Sen. Rockefeller Wants ICANN To Block '.Sucks' TLDs

from the a-sanitized-internet...-for-the-corporations dept

Another legislator has weighed in on governing the internet. This time, it's not so much for "the children" as it is for the poor, oppressed corporations of the world.

Sen. Jay Rockefeller, the West Virginia Democrat, strongly suggested that the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, better known as ICANN, the body in charge of approving Web site domain names, should reject a proposal to allow ‘sucks’ as a new generic top level domain, referred to as gTLD.

In a letter to the organization, Rockefeller, who is chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, argued that the .sucks domain name could be abused by parties “to unfairly defame individuals, non-profit organizations and businesses.”

First off, simply saying a person, NPO or business "sucks" isn't defamation. The content of those sites may meet that bar, but a domain name utilizing .sucks isn't defamatory in and of itself. And it's routinely been found that sites such as walmartsucks, etc. are covered under the First Amendment.

But Rockefeller goes even further than just assuming .sucks domains will be filled with defamatory content. He also assumes that anyone/anything confronted with a .sucks site will be forced to spend money fighting to keep their reputations from sliding into the internet toilet.

“I view it as little more than a predatory shakedown scheme,” Rockefeller said. “The business model behind this gTLD seems to be the following: force large corporations, small businesses, non-profits and even individuals to pay ongoing fees to prevent seeing the phrase ‘sucks’ appended to their names on the Internet.”

What Rockefeller fails to consider is that these entities could also do nothing. Fighting a "sucks" site rarely makes the situation better. But this is the way those to seek to govern the internet view things: as worst case scenarios played out against a Wild West background. There's no room for subtlety in the debate and there's no "fostering" of "conversations," as those marketing these domains state in their defense.

And every new gTLD can be viewed as a "shakedown scheme." Businesses rush to secure (or to block off) new TLDs in order to prevent domain squatters, competitors and critics from snatching them up. Singling out ".sucks" as nothing more than a predatory scheme ignores the reality -- a new gTLD will always be a combination gold rush/shakedown.

Rockefeller points to one registration site, Vox Populi Registry, which is marketing .sucks domain names as "defensive" purchases -- with a starting price of $2,500 which will escalate to $25,000 once the "sunrise period" hits. From this, he extrapolates a "shakedown scheme" across all registration entities, even as others have denied viewing this gTLD as an easy way to hoover up defensive corporate funds.

A spokesman for the other firm, Donuts Inc., said the company “carefully considered the utility of each gTLD for which we applied.”

He also defended Donuts’ business model which he said “is focused on providing Internet users around the world with real choice in how they craft their online identities. We are not soliciting, and have no plans to solicit, ‘defensive registrations.’”

So, there are those who facilitate an open internet, one that will certainly bring out the worst in some people. And there are those who assume only the worst kind of people exist and try to route the internet around them. But Rockefeller, like many other legislators who set their sights on making the web "safe," fails to realize that it's the internet itself that does the "routing," and it views censorship as nothing more than damage to be avoided.

(Rockefeller may be more concerned than most, considering some of his biggest donors -- AT&T, Time Warner and Verizon -- are often referred to in phrases that end with "sucks.")

Rockefeller envisions an internet where corporations and individuals seldom hear discouraging words, but that notion is entirely unrealistic. If he gets his way, the internet (as it were) will simply find another outlet for its frustrations with corporations, non-profit organizations and aggravating people -- and it will still be composed (nearly) entirely of protected speech that "forces" these entities to play defense. And there won't be a thing he can do about it.

Filed Under: domains, jay rockefeller, shakedowns, sucks sites, tlds, top level domains
Companies: icann

Local District Attorneys Sell Their Letterhead & Threats Of Jailtime To Debt Collectors

from the win-win? dept

We've been quite reasonably bothered by the FBI handing out its seal to copyright holders to falsely imply that mere personal copying is a criminal offense that might get you sent to jail. However, it appears that this handing off of government law enforcement threats to private parties goes much, much further. Over the weekend, the NY Times wrote about the amazingly common practice of local district attorneys' offices allowing debt collectors to send threat letters on their stationary and signed by the local DA -- effectively threatening those who, for example, passed a bounced check, with potential jailtime if they don't pay up.

The DAs office, it appears, is literally selling the use of their stationary. In exchange for letting debt collectors appear both a lot more official and for falsely suggesting that law enforcement is pursuing criminal action, the debt collectors "sell" a "financial accountability" class, from which some of the proceeds get kicked back to the DAs' offices.

The practice, which has spread to more than 300 district attorneys’ offices in recent years, shocked Angela Yartz when she was threatened with conviction over a $47.95 check to Walmart. A single mother in San Mateo, Calif., Ms. Yartz said she learned the check had bounced only when she opened a letter in February, signed by the Alameda County district attorney, informing her that unless she paid $280.05 — including $180 for a “financial accountability” class — she could be jailed for up to one year.

The NYT includes images of some of the documents in question, and they really do look quite official, despite the fact that the DA's office usually is not even aware of the particulars of anyone's case, and is unlikely to pursue any sort of law enforcement activity. As you can see, it certainly looks likes it's coming from the DA's office, and looks extremely "official" even though it's only down in the fine print that it's mentioned that it's actually sent "on behalf" of the office by a third party. Even then, unless you were really aware of what was going on, you would probably think this was law enforcement going after you.

What's really ridiculous is to see various DAs offices defend this kind of thing.

“I view it as quite a win-win,” said Baltimore County State’s Attorney Scott D. Shellenberger. “You aren’t criminalizing someone who shouldn’t have a criminal record, and you are getting the merchant his money back.”

Scott Greenfield's response to this ridiculous claim is dead on:'

Check bouncers should be held accountable. But only in a way that the law provides, after the people in whom we repose trust and responsibility ascertain that a crime has been committed, and after the accused has been afforded the opportunity of a full and fair hearing before a neutral magistrate. Whether the merchants deserve to get money back or not is the end result, not the starting point. It's a burden to do things right? 'Tough nuggies. That's why they pay you the big bucks.

He similarly finds offensive the claim from another (former) DA in the article that these shakedown programs are fair because actually having law enforcement would "overburden the court system or the resources of the district attorneys." Again, Greenfield points out that you don't get to avoid due process just because it's a hassle:

After all, who would want to "overburden the court system or the resources of district attorneys" by expecting them to do their jobs? Who would want courts and prosecutors to afford citizens due process? Instead, let's defer to the excellent judgment and trustworthiness of businesses and debt collectors. They would never lie. They would never get it wrong.

We've talked a lot about problems with forms of "crony capitalism" where businesses have undue power over government, and it happens at pretty much every level of government these days. But, at the very least, we shouldn't just be handing over the power of law enforcement to private parties. Law enforcement agencies are already prone to abuse. Giving it to private, for-profit companies? You're just asking for serious trouble.

Update: Liberty McAteer points out that the offices doing this likely are violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) in a very, very big way... Update 2: Some more comments point out that there appear to be direct exemptions in the FDCPA for this kind of thing. Doesn't make it right, but probably not illegal under the act.

Filed Under: bad checks, debt collectors, district attorneys, shakedowns

CD Projekt Shakes Down Suspected File Sharers

from the good-guys-dumb-move dept

Earlier in the month, we shared a bit about CD Projekt and how, despite its game, The Witcher 2, being pirated more than 4.5 million times (its back of the envelope calculation), it still stands by its decision to never put DRM on its games. CD Projekt is one of those few rare major developers that understand PC gamers and what they want in gaming. With this philosophy in mind, it really boggled my mind when I learned of what it has done next. CD Projekt is following in the footsteps of Righthaven and other copyright trolls and is suing individual file sharers.

I really can't figure out what is running through the minds of those in charge. These are the guys who have built up tremendous goodwill with PC gamers through Good Old Games and games like The Witcher. It knows that if it provides quality games that work and don't harm legitimate customers, people will pay. So why would they go through the trouble of suing file sharers? We all know how that is working out for other copyright trolls. CD Projekt only seems to be targeting European file sharers, where these kinds of shakedown attempts have flopped even worse than in the US. Either way, you would think that CD Projekt would at least learn from the mistakes of others pulling the same stunt.

Not only is this move baffling for such a company, it still has the same flaws that other mass infringement lawsuits hold, that of sending shake down letters to innocent parties. The letters are being sent based on information gleaned from an IP address. This is an extremely flawed method of identifying an infringer as IP addresses can be spoofed, network connections can be "borrowed" and even innocent people's computers can be hijacked by bot networks. With all these flaws in the method and the danger of losing goodwill with and respect from gamers, what is there to be gained? I guess when there is money on the table, even the most gamer-friendly developers can succumb to temptation.

Filed Under: copyright, good old games, shakedowns, witcher 2
Companies: cd projekt

Judge: Using The Copyright System To Force People To Pay Up Is Unconstitutional

from the well-that'll-be-effective dept

In yet another case of odd legal choices by copyright troll lawyers, apparently a lawyer named Ira Siegel has been avoiding complying with a court order that he reveal how much money he's been making from demanding settlement fees based on accusations (and the threat of court) of copyright infringement. It's no surprise that he would avoid doing so, but there are two interesting points related to this. First, he filed the response two days after the judge's deadline. That's not a way to win points with a judge. Second, he spent much of the filing complaining about an anonymous blogger who has nothing to do with the case. I'm not quite sure what the strategy is here other than to look foolish and lose the case. Of course, there's been conspiracy theories that perhaps he wants this case dismissed to avoid having to reveal how much money he's raking in.

Thankfully, rather than dismiss the entire case, the judge has followed the precedent of many other courts dealing with such copyright trolls, and dismissed all but one defendant, effectively ruining the legal strategy of the trolling operation. The judge goes through in great detail why joining so many different people in one lawsuit makes no sense. And you sense that the judge is annoyed that Siegel wasted his time with such a bad case. The judge clearly saw through the whole scheme, and flat out says that abusing the court system to force people to pay up is unconstitutional. It's too bad this part is hidden in a footnote, but the judge clearly states:

The Court’s concerns are heightened by plaintiff’s refusal to file under seal a copy of its settlement letter and related information about its settlement practices. The film sells for $19.95 on plaintiff’s website. According to public reports, plaintiffs in other BitTorrent cases, rather than prosecuting their lawsuits after learning the identities of Does, are demanding thousands of dollars from each Doe defendant in settlement. If all this is correct, it raises questions of whether this film was produced for commercial purposes or for purposes of generating litigation and settlements. Put another way, Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution authorizes Congress to enact copyright laws ‘to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts’. If all the concerns about these mass Doe lawsuits are true, it appears that the copyright laws are being used as part of a massive collection scheme and not to promote useful arts.

That's quite a statement. It's so rare to see a court look at the actual purpose of copyright law to see if it's being met by a plaintiff...

Filed Under: constitution, copyright, shakedowns

Photographer Demanding Cash From Sites Using Palin's Official Governor Photo

from the copyright-gone-mad dept

Pickle Monger points us to the latest ridiculous story involving copyright and the government. Apparently, a photographer named Jeff Schultz, who has taken many photos of Sarah Palin, took the photo that Palin used as her "official state photo," while she was governor of Alaska. Members of Palin's administration say they regularly handed out that photo to all sorts of folks as Palin's official headshot. Not surprisingly, the image can be found widely on the internet.

However, it appears that Schultz is now claiming that those who use it are violating his copyright, and are demanding they pay up. And not just a marginal sum, but $11,750, according to the demand letter embedded below. The story covers a demand letter that was sent to a restaurant owner who, back during the last Presidential election, hosted an event where he showed the VP debate between Palin and Biden. In promoting that event at the restaurant, the owner pulled Palin's official pic and put it on his website, where it has remained "in the archives" where almost no one sees it. However, Schultz or his lawyers found it and demanded money from the restaurant owner. Even after the image was pulled, they still demanded money, and rather than fight it, the restaurant owner eventually paid up. Schultz's lawyers also demanded a gag order, that he not talk about the threat and the demand for cash, but he refused to agree to the gag order. Of course, this just makes you wonder how many other folks did pay up and can't talk about it...

Palin's deputy press secretary while she was governor notes that Schultz did, in fact, retain the copyright, but that seems silly. If you're going to post a headshot like that for an official government figure and use it as distribution material for all sorts of media, it seems like you should automatically relinquish any copyright on it. That Schultz is going around now, years later, and demanding cash (and silence!) from those using it seems like yet another story of copyright trolling.

Filed Under: copyright, jeff schultz, photos, sarah palin, shakedowns

ACS:Law Apparently Gives Up For Real

from the will-it-last? dept

This was suggested in our recent post about the "fake company" used by ACS:Law's Andrew Crossley suddenly telling people to forget the letters demanding payments, but Andrea See lets us know that Crossley has announced he's "ceased" his work on shaking down alleged file sharers. Of course, he can't resist playing the victim in doing so:

"I have ceased my work...I have been subject to criminal attack. My e-mails have been hacked. I have had death threats and bomb threats," he said in the statement, read to the court by MediaCAT's barrister Tim Ludbrook.

"It has caused immense hassle to me and my family," he added.

If it's true that he's had death threats and bomb threats, that's really unfortunate, and hopefully those who were involved in such activities also get tracked down. No matter how ridiculous one is abusing the legal system for profit, that's simply no excuse for death threats. That said, Crossley has waged a years-long campaign shaking people down for money, threatening them with massive legal fines if they don't pay up, frequently accusing people with little or illegitimate evidence. And after multiple setbacks and questions about his activities (including an investigation from the regulatory body that oversees lawyers), that he's only now realizing it's best to get out of the business seems like he stuck at it way beyond what most folks would consider reasonable. It's also why I wonder if he'll really stay away for that long. I imagine this is not the last we'll hear of Andrew Crossley.

Filed Under: copyright, shakedowns, uk
Companies: acs:law

Mysterious Non-Company 'Helping' ACS:Law Collect Fines Now Says Forget The Whole Thing

from the moving-on... dept

As ACS:Law's legal mistakes mount, there was a recent story about how the company had passed on some collections efforts to a firm called GCB, but the details suggested another total screwup. People tracked GCB back to an accounting firm, which quickly put on their website that while GCB was formed by it, it "appears to be being misused by some third party," and that it was "taking urgent steps" to end this. The details suggested some odd maneuverings:

When PC Pro spoke to McLean Reid partner John Champion, he told us that GCB had been registered at that address on behalf of one his clients, David Fisher.

Champion said that Fisher had lent his dormant company to an associate, who had been collecting the file-sharing money without his knowledge. "He just decided to help a friend out," Champion said. "He wanted a dormant company, and he said 'Oh I've got one that's not doing anything, you can have that'."

"I know Dave Fisher is put down as a director [of GCB], [but] this activity was done without him knowing what activity was happening," Champion added. "I think he's taking steps to make sure all that money's been repaid."

The "friend"? Yeah, according to PCPro, it turns out that it was Andrew Crossley, the guy from ACS:Law. Either way, it seems that all this attention has scared Fisher off. An anonymous tipster alerts us to the news that if you call the phone number that GCB tells you to call to pay up, you get the following message:

"If you have received a letter from GCB Ltd please disregard this letter as GCB is no longer pursuing the matter stated in the letter."

Seems like Crossley and ACS:Law are going to have to try the next option.

Filed Under: andrew crossley, copyright, fines, shakedowns, uk
Companies: acs:law, gcb

RIAA Shakedowns Similar To Big Retailers Shaking Down Suspected Shoplifters

from the not-so-different dept

We've talked in the past about how both DirecTV and the RIAA have used a borderline legal version of a shakedown to get people to pay them money, without them having a chance to defend themselves. The way the process works is simple. They come up with a mere slip of evidence that the person might be guilty, and then send them threatening letters offering not to sue if they merely pay up first. With DirecTV, the company used names of people who had bought smart card writing devices, even though such devices have perfectly legitimate uses beyond pirating satellite TV signals. With the RIAA, obviously, it was through a list of (often questionable) IP addresses. By using this method, many people pay rather than face a lawsuit -- even if they're innocent. They recognize that the cost of a lawsuit is much worse than just paying the settlement charge. In the organized crime world, this is generally known as a shakedown, or if you prefer, extortion. Yet, for some reason, it's legal when these businesses do it.

And, it turns out, the RIAA and DirecTV are not alone in doing so. Perhaps they even learned the practice by watching how big retailers approach shoplifters. Reader Josh sent in a Wall Street Journal article showing how many large retail chain stores are using a very similar process against suspected shoplifters. In the most egregious case, Home Depot detained a guy it thought was stealing drill bits, but dropped the effort after he showed them a receipt. A few weeks later, though, he received a letter demanding $3,000, which was later raised to $6,000. Admittedly, the amount is quite high there as the law firm that handled the case later admitted to a typo in entering the amount -- but the process seems quite similar to the RIAA/DirecTV process. It doesn't matter if the person is guilty or innocent. You just ask them to pay up or threaten them with a lawsuit. The retailers all insist this is a necessary process since shoplifting costs them so much -- but it's hard to see how forcing people to pay up without a chance to defend themselves is ever right, no matter how much shoplifting costs these retailers.

Filed Under: extortion, retailers, shakedowns