Holder In The Hot Seat, Still Can't Explain Why DOJ Censored Hip Hop Blog

from the answers-were-not-satisfactory dept

Back in December, right after it came out that the Justice Department had seized and censored a hip hop blog for over a year and then gave it back, effectively admitting that there was no legal basis for the censorship, Rep. Zoe Lofgren asked Attorney General Eric Holder about what happened in the case. After making a joke that his daughters might know more about it than he did, he promised to get back to Lofgren with a more complete answer once he was more familiar with the situation.

Turns out he never responded to her questions.

Of course, since then the secret proceedings in the case (which Dajaz1 was not even allowed to know about, or even have their lawyer speak to the judge) have been unsealed. Those revealed that the ICE Agent in charge of the case, Andrew Reynolds, had basically sat around doing nothing for over a year, waiting for the RIAA to finally provide the evidence that Dajaz1 had broken the law. That evidence was obviously never produced, which is why Dajaz1 eventually got its domain back.

There was another oversight hearing yesterday, and Zoe Lofgren quizzed Holder again, noting that not only did he not respond to her questions, but also highlighting the unsealed documents, which show that the original affidavit was misleading.
Holder first responds that he "believes" the seizures were legal, because the court signed off on them. Lofgren immediately challenges that, noting the incorrect or misleading information in the affidavit, and asking if he believes it's okay to censor a site for over a year and not allow the site to even be heard by the court in all that time. At that point, he at least admits that if the affidavit was "misleading" that "that would not be an appropriate basis for action on behalf of the government." He also notes that seizure is a powerful tool that needs to be used "judiciously." And then notes that if what Lofgren descrbied was accurate "that would be of great concern."

Of course, none of that comments on what actually happened here -- and it's not like this is the first time he's heard of this. Remember, he was directly asked about it last year, and had promised to look into the details. Furthermore, after the hearing, Lofgren put out a statement saying that not only did she not hear back from him after her questions last year, but "prior to this hearing my staff told his staff to tell him the question I was going to be asking so he could be prepared to answer." Clearly, he was not prepared to answer.

As Lofgren notes, "I didn't think it was a very impressive answer, and to suppress free speech for a year with secret proceedings and no probable cause is a problem. It's not the way America is supposed to be."

Filed Under: censorship, doj, eric holder, seizure, zoe lofgren
Companies: dajaz1

Website Censored By Feds Takes Up Lamar Smith's Challenge: Here's Your 'Hypothetical'

from the take-that dept

So, remember Lamar Smith's claim that all of the problems of SOPA are "hypothetical" and no one has shown any language as to what's wrong with the bill? Yeah, it seems that one such "hypothetical" has decided to take Smith up on his challenge. Enter Dajaz1, the American music blog that was censored for over a year and denied due process... under SOPA's predecessor, the Pro-IP Act (which many of us tried to warn about at the time it was being debated). Yes, it appears that Dajaz1 (finally relaunched) has a thing or two to say to Lamar Smith about his "hypotheticals."

Before I get into SOPA and PIPA, let’s go backwards and discuss the language of Pro-IP. Since Mr. Smith is so concerned about the language I’m hoping he can point me to the language in the Pro-IP Act covering criminal forfeiture where it states or even insinuates that it can be used to seize DOMAIN NAMES. That language doesn’t exist, what does exist is broad confusing open ended wording that apparently covers a wide spectrum of things the legislators who passed this bill never considered it could be used for. With all the assurances the bill he co-sponsored back in 2008 wouldn’t be misused coupled with the fact I’m writing this post on a factual representation of its misuse, it seems pretty rich that he’d have the guts to come out talking “show me the language.” Who cares about “language” when it’s written specifically to be vague enough to allow for a free for all?

Lets be honest here: What the worlds population hasn’t caught onto yet (and all the (‘Big Content’ owned versions of Self Serving State TV are not going to tell them) is much of the things in SOPA/PIPA that people are against, the authors and many of the co-sponsors of SOPA/PIPA already snuck into Pro-IP. The internet is already being censored, it’s already being misused, abused, free speech has already been stifled and there has already been collateral damage. All with the same open ended broad definition type language that exists in SOPA/PIPA that they absolutely refuse to narrow down as evidenced by not approving even the most common sense amendments. Many of which would have likely taken away or reduced their ability to misuse Pro-IP.

If Mr. Smith and his colleagues are genuine and sincere, why don’t they show US the language where it specifically states you cannot do all the things everyone is concerned about, make the language clear and concise, and then correct the language in Pro-IP so it can no longer function as the free for all that is already doing everything opponents of SOPA/PIPA are afraid of. Then, perhaps, I can take you somewhat seriously in your position that you believe you are doing the right thing and not just doing the bidding of corporations that bought you lock stock and barrel even at the detriment to your own reputation. One scenario makes you easy to manipulate, but genuine and willing to correct mistakes; the other just makes you corrupt. Pro-IP must be repealed and corrected immediately

But the folks at Dajaz1 are just getting warmed up. After discussing Pro-IP, they discuss how the industry has a ridiculously broad definition of "rogue website" by pointing to the infamous GroupM "rogue website" blacklist put together by Universal Music and others -- which included a bunch of hip hop blogs (including Dajaz1 itself and another of the seized blogs, OnSmash, which is still in purgatory somewhere). They also note that hip hop superstar Drake not only used the internet and free music to turn himself into a superstar... but that he did so via the exact same blogs listed on the GroupM "rogue website list.". From a press report at the time:

"You’ve gotta credit Drake, especially with NahRight and other sites, He was well-connected to those guys."

The use of the Drake example becomes pretty important, because back during the House Judiciary Committee's SOPA hearings, Rep. Ted Deutch of Florida, rather stunningly, used Drake as an example such sites. See the video here, which highlights how insane that is: In fact, that's the topic of Dajaz1's third post in the series: just how out of touch Ted Duetch is that he thinks that, for there to be the next Drake, he needs to shut down the very sites that Drake directly used to promote his work.

REALITY CHECK: On February 12, 2009, Drake released a Mixtape called “So Far Gone” for free on the internet. This mixtape garnered so much buzz for him that he ended up touring (making a reportedly 5 figures per night), and getting several singles on the radio in the top 10 on Billboard. Drake accomplished all of this as an independent artist. A bidding war ensued by the major labels and Drake signed to a major a few months later. Despite the fact that he’d given away “So Far Gone” for free 7 months prior on the internet and it had well over a million downloads, the tape was re-released as an EP by his label in Sept. 2009 and still managed to go Gold. He was nominated for 2 Grammy Awards.

Drake came from the internet, making relationships with and utilizing the blogs, most of which are listed as so called “ROGUE WEBSITES” that have been targeted by “Private Rights of Action” in the form of a blacklist by advertising giant, Group M. Two of those “rogue sites” had their domain names seized with banners calling the operators criminals by The Dept. Of Homeland Security. (While this domain was returned last month, OnSmash is still in purgatory). No hypothetical here,this is the reality of the misuse that is happening now and will only get worse with the passage of SOPA and PIPA.

Dajaz1 also points out that the other example Deutch uses -- Adele -- also came up through the internet, and was discovered on MySpace -- just the type of site that would be significantly burdened under SOPA/PIPA. Furthermore, the post highlights numerous other top music acts directly thanking the various sites listed as "rogue sites," including some of those seized and censored by the US government under ProIP.

In the final installment, Dajaz1 points out that SOPA and PIPA are not about "saving the artists," they're about saving the big, slow legacy players who fear innovation that allows artists to succeed without them.

When Congress and the RIAA says “Rogue Websites” do they mean the tools the artists are using to connect directly with their fans and distribute their own music? I mean I’m just wondering because I could make this post 20+ pages of screen shots showing examples of artists utilizing these “ROGUE WEBSITES” the RIAA is trying to get Congress to pass legislation and scrub from the internet.

And, in fact, Dajaz1 then shows a ton of tweets from famous artists to the very same blogs that were targeted as "rogue sites" (some of which were taken down). So just as clueless Congressional Reps. like Lamar Smith, Bob Goodlatte, John Conyers, Mel Watt and Ted Deutch insist they're "protecting the artists," it appears those very same artists are using those darn "rogue websites" to not just promote themselves and their careers, but to make a ton of money doing so.

So who exactly is Congress trying to protect? The content creators or trade groups with deep pockets who become obsolete if the majors fully embrace technology and innovate? Truth be told there are some incredibly smart people in the urban internet world who’d be amazing assets to the legacy industry in adapting to the marketplace. If only they’d utilize them.

One of the most disturbing things to come out of the SOPA hearings is how gullible many members of Congress appear to be and how technically inept many are in Washington. If you don’t understand the technology it is not OK to say you don’t get it while turning around and saying you don’t believe the people who do. (I’m looking right at you Mr. Watts) Generation Gaps are no excuse, you’re in what amounts to a management position and you should be qualified to hold that position when you are dealing with my generation and our children’s generation economic future. Your lack of knowledge is not an excuse for the loss of any American’s Constitutional Rights. To essentially shoulder shrug like you’re cute when something that important is at stake is reprehensible. If anyone in Congress, The White House, DOJ, ICE, Homeland Security, or any other branch of Government’s knowledge in technology stops somewhere around 1997 then it is time to retire as you are no longer qualified to hold your position in 2012.

This is the crux of the matter here. The complaints that Lamar Smith so wants to dismiss are not "hypothetical" to sites like Dajaz1. And, they're not hypothetical to artists like Drake. The idea that these artists need such laws to protect their interests is simply laughable when you see how these artists rely on those sites to market their works, make a name for themselves, and leverage that publicity into huge piles of money from live shows or later recording deals. These aren't hypotheticals. These are all very, very real... and Congress, in its ultimate cluelessness, is trying to break the internet to "stop" these sites. And not because it will protect artists, but because it will protect the major record labels and movie studios from up-and-coming competition. The major labels don't want Drake to come up through the internet. They don't want people like Mac Miller creating best selling albums, without a major label, by using those same sites to get publicity.

So they start this huge campaign to label these new forms of distribution as "rogue sites," get the US government -- in its admitted cluelessness -- to support them, and then (to make the insult even worse) pretend that it's all about protecting the very artists who rely on these new forms of distribution.

Sorry, Lamar Smith: the threat isn't "hypothetical." It's very, very real, and Dajaz1 is living proof.

Filed Under: adele, censorship, drake, hypothetical, john conyers, lamar smith, mac miller, mel watt, pipa, proip, protect ip, sopa, ted deutch
Companies: dajaz1

MPAA Boss Chris Dodd Denies That Copyright Law Today Has Created Any Free Speech Issues

from the can-someone-please-educate-him? dept

MPAA boss Chris Dodd is apparently continuing his "how far can I stretch the truth" tour in support of SOPA/PIPA. His latest stop was an interview on Bloomberg TV. He talks about a bunch of things, blowing some hot air about how this debate is a "breakthrough." But the part that interested me is around the 3:30 mark, where he insists that what SOPA allows we already do to American sites, and "no one has suggested freedom of speech has been hampered." Oh really? Perhaps Chris Dodd is entirely unfamiliar with the blatant censorship and denial of due process for Dajaz1.com, a site taken down under the laws of today... and denied due process before the government finally admitted it had no case, more than a year later. There also have been tons of complaints about bogus DMCA claims (including many from top MPAA members). This is not an idle concern. We have the evidence of wrongdoing under today's laws. We have the evidence that it is not narrow, but widespread, and it happens all the time.

That's our key concern. It's not some "hypothetical." We have tons and tons of evidence of today's laws being widely abused, so we're quite reasonably freaked out about a law that has much, much broader implications, in that it doesn't just take down specific content, but entire websites. And, when that happens, speech is definitely restrained, and legitimate companies get killed.

So when I hear Chris Dodd claim that "no one has suggested freedom of speech has been hampered" under today's laws, I wonder if he's simply completely ignorant of what's happening... or if he's just lying. Either answer looks bad for Dodd. But it does highlight the desperation of SOPA/PIPA supporters today that they're resorting to such ridiculous claims...

Filed Under: chris dodd, copyright, free speech
Companies: dajaz1

Shouldn't There Be Significant Punishment For Bogus Copyright Claims That Kill Companies?

from the seems-like-it dept

We wrote a detailed post about the latest Veoh ruling, in which Universal Music lost (again) in claiming that Veoh violated copyright law with its YouTube-like service. Of course, as we pointed out, the "victory" for Veoh is pretty meaningless because Veoh is dead. The cost of the lawsuit itself killed it. I've been thinking about this a lot lately, when you see stories like the federal government shutting down Dajaz1 for over a year, without having an actual case for infringement, and the similar case in Japan, in which the developer of a software program, Winny, had to battle in courts for more than five years, before the court declared that he was totally innocent.

The harm done to legitimate businesses by totally bogus copyright claims seems like it should be a big deal. If the government is really concerned about jobs, rather than passing something like SOPA, shouldn't it be ramping up the punishment for bogus copyright claims that cause so much real harm to businesses? Eric Goldman, in discussing the Veoh ruling makes a similar point and puts forth an interesting suggestion for SOPA, to force companies filing such claims to put up a bond to pay, if they turn out to be wrong:

A partial fix to SOPA/PROTECT-IP would make rightsowners bear the cost of their overclaiming. Make them put up a $1 billion bond for the privilege of sending cutoff notices; and pay liberally out of that bond if the rightsowners get the law or facts wrong. Write checks to the investors and employees whose economic expectations are disrupted when rightsowners get it wrong. Write checks to the payment service providers and ad networks who turn down money from legally legit businesses based solely on rightsowner accusations. Heck, write checks to the users of those legit services who are treated as inconsequential pawns in this chess match. Sure, a $1B bond obligation with liberal payouts would turn cutoff notices into a sport of kings that only the richest rightsowners could afford, but perhaps that’s the way it should be. A rightsowner's decision to send a cutoff notice should be a Big Deal, the equivalent of going to Defcon 5, and not like sending holiday cards to distant relatives you last saw at Ethan's bar mitzvah.

The supporters of the bill, of course, would reject such a suggestion out of hand, noting that it would be unfair and would make it harder for them to "enforce their rights." But that ignores the other side of the equation. If enforcing their rights involves completely destroying someone else's company, then, as Goldman notes, shouldn't it be difficult?

Of course, the chances of this happening are nil. During the SOPA markup, Rep. Jason Chaffetz actually put forth an amendment that didn't even go as far as Goldman's suggestion. It merely said that if you file a lawsuit under SOPA and it turns out that the site was legal, then the plaintiff should pay the legal fees of the defendant. This seems quite reasonable. And it was quickly shot down by SOPA supporters who complained that this was somehow unfair. I still can't figure out why only the copyright holders get to talk about "fairness," while the companies and websites completely destroyed by bogus claims apparently have no "fairness" on their behalf.

Filed Under: copyright, dmca, pipa, protect ip, punishment, sopa, takedowns
Companies: dajaz1, universal music, veoh, viacom, winny, youtube

Senator Wyden Demands Answers About Feds' Seizure Of Dajaz1

from the you-thought-it-was-going-away? dept

If the feds thought that they could seize the Dajaz1.com blog, hold it for a year in secret, then return it and pretend nothing really happened... it appears they may be in for a bit of a surprise. Senator Ron Wyden has begun his investigation into the matter, sending detailed requests for information from Attorney General Eric Holder, ICE director John Morton and White House IP Czar Victoria Espinel. You can see the three letters embedded below. There are a lot of questions to each of them, with a big focus on who they were talking to about the seizures (e.g., the RIAA) and what they were saying. They also ask questions about the legal basis for the seizures and even the training and procedures involved. I'll certainly be interested to see the replies when they come in...

Filed Under: constitution, doj, domain seizures, due process, eric holder, fifth amendment, first amendment, free speech, ice, john morton, operation in our sites, prior restraint, ron wyden, victoria espinel
Companies: dajaz1, riaa

When The NY Times Builds On Other's Work, I Guess That's Journalism [Updated]

from the but-when-others-do-it...-it's-piracy? dept

Over the last few years, the NY Times has been whining about blogs and sites like HuffPo that it feels "pirates" its stories. Former executive editor Bill Keller trashed such things a few times over the past year.

Too often it amounts to taking words written by other people, packaging them on your own Web site and harvesting revenue that might otherwise be directed to the originators of the material. In Somalia this would be called piracy. In the mediasphere, it is a respected business model.

Now, as I said at the time, this is a pretty silly way to look at things. But it struck me as especially interesting since last week, we broke the news about the feds censoring Dajaz1.com for a year, before giving back the domain name. That was Thursday morning. Friday evening, the NY Times wrote its own version of the story... with nary a mention of our story. Their story didn't add anything beyond reporting what we and some others had done previously.

Now, let me be absolutely clear: I actually don't think crediting whoever scooped a story is really that big a deal. I tend to think it's a nice and neighborly thing to do, but hardly required, and I think some people put too much emphasis on it. However, I think it's kind of amusing that a newspaper like the NY Times, whose bosses have complained about others doing this kind of thing, would so regularly do this themselves. And, yes, the NY Times does this all the time. And, for what it's worth, people definitely noticed.

My point is not to complain about not getting a mention. My point is to highlight how the NY Times' looking down on other publications for supposedly just taking their stories and how that's "piracy," might deserve a pretty big rethink. News travels around in a lot of ways. Sometimes the NY Times gets there first, and sometimes they don't. Attacking others for reporting on the same thing they've reported on is going to make them look foolish when they do the same thing, as happened here.

Update: This morning both the editor and the reporter emailed to apologize and say that the original story did, in fact, mention Techdirt, but it got edited out by accident. To be honest, it's for reasons like this that I noted above that many people focus too much on the whole "credit" issue. The point of this post was never to demand credit, but to point out how when you always demand credit, it can come back to bite you. Either way, I appreciate the NY Times' quick response and the apology.

Filed Under: credit, journalism, piracy
Companies: dajaz1, ny times

What Other Websites Is The US Government Secretly Censoring?

from the questions-to-be-answered dept

We're still trying to understand the overall fallout from last week's news that the feds seized and censored the music blog Dajaz1.com for over a year and blocked every chance for the site to get its day in court... before finally giving up and just handing back the site. And while lots of people have focused on that story, it seems worth asking what about the others? Back in June, we released a list of five domains whose owners had asked the government to return them. Two of them, rojadirecta.org and rojadirecta.com, have been involved in a lawsuit. The government sought to forfeit those two domains (i.e., get to keep them permanently) -- but did so only after rojadirecta's company, Puerto 80, filed a lawsuit officially demanding the return of the domains.

As far as we know, the other three sites all followed a slightly different process, which involved them officially petitioning the government to return the domains -- at which point the government has 90 days to either begin forfeiture procedures or to hand back the domain. That was in early June. As we know, with Dajaz1, the government had already begun getting a series of totally secret (indeed, we have no idea if they really exist) "extensions" from the court to allow them to hang onto the domain much longer without actually facing them in court over a forfeiture process. With Dajaz1, the government finally gave up and gave the domain back.

But there are still two domains unaccounted for: OnSmash.com and Torrent-Finder.com. Again, the list we posted back in June was an official list from DHS/ICE noting sites who had asked for the return of their domain. Even if we assume that such requests were made on June 13th (and they were all made significantly earlier), those domains either should have been returned or forfeiture proceedings started by mid-September at the latest. But we're in December, and as far as we can tell, no such procedures are under way.

That leaves two options: OnSmash and Torrent-Finder rescinded their demands for the return of their domains... or they're currently in the midst of the same Kafka-esque government-run secret censorship program. And, for all we know, there may be other sites as well.

So it seems like Attorney General Eric Holder and the Justice Department (as well as the folks at ICE) have some explaining to do. Who else are they censoring without due process? How many other sites had speech seized and are being denied their day in court? Just how deep does this program of the federal government censoring online websites go?

Filed Under: censorship, dhs, doj, domain seizures, due process, first amendment, ice, prior restraint
Companies: dajaz1, onsmash, torrent-finder

Congressional Investigations Into Dajaz1.com Censorship Begin

from the let's-see-what-they-find-out dept

If the Justice Department hoped that it could seize the domain of a hip hop blog for over a year with no due process and then return it quietly and pretend nothing had happened, it may be in for a bit of a surprise. About an hour and a half after we broke the story, it just so happened that Rep. Zoe Lofgren was in a Judiciary Committee hearing with Attorney General Eric Holder, providing her an opportunity to ask him about the situation. You can see the full five minute exchange below: There's not much of substance there. Holder basically says that he doesn't know the specifics, hopes that there's more to the story, and promises that since his daughters are watching and it has something to do with hip hop, that they'll be the first to remind him to respond to Lofgren's question once he has more details.

It looks like he may be getting other reminders as well. Senator Ron Wyden told Wired that he intends to start asking significant questions about Operation In Our Sites, and it doesn't sound like he's going to give up easily:

“I expect the administration will be receiving a series of FOIA [Freedom of Information Act] requests from our office and that the senator will have very pointed questions with regard to how the administration chooses to target the sites that it does,” said Jennifer Hoelzer, a Wyden spokeswoman. She said the senator was “particularly interested in learning how many secret dockets exist for copyright cases. There doesn’t seem to be an obvious precedent or explanation for that.”

I'll certainly be interested to see what they turn up.

Filed Under: copyright, dhs, doj, domain seizures, eric holder, free speech, linking, pipa, protect ip, ron wyden, sopa, zoe lofgren
Companies: dajaz1

Just As US Gov't Was Giving Back The Blog It Illegally Censored For Over A Year, Hillary Clinton Speaks Out Against Internet Censorship

from the left-hand,-right-hand? dept

At nearly the exact time that Dajaz1 was getting its domain back, after the US government wrongly censored its domain for over a year with absolutely nothing resembling due process (and actively stifling attempts by the site to get its day in court and get its domain back), US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was giving a speech in Europe about the evils of internet censorship. Let's take a look at some of the quotes, and remember that she's saying this just as Dajaz1 was coming back online after a year.

This is an urgent task. It is most urgent, of course, for those around the world whose words are now censored, who are imprisoned because of what they or others have written online, who are blocked from accessing entire categories of internet content, or who are being tracked by governments seeking to keep them from connecting with one another.

Of course, we don't even have to look "around the world." We can just look right here at home in the US, where ICE and the Justice Department seem to have no problem doing the same thing. Or we can look to SOPA and PIPA and their plan to expand the ability to censor the web in the US.

In Syria, a blogger named Anas Maarawi was arrested on July 1st after demanding that President Asad leave. He’s not been charged with anything, but he remains in detention. In both Syria and Iran, many other online activists – actually too many to name – have been detained, imprisoned, beaten, and even killed for expressing their views and organizing their fellow citizens. And perhaps the most well known blogger in Russia, Alexei Navalny, was sentenced on Tuesday to 15 days in jail after he took part in protests over the Russian elections.

In America, a blog named Dajaz1, was seized last November after posting music sent to it by various copyright holders for the purpose of promotion. It was never brought up under forfeiture rules, but the domain remained in detention... Now, clearly, having a site seized is not in the same category as being "detained, imprisoned, beaten or even killed" but if we're against censorship abroad, it seems pretty crazy to be ignoring it when it happens at home.

It seems like the State Department should issue a message calling out ICE and DOJ for doing the exact same thing Clinton is complaining about in other countries.

But when ideas are blocked, information deleted, conversations stifled, and people constrained in their choices, the internet is diminished for all of us. What we do today to preserve fundamental freedoms online will have a profound effect on the next generation of users. More than two billion people are now connected to the internet, but in the next 20 years, that number will more than double. And we are quickly approaching the day when more than a billion people are using the internet in repressive countries. The pledges we make and the actions we take today can help us determine whether that number grows or shrinks, or whether the meaning of being on the internet is totally distorted.

Well, given the blatant wrongful censorship of Dajaz1, do we include the 245 million or so online Americans in the count of the number of people using the internet in repressive countries? I certainly want to believe that we're not a repressive country, but with a story that horrifying...

So right now, in various international forums, some countries are working to change how the internet is governed. They want to replace the current multi-stakeholder approach, which includes governments, the private sector, and citizens, and supports the free flow of information, in a single global network.

Not just in international forums....

The United States wants the internet to remain a space where economic, political, and social exchanges flourish. To do that, we need to protect people who exercise their rights online...

Unless you promote hip hop music. Then, too bad.

... and we also need to protect the internet itself from plans that would undermine its fundamental characteristics.

Unless it means protecting campaign donations from Hollywood. Then we can change the fundamental characteristics of the internet with a snap.

Our government (inaudible) will continue to work very hard to get around every barrier that repressive governments put up.

But will it still censor at will at home?

Honestly, it's tough to see how Hillary and the State Department can legitimately support SOPA and PIPA after that speech and the evidence of direct US censorship.

Filed Under: censorship, hillary clinton, internet freedom, state department
Companies: dajaz1

ICE Admits To Returning Domain While RIAA Threatens Dajaz1 With More Legal Actions

from the oh-really? dept

The continuing saga of the Dajaz1 censorship is unfolding in interesting ways. While some of us thought that both ICE and the RIAA owed Dajaz1 a pretty big apology for wrongly seizing and censoring the site for a year, all while denying due process, those two organizations apparently have other ideas. ICE gave an almost content free statement to Tim Lee:

ICE spokesman Ross Feinstein told Ars that "the government concluded that the appropriate and just result was to decline to pursue judicial forfeiture."

So what took so long? Feinstin wouldn't elaborate on why the domain was seized or why the government had changed its mind.

If the "appropriate and just result" was not to pursue forfeiture... then it seems quite reasonable to ask if the actual "appropriate and just" thing would have been to have never seized the domain in the first place. Or to have given it back when asked.

Meanwhile, we'd already noted a weird statmenent from the RIAA on the subject, but the organization issued a more detailed response to Jon Healey from the LA Times:

We understand that a decision was made that this particular site did not merit a criminal forfeiture proceeding. We respect that government agencies must consider a range of technical issues when exercising their independent prosecutorial discretion. Criminal proceedings are not always brought, for a variety of appropriate reasons.

With respect to Dajaz1, we would note that this particular website has specialized in the massive unauthorized distribution of pre-release music -– arguably the worst and most damaging form of digital theft. For a year and a half, we monitored the site, identifying instances where its operators had uploaded music to unauthorized file-sharing services where the recordings could be freely downloaded -- music that artists had created with the expectation that they would have a chance to sell before it was leaked. Dajaz1 profited from its reputation for providing links to pre-release copies, and during that time nearly 2,300 recordings linked to the site were removed from various file-sharing services. We are unaware of a single instance where the site operator objected by saying that the distribution was somehow authorized.

If the site continues to operate in an illegal manner, we will consider all our legal options to prevent further damage to the music community.

We are aware of statements by the site operator that suggest that music companies themselves were the source of at least some of the thousands of recordings available on Dajaz1. Even assuming this to be accurate, it does not excuse the thousands of other pre-release tracks also made available which were neither authorized for commercial distribution nor for uploading to publicly accessible sites where they were readily downloadable for free.

Note the lack of an apology for taking away their property on no legitimate basis for over a year. Even if we grant the RIAA their premise that the site infringed (which we don't), does it still make it right that the domain was completely censored for a year, and that the government tried very hard to avoid having to give it back? How can the RIAA not apologize for such a situation?

Even more to the point, though, is the fact that the RIAA still insists the site was illegal, even after all of this. It seems to be issuing a threat to figure out yet another way to get a bite at this apple, despite it being rejected. And now you know why the RIAA supports SOPA and PIPA. Under those laws, it would be that much easier to knock out competition and innovation.

Of course to understand some of the details of how these blogs work, and why the RIAA is being misleading, at best, there's a great and insightful comment from R.K. Udeshi on Hacker News, who explains:

If you're not familiar with hip-hop music blogs like the one cited in the article, please visit http://nahright.com or http://missinfo.tv to get a better idea of what they look like (since dajaz1.com doesn't seem to be back up yet, understandably).

Almost every track posted to sites like these are released by the artists themselves (or by their labels). Many hip-hop blogs (including the two I linked) will not post songs if they weren't legitimately authorized by the artists (e.g. if a track was stolen and leaked on the web).

Something you won't ever see are full albums. These sites aren't designed to replace album sales, they actually encourage them. They will only link to individual songs or freely released mixtapes.

(Also, you'll note that a lot of the music posted is from unsigned artists. A lot of newer rappers actually rose to prominence after having their music posted on these sites.)

There are many, many sites that willingly infringe on copyright and the government has good reason for shutting down. This was not one of them.

That makes the point quite succinctly. These blogs are the new radio, and there's a total disconnect between the lawyers and the marketing folks. Of course, it's one thing for there to be confusion between two parts of a company... and quite another for that disconnect to lead to outright censorship and denial of due process.

Filed Under: censorship, doj, domain seizure, homeland security, ice
Companies: dajaz1, riaa