Homeland Security Admits It Seized A Hip Hop Blog For Five Years Despite No Evidence Of Infringement; RIAA Celebrates
from the fuck-you,-riaa dept
Last month, we were actually the first publication to report that Homeland Security had very quietly "returned" two domains that it had "seized" five years ago based entirely on totally bullshit claims from the RIAA. We focused our story on the search engine torrent-finder, but also mentioned that it appeared that DHS had returned OnSmash.com as well. As we had noted, back when the domain was first seized, OnSmash was a popular hip hop blog that many in the industry purposely sent their music to, because it was great for marketing and publicity. In fact, Kanye West had been known to promote OnSmash himself. That doesn't sound like a site "dedicated to infringement" as Homeland Security's ICE division claimed in the affidavit used to seize the website.Four years ago, we were wondering whatever happened to OnSmash, as other sites that had gone to court over the seizures had had their domains returned -- and it was admitted that this was because the RIAA (which had told ICE about these websites) failed to provide any actual evidence. It appears the same thing happened with OnSmash, though it just took an extra four years to get the domain back, as OnSmash's operator, Kevin Hofman, chose not to take the riskier path that Dajaz1 took in going to court. But, the NY Times story about the return of OnSmash gets a quote from ICE admitting that they never had enough evidence:
When asked about the return of OnSmash and another site, Torrent-Finder.com, which was seized in the 2010 raid and also returned to its operator this fall, Matthew Bourke, a spokesman for the National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, said that after working with the Justice Department, “it was determined there was not enough evidence to seize the websites.”Think about that for a second. The US government shut down a blog for more than five years and only after giving it back now admits that it never had enough evidence to seize the website.
I'm gong to repeat that:
Jonathan Lamy, a spokesman for the recording industry association, said he welcomed the return of the sites, as long as they played by the rules. “If the managers of some of these sites now seek to have the domain name returned because they wish to become legitimate operators, that’s a success,” he said.What a load of horseshit, Lamy. These sites didn't "now seek to have the domain name returned." They asked for it back almost immediately after they were seized on false pretenses based on false information provided by the RIAA. Perhaps, instead of some bullshit about these sites suddenly wanting to play by the rules, Lamy should walk down the hall to see his colleague Carlos Linares (who is still employed by the RIAA) and ask him what was up when he lied to federal investigators, helping to shut down a popular blog, violating the site's First Amendment rights?
This is from the affidavit used to seize OnSmash:
Mr. Hofman, whose day job is managing digital accounts for musicians, has already restarted OnSmash, but he said he was aware of the challenges he would face. The site has lost most of its momentum, and blogs — once at the forefront of online music promotion — have largely been superseded by social media. He noted one advantage: By embedding links from sites like SoundCloud and YouTube, where artists and labels post songs directly, there is no more gray area concerning the source of the music.Oh yeah, insult to injury: Homeland Security made him pay $7 to get the domain back.
“The plan now,” Mr. Hofman said, “is to do my best to pick up the pieces.”
I'm still amazed that these stories haven't gotten more attention. Again, if the federal government seized and shut down a print magazine people would be up in arms. But they do that for a bunch of online magazines and nobody seems to care? Again, they seized the domain based on false information and kept it for five years knowing that they didn't have enough evidence to have made the seizure in the first place.
And the guy who helped at the RIAA is still employed. Has anything happened to the ICE agent, Andrew Reynolds, who wrote the affidavit? How about the magistrate judge, Margaret Nagle, who apparently had no problem signing off on the seizures of internet blogs based on faulty evidence? Apparently, she recently retired and is now acting as a mediator. You know what might have been helpful? If someone had actually been able to mediate things back in 2010 before the RIAA, Homeland Security and Judge Nagle worked together to shut down an internet news website with no justification.
I've issued some FOIA requests to Homeland Security about both OnSmash and Torrent-Finder, and so far they've said that it would be "too burdensome" to search for any emails mentioning either site. I'm hopeful that more information will be exposed on what a colossal screwup this was.
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: andrew reynolds, asset seizure, blogs, carlos linares, copyright, dhs, first amendment, free speech, hip hop, homeland security, ice, jonathan lamy, kanye west, kevin hofman, margaret nagle, onsmash, riaa, seizure
Companies: riaa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Oh sweet naivity...
“The plan now,” Mr. Hofman said, “is to do my best to pick up the pieces.”
You know why his site was seized in the first place? Because there's no penalty for lying with regards to copyright, as evidenced by the very case that cost him the site.
Has that changed in five years? Not in the slightest.
If he thinks that he's somehow 'more protected' by only using embeds, he's in for quite the unpleasant surprise. Nothing stopped someone from claiming his site was 'dedicated to infringement' before when it hosted content sent in by the labels themselves, and nothing stops that from happening again if a bot flags his site for whatever reason, or someone feels like metaphorically kicking him in the teeth by filing a few bogus DMCA claims.
After all, what do they have to lose?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
1. He had an attorney.
2. Disagree that he was "a moron." There were a few different ways to appeal the process, and the ones that involved going to court are much more risky and much more expensive. I cannot fault Hofman for not choosing that one.
3. He chose an alternative process called an "offer in compromise" which DHS itself says is a way to seek the return of your seized property.
That is, he actually followed the rules (as he did for his site) and it's just that DHS fucked him over with help from the RIAA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Inquiring minds want to know if Pirate Mike filters Pirate Mike or if some Anonymous Coward is simply reported by the community because he is a moron.
I'll reply to my post from another browser on another IP address right after posting this to find out.
The timestamps should reveal the truth to this test. I will not be able to reply to a post that is filtered.......
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How exactly do the AA's or the representatives of the legal system expect the people to have any respect for the law if those who govern it, do not follow it, and are not held accountable by it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
He could stop it, Bush could have stopped it, and our Next President will be able to stop it.
Lets just sit and wait and see if the "next" president will be any different from the last one.
As the pack of ignorant and sheepizens we are, I am certain everyone has realized that we have been voting in the same guy for quite some time... just with different hair do's.
That's right, you can fool most of the people most of the time!!! Government itself stands as the eternal monument of mankind's evil and depravity!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"As the pack of ignorant and sheepizens we are,"
Yes, everyone is exactly like you. Speak for yourself and leave me out of your delusions.
This "both parties are the same" bullshit is older than Joe's toes and twice as moldy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Both share the same agenda of prohibitionism, surveillance, government-granted monopolies, war-mongering etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
a lot of government types that fall under that heading but a free society is not 1 of them
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NY Times story url ?
I'm sure one of those links leads to that story—I just don't seem to be able to figure out which one. What can I say? It must be Monday morning after the holidays. Anyhow, I could use some help here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: NY Times story url ?
It's also here: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/02/business/media/5-years-and-7-later-us-returns-a-seized-hip-hop-sit e.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: NY Times story url ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Judging by Lamy's logic (They want their domains back because they've changed their ways!), Linares should respond by asking Lamy whether he still beats his wife.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
...and children, and puppies, and kittens, and bedridden grandparents along with a host of others too degenerate to list here, all with a ghoulish grin on his face!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My guess is there was no Skype logs or existing emails to seize that could be used against him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm a little suprised
I'm sure there was a reason.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TLDR: bad things happened to bad people. Why shed a tear for them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Hail the police state!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
*looks it up*
Oh, that guy.
Umm... how in the world did you derive that from what I said? Or are you just spouting random gibberish simply because you can?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
analogy
[uh-nal-uh-jee]
noun, plural analogies.
1.
a similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based:
the analogy between the heart and a pump.
2.
similarity or comparability:
I see no analogy between your problem and mine.
Basically, he's comparing your apathy at a site being taken down for no reason to the apathy about Eric Garner's death because he was breaking some law.
You not liking the genre of music, despite it's legal status, somehow makes the take down of his site, despite the lack of evidence justified.
The same way that people justified the fucktard cop killing a man over untaxed cigarettes...you know, because the law.
Did that help?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
TLDR: bad things happened to bad people. Why shed a tear for them?
Because you don't like some music and what it's talking about, you're totally okay with violating their First Amendment rights?
That is the stereotypical "I support free speech, but not this speech I don't like." Frankly, I find your ridiculous argument that the music is all about "gang violence, drug culture, misogyny" to be offensive. Is it then okay to argue you should be barred from saying it just because I find it offensive?
Heck, when the example you're holding up to try to establish the legitimacy of the site is freaking Kanye West, that belongs right up there on the Not Helping Your Case leaderboard with the guys who point out that if we shut down YouTube we might miss out on the next Justin Beiber, but three or four steps higher.
The point -- which apparently went WAY over your head -- is that one of the largest music stars today was supporting the website. That you read something else into it suggests a rather problematic view on your part.
TLDR: bad things happened to bad people. Why shed a tear for them?
No, a publication got censored because of government overreaction. There is no evidence that it involved "bad people". And we "shed a tear" for them because we don't abide by censorship. That you apparently have no problem with it says pretty much all I need to know about you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Go die in a fire, you lying, hypocritical sleazeblob.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I am quite upset when artists are "ripped off" for real. What I find troubling is when folks like yourself call market competition "being ripped off."
Or, when you have plenty of ways to prevent any actual monetary loss, but choose not to take it, and choose to whine instead (your standard MO).
But actual artists being ripped off -- such as through predatory deals with labels, that certainly gets me angry as well.
But, of course, that's still on a very different level than THE GOVERNMENT violating the Constitution. And I've yet to see any evidence of the gov't violating the constitution for artists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I understand that you're the poster bloviator for tech douches, but calling piracy "market competition" is even funnier than your usual bullshit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Did he do that, or is your lack of interest in the facts of these discussions causing you to attack a fantasy, as usual? The facts are evident - you're hallucinating again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That's not true, there have been plenty of Techdirt articles about record label contracts.
"Go die in a fire, you lying, hypocritical sleazeblob."
Yes, continue actively reinforcing the strongly negative opinion the general public has of the recording industry (not artists), that'll get 'em buying CD's again!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, no... those don't count for random reasons, judging by the defences launched by ACs on every one of those articles. It's only when someone outside of the major labels *might* have lost *some* unknown amount of revenue for the artists that it counts. Record labels directly stealing from artists is OK.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If by "music" you mean "rap." To people outside that particular fandom, he's best known as "that attention-whore jerk who shamefully mistreated Taylor Swift."
I find that fact that you think that thinking that someone's character matters is problematic problematic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If you trust those in charge not to be malicious about such things why then are they treating themselves as above the law?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If you don't support the rights of 'bad people', then you're missing the point, because those are the exact same rights that protect 'good people'.
They either protect everyone or no-one, because if rights only apply to 'good people' then they're no longer rights, they're privileges, and can be ignored at will or whim.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
something something false legal claims
something something apparently if you claims to hold a copyright the law can't do anything to you.
Can't make you pay for taking down content incorrectly.
Can't make you pay for stealing domains.
Can't make you pay for lying to federal agents.
Perhaps someone would like to show the **AA's this story and point out that the reason no one respects copyright is because the cartels have no respect for the law or citizens.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
name the lawyers involved.
Granted some news sources do, but for many, many news stories there is no mention of the offending attorney's name - those opposing 'fair use'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WOW
[ link to this | view in chronology ]