There is a difference between Google, which indexes everything, and Rojadirecta, which indexes the infringing stuff for the purpose of helping others infringe.
And even if it is for the 'stopping of further crime', how does that play into prior-restraint?
As far as I know, the government's argument has been that it's seizable because it's property used to commit criminal infringement. One justification for seizure of such property is so that it can't be used to commit further crimes. I think the whole "seize for evidence" is just a red herring. That doesn't matter since the government has a sufficient reason to hang onto the property with the "can't be used for more crime" reasoning.
The prior restraint issue is a First Amendment challenge. I don't think that issue will get resolved in this case, which is only about the temporary return of the property. That will happen in the actual forfeiture hearing which is now underway. That hearing is about the permanent forfeiture of the domain names, and that's going to be the one to watch.
Is the van the servers? If so, then yes, they still have the van. The servers weren't in the US, so they couldn't be seized too. I imagine they would have been seized if they were in the US.
This is about criminal infringement, not civil infringement. I think the government is arguing both that Rojadirecta engaged in criminal infringement and that they assisted others to engage in criminal infringement. If I'm reading the brief correctly, the government has two theories of criminal liability.
I disagree that Rojadirecta was left with "no other choice." As mentioned in this brief, once Rojadirecta filled out the claim form on March 22, the government had 90 days to file the forfeiture complaint. They government filed the forfeiture complaint on June 22.
Oops. That last date should be June 17. The government's forfeiture complaint was filed June 17.
Helping someone else to commit criminal infringement is called aiding and abetting. An aider and abettor is treated as if they committed the crime themselves.
Yes, but Google and the internet aren't dedicated to infringement. There's a difference.
Facilitation of a crime is a crime. It's more commonly called aiding and abetting. 18 U.S.C. 2.
There was probable cause that the property was being used to commit crimes, and that's all that's needed to get a warrant to seize it. Says so right in the Fourth Amendment.
It's quite common to seize property that is alleged to be used in a crime. You seize the property so that it can't be used to commit anymore crimes. That's what's been done here. Preserving evidence is another, different reason to seize property.
Even the court in their country acknowledged that what Rojadirecta does facilitates infringement. It says so in the documents that Rojadirecta has filed in this case. I'm kind of surprised they're admitting this like that, actually.
Infringement is a crime in this country. Property that resided in this country, the two domain names, was used to facilitate that crime. That made the property subject to seizure and forfeiture, since property that exists in this country that's used to break this country's laws can be seized and forfeited. That shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone.
Had Rojadirecta used domain names with registrars in other countries, they wouldn't have this problem--and in fact they already do have such domain names--but they chose to place property here in this country, thus subject to this country's laws, and that was their mistake. Well, that and breaking the law in the first place.
The government filed their forfeiture complaint on June 17. As I mentioned above, once Rojadirecta filled out the form for the return of the domain names on March 22 (three weeks after the seizures) the clock started ticking for the government to file the forfeiture complaint. The government filed the complaint within the allotted time, which was 90 days.
This forfeiture complaint is a different case than the case this article is about. The main battle will likely be in that other case, which is titled: United States v. Rojadirecta.org and Rojadirecta.com. That's the case to watch. If I find a free version of the docket, I'll post the link.
I get what you're saying: The procedure itself is the problem. I was merely pointing out that the procedure that's in place has been followed here, which is a different matter. You could argue that the procedure itself violates due process, but I don't think that argument has much merit. Seizure and forfeiture of assets like this has been going on since the beginning of this nation. The procedures in place now are the product of two centuries of constitutional molding. Procedural due process means essentially two things: effective notice and a meaningful hearing. Rojadirecta is proof positive that the owners of seized domain names are getting both.
On the post: Feds Respond To Rojadirecta's Challenge To Domain Seizures: If We Give It Back, They'll Infringe Again
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Feds Respond To Rojadirecta's Challenge To Domain Seizures: If We Give It Back, They'll Infringe Again
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As far as I know, the government's argument has been that it's seizable because it's property used to commit criminal infringement. One justification for seizure of such property is so that it can't be used to commit further crimes. I think the whole "seize for evidence" is just a red herring. That doesn't matter since the government has a sufficient reason to hang onto the property with the "can't be used for more crime" reasoning.
The prior restraint issue is a First Amendment challenge. I don't think that issue will get resolved in this case, which is only about the temporary return of the property. That will happen in the actual forfeiture hearing which is now underway. That hearing is about the permanent forfeiture of the domain names, and that's going to be the one to watch.
On the post: Feds Respond To Rojadirecta's Challenge To Domain Seizures: If We Give It Back, They'll Infringe Again
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Rep. Anna Eshoo (From Silicon Valley!) Thinks PROTECT IP Is About Immigration?
Re: Re:
On the post: Feds Respond To Rojadirecta's Challenge To Domain Seizures: If We Give It Back, They'll Infringe Again
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Feds Respond To Rojadirecta's Challenge To Domain Seizures: If We Give It Back, They'll Infringe Again
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Feds Respond To Rojadirecta's Challenge To Domain Seizures: If We Give It Back, They'll Infringe Again
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Feds Respond To Rojadirecta's Challenge To Domain Seizures: If We Give It Back, They'll Infringe Again
Re:
Oops. That last date should be June 17. The government's forfeiture complaint was filed June 17.
On the post: Feds Respond To Rojadirecta's Challenge To Domain Seizures: If We Give It Back, They'll Infringe Again
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Feds Respond To Rojadirecta's Challenge To Domain Seizures: If We Give It Back, They'll Infringe Again
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Feds Respond To Rojadirecta's Challenge To Domain Seizures: If We Give It Back, They'll Infringe Again
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Facilitation of a crime is a crime. It's more commonly called aiding and abetting. 18 U.S.C. 2.
There was probable cause that the property was being used to commit crimes, and that's all that's needed to get a warrant to seize it. Says so right in the Fourth Amendment.
On the post: Righthaven Accused Of Avoiding Paying Legal Fees Owed
Re: Looks like I called this one right
On the post: Righthaven Accused Of Avoiding Paying Legal Fees Owed
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Rep. Anna Eshoo (From Silicon Valley!) Thinks PROTECT IP Is About Immigration?
On the post: Feds Respond To Rojadirecta's Challenge To Domain Seizures: If We Give It Back, They'll Infringe Again
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Feds Respond To Rojadirecta's Challenge To Domain Seizures: If We Give It Back, They'll Infringe Again
Re: Re:
On the post: Feds Respond To Rojadirecta's Challenge To Domain Seizures: If We Give It Back, They'll Infringe Again
Re: Re:
Infringement is a crime in this country. Property that resided in this country, the two domain names, was used to facilitate that crime. That made the property subject to seizure and forfeiture, since property that exists in this country that's used to break this country's laws can be seized and forfeited. That shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone.
Had Rojadirecta used domain names with registrars in other countries, they wouldn't have this problem--and in fact they already do have such domain names--but they chose to place property here in this country, thus subject to this country's laws, and that was their mistake. Well, that and breaking the law in the first place.
On the post: Feds Respond To Rojadirecta's Challenge To Domain Seizures: If We Give It Back, They'll Infringe Again
Re: Re:
A copy of the complaint is here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/59833516/Complaint-for-forfeiture-Rojadirecta-com
This forfeiture complaint is a different case than the case this article is about. The main battle will likely be in that other case, which is titled: United States v. Rojadirecta.org and Rojadirecta.com. That's the case to watch. If I find a free version of the docket, I'll post the link.
On the post: Feds Respond To Rojadirecta's Challenge To Domain Seizures: If We Give It Back, They'll Infringe Again
Re: Re:
On the post: Feds Respond To Rojadirecta's Challenge To Domain Seizures: If We Give It Back, They'll Infringe Again
Re: Re:
Next >>