the ISP's to block it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 May 2014 @ 4:04pm
  
  Re: Re:
  It's more akin to forced cybersquatting. Your name is given to a squatter "just because"
  
  The site itself isn't deleted, but any attempt to go to foo.com will go to the squatter/hollywood/city of London landing page.
  
  However, foo can buy foo.info and put the site back up under a different name.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 29 May 2014 @ 4:11am
    
    Re: Re: Re:
    I use parked, but maybe a parked website is different..
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 May 2014 @ 3:52pm

What are the names of registrars shutting down domains based on City of London Police's say so? I'd like to know so I can avoid doing any business with them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Violated (profile), 27 May 2014 @ 6:55pm
  
  Re:
  One good known Registrar who took this matter to ICANN was EasyDNS. Bad has yet to be seen when all comply with ICANN rules once pointed out.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jake, 27 May 2014 @ 5:26pm

I've pointed this out previously, but it bears repeating.

Since we don't really have a federal law-enforcement agency in Britain, the two police forces in the capital get to do a lot of stuff that the US would hand to the FBI or the Secret Service; lots of domestic anti-terrorism work is handled by the Special Branch of the London Metropolitan Police, for example, because they supply the security details for government officials and visiting diplomats.

And the City of London Police? Well, since their beat covers an area with the most banks and corporate headquarters per square mile in the entire country, they do most of the criminal investigations for fraud and other 'economic crime' that goes on in this country.

Something to think about next time we hear of a multinational getting caught fixing the inter-bank lending rate or laundering money for Mob, isn't it: Did someone get a tip-off, but couldn't follow up because the computer forensics unit were all occupied hassling people for bootlegging porn?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 May 2014 @ 7:42pm

I guess this will result in killing the registrar business in the greater London area, looks like opportunity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 May 2014 @ 8:20pm

Really Mike, you must do something about the quality of the trolls here. I mean these aren't worth answering as they seem to barely have a kindergarden intelligence.

Come on now, you can do better than this!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 May 2014 @ 1:01am

The acronym is clearly missing 'NTs'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
me@me.net, 28 May 2014 @ 4:26am

If its being done with no authority
Why is it being allowed. Shouldn't that be an underlying premise here?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
askeptic, 28 May 2014 @ 1:37pm

The Brits stopped believing in 'free speech' long ago when it became more important to protect the feelings of aggrieved groups and individuals, just as they arrest home-owners for resisting the depredations of home-invaders if they so much as displace a hair on the head of their attackers.
Robyn of Locksley would be so proud; Robert Peel not so much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
tracyanne (profile), 28 May 2014 @ 4:18pm

Here's the only mention the police make
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-27187821

The Police Intellectual Property Crime Unit (Pipcu) was set up in 2013 and focuses on crimes committed online.

DCI Andy Fyfe, head of Pipcu, said: "Behind many of these websites lies an organised crime gang funnelling off the money spent by unsuspecting customers on what they think are quality products.

"Consumers also need to be aware that by accessing websites like this they are running the risk of their personal details being compromised and being used for other fraudulent scams, as well as the exposing their computer to malicious malware."

Pipcu urges customers to use common sense when shopping online and advises that legitimate popular technology and designer items are rarely discounted.

It also suggests shoppers type web addresses directly in to a browser, rather than clicking on a link, and always check to make sure it is the correct address.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 May 2014 @ 12:14am

Another Silly Article
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 29 May 2014 @ 12:18am

Another Silly Article
First of all, the City of London police by the very nature of their role, cannot, by definition, be acting outside of the very system they are a fundamental part of.

If the police are shutting it down, then let's get real here, the sites contain illegal pirated software and media.

Furthermore, the author has offered no evidence supporting his claim that these sites are in fact down and not just a local hardware issue. Did the author try to restart his cable modem? What about pinging google.com from the command line? There is no information provided, so it is impossible to determine if this was or was not just an local outage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Niall (profile), 29 May 2014 @ 6:10am
  
  Re: Another Silly Article
  Are you really, really that 'naive'? Of course the police can act outside of their jurisdiction, and extra-legally - this has happened many times before in Britain!
  
  Just because the police shut something down does not automatically make it illegal or even civilly incorrect, especialyl when there are no warrants or pre-judicial hearings.
  
  And really, straw man of it being a tech support issue?
  
  For all the money these illegal monopolies make, you'd think they could buy better shills.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 29 May 2014 @ 5:14pm
  
  Re: Another Silly Article
  "If the police arrest you, you must be guilty!" Real convincing, chucklefuck.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Aditya, 6 Jun 2014 @ 5:09am

U.K police
U.k police is trying to regulate the internet. offcourse they are rowdy definitely the sponsors are paying a big amount of money to monkey threat the registrar of site.
as i know there was a notice on every link..that if you see any copyright infringement let us know.
so the site was never responsible to violate any law and being indulged any kind of criminal activities.
now the registrar should file a case of bribery on u.k police to being a victim of taking bribe from sponsors.
sponsors should contact to registrar to take his product link down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kopinkus, 12 Sep 2019 @ 6:08am

New update 100% works site of <a href="https://vpnalist.com/torrentz2-eu">torrentz2.eu</a> in 2019
[ link to this | view in chronology ]