Court Dismisses Puerto 80 Rojadirecta Case (For Now)... But Doesn't Give Back The Domain

from the um,-what dept

As we're still discussing the mess from the Dajaz1 censorship, in the other big case involving domain censorship, we've got another troubling situation.

Yesterday was the latest hearing in the forfeiture case involving Rojadirecta (Puerto 80), and the end result was that -- believe it or not -- the case was dismissed (pdf). The ruling doesn't say much -- basically says the reasons were stated during the oral arguments, and there's no transcript yet. However, the basics are that it was dismissed on a technicality (over a failure to plead the willfulness, which is necessary for criminal infringement), and the government has 30 days to amend and refile its complaint -- which is quite likely. While having the case dismissed sounds like a big deal, this seems more like a temporary pause, rather than anything meaningful at this point (unlike the Dajaz1 situation).

But here's the weird thing: technically, because of the dismissal, there's no forfeiture case going on, and the seizure time period has long expired. So... um... why does the government still have the domains in question? There's no ongoing case, and even if the government intends to refile, it's hard to see how it has a right to hang onto the domains in the meantime. But... it is. It seems like both Dajaz1 and Puerto 80 should be celebrating the returns of their domains today, but only one is....

Filed Under: copyright, criminal copyright infringement, doj, domain seizures, forfeiture, rojadirecta, seizures
Companies: puerto 80, rojadirecta

Press Realizing That ICE May Be Breaking The Law Showing NBC Universal Propaganda Films On Domains It Seized

from the oops dept

Over the last year or so, we've been one of the few publications out there following the exceptionally questionable use of NBC propaganda material by the federal government as if it were its own content. You may recall that NBC Universal created some propaganda "anti-piracy" PSAs for New York City, in which actor/comedian Tom Pappa claims "there's no such thing as a free movie." The irony that he's saying so while appearing on a free YouTube video stream is apparently totally lost on him.

A few months later, the same video, minus references to NYC, appeared on the YouTube page of the Immigrations & Customs Enforcement group ICE (part of Homeland Security). No reference was made to the fact that the video was created by NBC Universal. A few weeks later, these videos started appearing on domains that ICE had seized, and then forfeited.

After filing a series of Freedom of Information Act requests, we found out that the videos were property of NBC Universal -- something that ICE (to this day) refuses to disclose. Further FOIA requests turned up no records of ICE ever properly licensing the video.

Already, this should be exceptionally troubling. ICE running corporate propaganda without any disclosure? And doing so on websites it had seized under questionable legality?

Turns out the story gets even worse. Jeff Roberts over at PaidContent notes that, under civil forfeiture procedures, the federal government must sell or destroy forfeited property. It cannot keep it and use it for itself. It does not appear to be legal to make use of the property for other purposes -- and certainly not for spreading corporate propaganda without disclosure.

The article also points out, quite reasonably, that it seems odd that ICE is using these videos -- which present a ridiculously inaccurate and one-sided argument that "piracy" is taking away movie industry jobs -- on web sites seized & forfeited for trademark violations. That seems extra weird. The sites have nothing to do with downloading movies, as the video discusses. And do the big brand companies that urged ICE to seize these domains to "protect their trademarks" really feel comfortable with the federal government now running NBC Universal propaganda on those domains instead?

Filed Under: forfeiture, government, ice, psa, seizure

Puerto 80 Responds Forcefully To DOJ's Claims Concerning Domain Seizures

from the government-overreach dept

While Puerto 80 has already appealed the rejection of its attempt to get back its domain names (the two rojadirecta domains that Homeland Security seized), the separate case, involving the permanent forfeiture of those domains, continues. As you may recall, Puerto 80 put forth its motion to dismiss, noting that the government appeared to be wholly making up a legal standard that doesn't exist, while also showing that Puerto 80 did not break criminal copyright law. The government responded bizarrely by trying to argue that Puerto 80's actions don't really matter, because it's not about Puerto 80... and then spent most of its brief explaining why Puerto 80 did things that broke the law.

Now Puerto 80 has responded, and this time it's coming out even more forcefully against the government, explaining how its theory for seizure and forfeiture is absolutely ridiculous, and would effectively allow the government to seize all sorts of property if it so chose, including any search engine domain, any telephone network infrastructure, any electrical company's infrastructure -- just because such tools could be shown to have been used by someone, somewhere, possibly for illegal purposes, even if the company in question had nothing to do with it:

The government’s view of its powers under the civil forfeiture law, articulated for the first time in its opposition to Puerto 80’s motion to dismiss, is breathtaking. In the government’s view, it doesn’t need to allege that Puerto 80 violated any law, or even engaged in any civil wrong, in order to seize and shut down its Internet domain name. As long as the government thinks that someone, somewhere in the world, is engaged in copyright infringement, it believes it is entitled to seize any asset that might be connected to that infringement, whether or not the owner engaged in any wrongdoing, and whether or not that asset in fact “facilitated” the commission of any crime. And it further believes it is entitled to seize Internet domain names and shut down protected speech without ever having to prove that the speech was, in fact, unlawful, much less that the owner of the asset was responsible for any crime.

On the government’s view of its powers, it is entitled to seize the Google, Bing, or Yahoo web site, because someone, somewhere, has used those sites’ search engines to find infringing content. It is entitled to seize Verizon’s telephone network for the same reason. It is entitled to seize the power company, since numerous crimes are “facilitated” by the use of electricity. And the only reason the government lost the Pentagon Papers case, New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971), is that it asserted the wrong statute. Had the government simply seized the New York Times’ printing presses, pointing out that they were being used to “facilitate” the disclosure of government secrets, it would have been able to block the disclosure of Daniel Ellsberg’s secrets.

As the filing notes, "this cannot be the law." And, almost certainly, it's unconstitutional.

The full filing (embedded below) is fantastic. It no longer dances around the issue and flat out points out that the government's argument is incoherent, pulling different actions from different actors together to try to pretend that a single party did something wrong.

But in attempting to argue its new “facilitation” theory, the government cites to different acts by different actors (Puerto 80, other websites that are streaming content, and unidentified users who follow links to the content) for different elements of the alleged offense. Not only does this approach render the government’s opposition brief incoherent; it does nothing to change the fact that the Complaint fails to plead the elements of criminal copyright infringement by Puerto 80 or any other actor.

Specifically, Puerto 80 points out that in order to show criminal copyright infringement, the government needs to show that a party willfully infringed for profit. But it doesn't do so. It shows that some people may have infringed. And it shows that Puerto 80 may have profited. But it does not (and cannot) show that Puerto 80 itself willfully infringed for profit. In fact, it doesn't even try, because it knows that Puerto 80 itself did not infringe directly.

Finally, Puerto 80 points out that even if the government's argument is accurate, then the law must be unconstitutional:

Under the government’s newly-raised construction of the statute, the government may use the forfeiture statute to make an end-run around the First Amendment by seizing a lawful channel of communication. Such a seizure prevents lawful speech, and constitutes a prior restraint on that lawful speech. The government’s suggested construction of the forfeiture statute would render it unconstitutional, and should therefore be rejected.....

[....]

If the government’s theory of “facilitation” were adopted, the government would be permitted to shut down a search engine, website, newspaper, and printing press not just prior to a determination of the illegality of the content, but without ever having to show that it was operating unlawfully. It would permit, for instance, the government to shut down an entire printing press and newspaper for running an advertisement that contained allegedly infringing content. Or it would permit the seizure of a search engine because of its indexing allegedly infringing material. Such actions are plainly unconstitutional.

It's nice to see Puerto 80 hitting much harder on these key points, which it seemed to skirt around in the earlier filings. I'm wondering if the Justice Department even realizes how screwed up the argument it's trying to make really is. It never shows any criminal copyright infringement, but then says it can simply seize a domain because of some criminal copyright infringement which doesn't even appear to exist. The whole thing is incredible. Hopefully the court recognizes this and smacks the Justice Department around a bit for its ridiculous claims in trying to take these domains.

Filed Under: copyright, criminal copyright infringement, doj, domain seizures, forfeiture, rojadirecta, seizures
Companies: puerto 80, rojadirecta

Gibson CEO: US Government Won't Even Tell Us What Law They Think We've Violated

from the of-course-not,-they're-suing-the-wood dept

We recently wrote about the bizarre Justice Department raids of Gibson Guitar over some questions on the provenance of the wood. Gibson's CEO is now lashing out at the US government for refusing to even say what law was broken:

The raids forced Gibson to cease manufacturing operations and send workers home for the day while armed agents executed the search warrants. “Agents seized wood that was Forest Stewardship Council controlled,” Juszkiewicz said. “Gibson has a long history of supporting sustainable and responsible sources of wood and has worked diligently with entities such as the Rainforest Alliance and Greenpeace to secure FSC-certified supplies. The wood seized on August 24 satisfied FSC standards.”

Juszkiewicz believes that the Justice Department is bullying Gibson without filing charges.

“The Federal Department of Justice in Washington, D.C. has suggested that the use of wood from India that is not finished by Indian workers is illegal, not because of U.S. law, but because it is the Justice Department’s interpretation of a law in India. (If the same wood from the same tree was finished by Indian workers, the material would be legal.) This action was taken without the support and consent of the government in India.”

Now, remember, we noted in the earlier story that a similar raid a few years ago resulted in the feds filing charges against the wood specifically -- and not the company: United States of America v. Ebony Wood in Various Forms. If this all sounds familiar, it's quite similar to what we've seen with the feds seizing domain names. These involve "in rem" claims against property, as opposed to "in personam" claims against people or organizations. We've long been troubled by general seizure and forfeiture law in the US, which basically seems like a license for the US government to, at best, bully and at worst, steal from, anyone they don't like. So just as the US government is now claiming that it's not charging Puerto 80 with anything as it tries to keep its domains, the same thing appears to be happening here. The feds never actually accuse Gibson of violating any laws. They just say the wood is illegal and seize it.

Under seizure laws, no actual lawsuit ever needs to be filed. They can just seize, and later file for forfeiture, in which the government gets to keep what it seized. So they never actually file charges against the company, but just get to keep whatever was seized, claiming that the property itself is illegal or was used for illegal purposes. It's an amazingly Kafka-esque situation for those whose property was seized, and seems ripe for abuse. And, not surprisingly, there's a ton of evidence that law enforcement regularly abuses seizure and forfeiture laws.

Hopefully Gibson will continue to fight this, and draw some more attention to a system that really should be changed. I can understand seizure for the sake of holding onto evidence in an actual criminal trial. But outside of that, it seems difficult to justify the ability of the government to seize property and then claim it just gets to keep it, without filing any actual charges.

Filed Under: doj, forfeiture, guitars, seizure, wood
Companies: gibson

Puerto 80 Appeals: Asks Court To Recognize That Trampling The First Amendment Is Substantial Harm

from the and-here-we-go dept

We had just noted that the government had replied to Puerto 80's motion in the Justice Department's attempt to forfeit the two Rojadirecta domains it had seized earlier this year. In it, we wondered if Puerto 80 was also going to be appealing the earlier ruling from the court refusing to return the domains, saying that Puerto 80 failed to show that a First Amendment violation represented "substantial hardship." It turns out that Puerto 80 is in fact appealing that ruling, as the filing embedded below shows.

To understand what's going on, you have to dig a little bit into the laws around seizure and forfeiture. While similar and related, they're two separate things. Seizure is the preliminary effort, in which the government, with some sort of (often rubberstamped) court approval, goes and takes something. There are specific rules around that, and while the laws are not perfectly clear, it does seem to suggest that the purpose of seizure in most cases is to hold evidence for a future trial, with the thinking being that leaving it in the hands of criminals could mean that the evidence might disappear. Forfeiture is a process that often follows seizure, in which the government makes its case that it should get to permanently keep some property. In many (but not all) cases, the government seizes first, and then forfeits later, in two separate processes.

In the Rojadirecta case, Puerto 80 initially challenged the seizure, including on First Amendment grounds, arguing that seizing such a domain without an adversarial hearing represented a classic case of prior restraint. In response, about a week later, the government then went forward with the separate process of filing to be able to keep those domains via the forfeiture process. So there were actually two parallel processes going on -- one about seizure and the other about forfeiture.

The specific filing against the seizure asked for the domains to be returned, which is allowed under seizure laws if the owner of the property can show "substantial hardship" from the government retaining the property. The judge ruled that a First Amendment violation did not count as a substantial hardship, and that it was the wrong time to raise the First Amendment anyway, suggesting it was better off being raised during the forfeiture fight that was about to start. What we've been writing about this week was the forfeiture fight, since the judge "closed" the seizure part with that previous ruling.

However, even as the forfeiture process is ongoing, Puerto 80 is now officially appealing the ruling on the seizure part of the case and arguing, compellingly, that the seizure itself was prior restraint and that a First Amendment violation is, without question, a "substantial hardship," contrary to the court's original claims. Not surprisingly, Puerto 80 relies on the Fort Wayne Books vs. Indiana case that is pretty damning to the government's rationale:

In Fort Wayne, state and local officials (respondents) filed a civil action pursuant to Indiana’s RICO laws, alleging that the defendant bookstores had engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity by repeatedly violating Indiana’s obscenity laws. 489 U.S. at 50-51. Prior to trial, respondents petitioned for, and the trial court granted, immediate seizure of the bookstores pursuant to a state law that permitted courts to issue seizure orders “upon a showing of probable cause to believe that a violation of [the State’s RICO law] involving the property in question has occurred.” Id. at 51. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the pretrial seizure order was unconstitutional, stating that “mere probable cause to believe a legal violation has transpired is not adequate to remove books or films from circulation.” Id. at 66. As in Fort Wayne, the government here has seized an entire business and effectively suppressed all of the expressive content hosted on it, including political discussions, commentary, and criticism by the site’s users— without it being determined whether the seizure was “actually warranted” under the relevant statutes. Id. at 67.

The prior restraint on Puerto 80 users’ and readers’ First Amendment rights constitutes irreparable harm of the highest order. The Supreme Court has held that “[t]he loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.” Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976); see also Bery v. City of New York, 97 F.3d 689, 693 (2d Cir. 1996) (“Violations of First Amendment rights are commonly considered irreparable injuries for the purposes of a preliminary injunction.”). In CBS, Inc. v. Davis, the Supreme Court stayed the lower court injunction that prohibited CBS from broadcasting video footage documenting unsanitary practices in the meat industry, finding that such prior restraint caused “irreparable harm to the news media that is intolerable under the First Amendment.” 510 U.S. 1315, 1315-16, 1318 (1994) (emphasis added). The deprivation of Constitutional rights is, therefore, ipso facto irreparable injury and subject to expedited review.

In the instant case, the government effectively shut down an entire website, suppressing all of the speech hosted on it, based on an assertion that there was probable cause to believe that some of the material linked to by the website (though not found on the website itself) might be infringing. Puerto 80 was not provided any advance notice, nor was it provided the opportunity to contest the seizure before (or, for that matter, shortly after) the government shut down the site. Nor were the site’s users afforded any notice or opportunity to contest the seizure. That procedural failing itself indicates that the government’s action was an unlawful prior restraint. “[T]he lack of notice or opportunity to be heard normally renders a prior restraint invalid.” United States v. Quattrone, 402 F.3d 304, 312 (2d Cir. 2005) (citing Carroll v. President & Comm'rs of Princess Anne, 393 U.S. 175, 180 (1968)).

The filing at this point is mainly to convince the court to accept an "expedited appeals" process, rather than a full filing on the reasons why the seizure was prior restraint and why prior restraint is a substantial hardship, but it certainly presents the basics of the argument. What the case may come down to is a question of whether or not "irreparable injury" is the equivalent of "substantial hardship." Not surprisingly, I would argue that an irreparable injury that involves stomping on someone's First Amendment rights is a very substantial hardship. So far one judge has disagreed. We'll see what happens on appeal.

Filed Under: copyright, criminal copyright infringement, doj, domain seizures, forfeiture, free speech, prior restraint, rojadirecta, seizures
Companies: puerto 80, rojadirecta

DOJ: This Case Has Nothing To Do With Puerto 80; Now Here Is Why Puerto 80 Is Guilty

from the dance-doj-dance dept

Following Puerto 80's motion to dismiss the attempt by the US government to forfeit its domains, the Justice Department has filed its response (pdf) in which it more or less mocks Puerto 80's lawyers for "not understanding" what they're fighting about in court. Having read both of the documents and being familiar with the case, I will agree that there is certainly some confusion (perhaps on both sides) about the exact nature of the arguments, but it appears that the government is partly the cause of this, in that it keeps leaping back and forth between arguments, since it can't make a single coherent argument for why forfeiture makes sense under the law.

Specifically, the government is claiming that its sole reason for trying to forfeit the domain (and for seizing it in the first place) is that "those domain names themselves facilitated the commission of a recognized crime." That is, it argues that Puerto 80 is wasting its time in suggesting that Puerto 80 did not engage in criminal copyright infringement, because the government has not charged Puerto 80 with anything. It's just claiming that the domains themselves are property used to commit a crime, and therefore can be forfeited.

But the government seems to want to have its cake and eat it too. That's because, in order to show that the domains were used to commit a crime, it keeps going back to actions done by Puerto 80. But then, when Puerto 80's lawyers keep explaining why Puerto 80 did not violate the law, the government tries to claim that this is meaningless because it's not accusing Puerto 80 of anything.

Talk about a disingenuous Catch-22 sort of argument.

For example, here's the kind of mocking that the DOJ presents against Puerto 80:

Despite what Puerto 80 appears to believe, the Government has neither charged Puerto 80 with a crime, nor has it filed a civil lawsuit against that company. Instead, and as the Complaint makes absolutely clear, the Government has brought a civil action against certain property an in rem proceeding against two domain names that facilitated the commission of criminal copyright infringement and are thus subject to forfeiture pursuant to Section 2323(a)(I) of Title 18, United States Code.

But... then... in making its case, the government still relies on actions of Puerto 80 and not the domains in question. Even worse, contrary to what the DOJ states, nowhere does it make the case that criminal copyright infringement occurred. Now, as we've stated before, for criminal copyright infringement to occur, and as the government clearly states in its filing, the government needs to show:

(1) the existence-of a valid copyright; (2) an act of infringement of that copyright; (3) willfulness on the part of the infringer; and (4) either that (a) the infringement was for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, or (b) the infringer reproduced or distributed, during any 180-day period, one or more copies or phonorecords of one or more copyrighted works, with a total retail value of more than $1,000.

(1) and (2) aren't hard to show -- but the infringement is done by third parties (users of the site) rather than Puerto 80. In fact, the government even admits multiple times that the content is not hosted or distributed by Puerto 80, but by third parties. (3) is much, much trickier, and the government fails to show willfulness at all -- except to insist that Puerto 80 had willingness to infringe. Again, note that the government goes back to focusing on Puerto 80 here, even though it keeps insisting that it's not on trial. Even worse, it fails to respond to the pretty clear claims by Puerto 80 in its filing that its actions were clearly not willful since it had been tried and found not guilty of infringement twice in its home country. And yes, as people will point out, we're talking about US law, rather than Spanish law, but it's pretty ridiculous to think that Puerto 80 would go through such a huge legal process at home... and then somehow still think that it was willfully infringing on copyrights.

Point (4) is where an even bigger problem sets in. Once again, the DOJ focuses on Puerto 80 getting commercial gain:

With respect to private financial gain, the Complaint makes clear that when an Internet· user selected an individual link to a particular sporting event from the Rojadirecta website and the corresponding stream of the telecast began to run, advertisements that were separate and distinct from any commercials that may have been aired during the stream of the sporting event broadcast were periodically displayed at the bottom of the video during the live stream. (Compl. ~ 14c). On a motion to dismiss, this Court is required to draw all inferences from the allegations of a complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Roth, 489 F.3d at 510. It is certainly a permissible inference for this Court to draw that these advertisements generate revenue and result in private financial gain.

All of that is accurate... but again, it's about Puerto 80 who (again) the DOJ insists is not being sued here. Basically, the government totally fails to properly allege criminal copyright infringement, in that it doesn't show how those four elements all take place by a single party. Instead, they pull from here and there to patch together such a claim. A user of Rojadirecta may infringe... and Rojadirecta may profit from an ad shown on the site, but that's not willful copyright infringement for the purpose of financial gain. Furthermore, as the MP3Tunes case recently showed, merely having ads near infringement is not profiting from infringement: "However the financial benefit must be attributable to the infringing activity.... While Sideload.com may be used to draw users to MP3tunes.com and drive sales of pay lockers, it has non-infringing users." Merely the fact that infringing content can "draw" users to the site doesn't mean that the profit is directly from infringement.

So, while it is true that Puerto 80's lawyers may have argued for much more than the specific issue at stake in this case, it's in part because the DOJ itself keeps shifting its argument. It can make cases for civil infringement against users. It might be able to make a case for civil inducement for Puerto 80... but what it's doing -- quite amazingly -- is mashing together both of those arguments to pretend that two separate civil issues chopped up together can adequately show criminal copyright infringement... and from that they can claim that the domains were used for such things.

If anything, it seems that Puerto 80's lawyers were too clever in arguing ahead of the DOJ, who I'm still not entirely convinced understands what it's really arguing here. Puerto 80's lawyers didn't just try to show that no full criminal copyright claim was presented by the government. It also tried to debunk the two parts of the (4) factors that the DOJ tried to pin on Puerto 80. The government then says it doesn't care what Puerto 80 did, even as it uses its own questionable claims of what Puerto 80 did to make its case. It's really quite stunning.

On a separate note, even though Puerto 80's lawyers chose not to use the First Amendment claim, the Justice Department seems to be begging for it. As we've noted in the past, the ruling in Fort Wayne Books v. Indiana makes it clear that a standard higher than probable cause needs to be used in seizures:

Thus, while the general rule under the Fourth Amendment is that any and all contraband, instrumentalities, and evidence of crimes may be seized on probable cause (and even without a warrant in various circumstances), it is otherwise when materials presumptively protected by the First Amendment are involved... It is "[t]he risk of prior restraint, which is the underlying basis for the special Fourth Amendment protections accorded searches for and seizure of First Amendment materials" that motivates this rule.

But here the government is arguing in the other direction saying the standard is even lower than probable cause! It's saying that it just needs "reasonable belief," now that the case has moved on to the forfeiture stage, rather than just discussing the seizure:

Nor is the Government required to show probable cause for forfeiture. See,~, Daccarett, 6 F.3d at 47. Instead, the complaint simply needs to establish a "reasonable belief' that the government will be able to meet its burden at trial. Id. "In other words, the complaint need not allege facts sufficient to show that specific property is tainted, but facts sufficient to support a reasonable belief that the government can demonstrate" the ultimate trial burden "for finding the property tainted."

I'm at a loss to see how this makes any sense at all. Remember, the judge in the case has already said that Puerto 80 can't challenge the seizures on First Amendment grounds, because trampling your First Amendment rights is not a "substantial hardship." That, alone, seems like something that should be appealed. But it also seems like it wipes out any avenue for challenging the seizure on First Amendment grounds, because the standard now being discussed is merely "reasonable belief." Now, it is true that this is just for the motion to dismiss, and the standard at trial is going to be higher, but, honestly, why should a trampling of free speech have to wait so far into the process before being resolved? Plenty of other cases are willing to put the First Amendment issue upfront and center...

Filed Under: copyright, criminal copyright infringement, doj, domain seizures, forfeiture, rojadirecta, seizures
Companies: puerto 80, rojadirecta

Justice Department: To Protect Pharma Profits, We'll Just Take Money From Google

from the it's-enough-to-drive-someone-to-drugs... dept

So the big story of the day seems to be about the Justice Department getting Google to "forfeit" $500 million for having ads in the US for Canadian pharmacies. This isn't a huge surprise. News broke of the investigation a few months ago, when Google mentioned in an SEC filing that it had set aside $500 million to settle this particular matter. The Justice Department, in typical fashion, play up how they're protecting Americans from harm blah, blah, blah.

Here's the thing: I can't figure out how this makes any sense at all. First off, why is Google to blame? As we've discussed repeatedly, the US is pretty clear on its liability laws that liability should be applied to the party actually responsible, not third party platforms. Google accepted ads. That should not make it responsible for the content in those ads, let alone transactions that may occur because of those ads. Even worse, Google clearly made quite an effort to make sure such ads only involved legit drugs:

Google changed its policy on pharmacy ads in February 2010, so that it would only take ads from U.S. pharmacies accredited by the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy, and from online pharmacies in Canada that are accredited by the Canadian International Pharmacy Association.

So, now, as a media property that has advertising, do I need to fear that the Justice Department can force me to forfeit money because one of you clicks on an ad and makes a transaction that the government thinks is illegal? That's insane!

On top of this, it's even more ridiculous, because the US government has almost always turned a blind eye to grey market imports of drugs from Canadian pharmacies, because they know that without such affordable drugs, people will die. Here we have the Justice Department not helping to save lives, but helping to kill people off by making it that much more difficult to get approved drugs from Canada at more reasonable prices. In fact, amusingly, Senator Patrick Leahy is pushing legislation that will expand the ability of Americans to import such drugs (at the same time he's sponsoring the PROTECT IP Act, which wold force such sites off the internet -- he's not particularly consistent, that Senator Leahy).

Let's face facts here. This has absolutely nothing to do with public safety. This is a cynical move by the Obama administration to ensure support from the pharma industry. Early on in his administration, President Obama specifically supported allowing re-importation from Canadian pharmacies. In fact, the White House has repeatedly said that it's completely in favor of allowing such reimportation.

And yet now it takes $500 million from Google not for actually doing that, but for allowing ads to appear that promote a program the administration has officially endorsed? It's hard not to take the cynical view and simply see this as the US government taking from Google in an effort to make the US pharma industry (who hate, hate, hate Canadian imports) happy.

In the meantime, as Ryan Singel points out, Google is getting dinged $500 million here, while Goldman Sachs got dinged $550 million for "melting the economy." I guess Wall Street and pharma have much better lobbyists than Google.

Filed Under: canadian pharmacies, drugs, forfeiture, grey imports, justice department, pharmaceuticals, reimportation
Companies: google

Homeland Security Finally Files For Civil Forfeiture Of Domains Seized Back In June

from the taking-their-sweet-time dept

While we've been paying a lot of attention to the domain seizures by Homeland Security's ICE (Immigration & Customs Enforcement) group in November, we also covered a similar operation that took place back in June. It's been noted that no actual charges have been filed against the operators of those sites. But in early December, without most people noticing, apparently ICE finally filed to officially commence civil forfeiture procedures against those domains (thanks to Terry Hart who noticed this). To understand what's going on here, I'll again point you to Hart's explanation of the difference between seizure and forfeiture. Basically, seizure is simply the first step in a forfeiture process (a process, that we've noted is regularly abused by law enforcement). It doesn't appear the owners of these sites have been charged with anything yet at all. It's just that, effectively, the sites themselves are being charged with being used in the commission of a crime.

There's nothing particularly surprising or enlightening in the forfeiture proceeding document, other than acting as official notification if anyone wishes to claim a legal interest in the "property" in question. They would need to contest the forfeiture within 60 days of December 17th. This covers the domain names TVshack.net, Movies-Link.tv, ZML.com, Now-movies.com, ThePirateCity.org, PlanetMoviez.com, Filespump.com. As far as I know, there has been little indication that any of the original domain holders for those domains plan to contest the forfeiture process. Many have already moved on to other domains anyway.

There's nothing all that enlightening in the filing. It's pretty similar to the affidavit we saw that was used to seize the more recent domain names, with a few similar technical errors, but nothing necessarily as egregious as the errors in the more recent case. Basically, an ICE agent downloaded or streamed a few movies on some sites the MPAA pointed them to. The MPAA then said "those movies are not legally available online," and, voila, now ICE says it should get to own the domain name. It's basically ICE admitting that it's working for Hollywood now -- which explains why it announced those original seizures at Disney's headquarters (which still seems like a huge conflict of interest that no one has yet to explain). Oddly, it does not appear that anyone at ICE sought a third party, non-biased analysis of the legality of what was going on. They simply relied on the MPAA entirely.

All that said, I have to admit that I'm still at a loss as to how this is really fits under Homeland Security's mandate. Defenders of this point out that ICE has long had intellectual property issues under its purview, but those issues were supposed to be focused on preventing counterfeit products from entering the country. To extend that to internet websites seems like a huge stretch. Either way, it seems like Homeland Security must have more important things to work on.

Filed Under: domains, forfeiture, homeland security, ice, seizure