That's "letter of law" stuff, AJ. You didn't answer my question. I'm not asking if these type of things happen all the time - I know they do. I am asking you, personally, do you feel that they are morally correct?
Should property that is purportedly used for crime be seized from the criminals? Sure.
Nothing. But i still feel that seizures of any property prior to trial is in direct conflict of Constitutional rights. Just because it happens does not make it less so in my mind.
You may feel that seizure of property conflicts with people's constitutional rights, but such seizures have existed since the day the Constitution was signed.
Where's the proof that any damages to the victims has actually occurred? Lost sales do not equal damages.
You don't think violating someone's rights is a harm? I'm glad you're not in charge.
Isn't the phrase "letter of the law" a form of following the herd? It says that no critical thinking is required-- someone else must have already done that when the law was enacted-- and we should follow blindly what the law says?
I follow the ideals that I agree with. Doesn't everyone?
I try and analyze things from all sides, especially the ones I don't agree with. Being a good lawyer means being able to argue all sides. If I wanted to have people pat me on the back and tell me I'm right, I'd go to some other board. People that post opposing views on techdirt are shunned and called names, and that's too bad. It's a real middle school mentality around here. I appreciate those who do challenge me though.
When did I say my opinion outweighs anyone else's? I'd comment on the rest, but you don't really make any sense. You may go back to following the herd now.
AJ, I know you tend to argue about "the letter of the law" and I would like to pose a question to you.
Put aside the "letter of the law" part for a moment and think in terms of "the spirit of the law" - Do you feel that these seizures are within the spirit of the law? IE: Do you feel that punishment prior to trial (which effectively has happened in these cases) is the correct path that the US Government should take?
Search and seizure warrants are executed every single day before an adversary trial has taken place. What makes these seizures so special? Is it the fact that the target is piracy? It's kind of scary how much you guys get all riled up when the government goes after pirates. The spirit of the law is that people shouldn't violate other people's rights. Where's the concern for the actual victims? I see none from the bulk of techdirt commentators, and absolutely none from techdirt itself. That's scary to me.
Essentially this domain is subject to US Law both in terms of the registered name holder (DomainsByProxy) and the registrar (Godaddy.com).
The licensee is Spanish, but that is irrelevant.
And there you go. According the ICANN website you linked to:
3.7.7.10 For the adjudication of disputes concerning or arising from use of the Registered Name, the Registered Name Holder shall submit, without prejudice to other potentially applicable jurisdictions, to the jurisdiction of the courts (1) of the Registered Name Holder's domicile and (2) where Registrar is located.
So a domain name is subject to the laws of holder's country and the laws of the registrar's country. In other words, there is absolutely no question that there domain names are subject to U.S. law. Thanks!
Same that a server in spain run by a spanish company and deemed legal by spanish law has to do with the US obvously.
I've said it over and over in this thread, but apparently since no one wants to hear it, it doesn't get heard.
If a Spanish website violates U.S. law, that website has to answer to the U.S. Most of the time the U.S. can't do anything about it. But when that illegal website happens to have property located in the U.S., the U.S. can do something about it.
You guys seem to think that how you think things should be is how they actually are. Ever thought about learning about how things actually are? It would make you look smarter to girls.
You're being deliberately misleading here. Yes, there is an investigation, the point is that the seizures are not intended to facilitate the investigation.
I don't follow you. The seizure is the culmination of the investigation.
Your posts and the responses they generate remind me of a relatively typical day in the practice of law.
Analyze facts, apply your knowledge of law, express your opinion to a client, and when it supports them they are happy, and when not they are not.
Unfortunately, it seems that here most "clients" fall into the latter category.
At least take some solace in the fact that there are some here who understand the difference between explaining the metes and bounds of US law, and not expressing an opinion of the wisdom or lack thereof of a law.
One piece of advice to keep in mind as you enter the legal profession. You will likely find a majority of the lawyers with whom you are required to deal as bordeline idiots. Of course, it is bad form to call them on it.
Does that mean tha a website hosted in the US and run by people who reside in the US should be subject to Pakistan's Blasphemy law if that website is accessible in Pakistan?
They are subject to the blasphemy laws in Pakistan. Do you think people can avoid the blasphemy laws of Pakistan by just setting up their website outside of Pakistan. Pakistani criminals would love that.
That would mean that US citizens could be extradited and then executed for something they wrote?
The U.S. would not extradite their citizens for that. The U.S. doesn't just extradite its citizens to any country who asks or for any crime.
In practice, once you are dealing with things that pass your nation's borders then your nations law is at the mercy of international diplomacy. Your judges can huff and puff but nothing will happen except by force majeure or international bargaining.
U.S. judges issue orders that affect foreigners all the time. No huffing and puffing, actual orders that carry actual weight.
This is a good thing - because if it were not true then US citizens would find themselves liable against all kinds of laws that exist in other countries.
A U.S. citizen can be liable to the laws of other countries. Set up a website that breaks English law, then travel to England and see what happens.
In the present case local force majeure has prevailed for now but even if the US courts do not reverse any of this it is not the end of the story.
Force majeure means something different to me than it does to you apparently. Property used for crime that exists in the U.S. was ordered forfeited by a U.S. court. Happens all the time.
What happens if the GATT decides that the US courts action breaks international trade agreements?
Look at the US trade dispute with Antigua if you want to see where this kind of thing leads.
I don't think Hollywood would be happy to see Spain given carte blanche to ignore US IP by the GATT.
I don't think there's a chance in hell that happens. Pure FUD. Nothing would make some of you happier though, from what I can tell.
I think people like our government and average joe don't really care about repercussions or retaliation, they simply care about what the law will allow them to do, or how they can interpret the law to do what they want it to do. To them it's about the letter of the law, not the overall good of mankind... I have a feeling this is going to bite the U.S. hard in the ass real soon....
Don't pretend like you know me. It makes you look like an idiot. I'm only addressing the legal issues. That doesn't mean I don't have opinions on the rest of it. I bet if my legal analysis was what you wanted to hear, you wouldn't be suggesting anything about my morality. You like to hear people agree with you. Good for you. I like analysis, whether it agrees with me or not. I'm open minded. You're not.
This won't bite the U.S. in the ass because this isn't anything new. Instruments of crime that exist in the U.S. get seized by the U.S. all the time. All the talk about "international incident" is silly FUD, which you and many others apparently are buying wholesale.
If you were able to do that you would understand what that kind of action means in reality.
It means other countries now have an excuse to exclude everybody else, it means American interests can be persecuted and the U.S. government can't say anything because they started the whole thing.
These actions don't change the reality of anything. All of those things can and do already happen. These jurisdictional issues existed with almost all of the seizures done so far. Why is everyone freaking out about this one? Makes no sense to me.
If that is what the judge meant then why didn't she say so. Any reasonable interpretation of the word retrieve means more than that and you know it.
You would get more respect around here if you refrained from trying to defend the indefensible.
Considering all of the stupid posts that get marked as "insightful," I don't know that I do want any "respect" around here.
As explained already in this thread: (1) the term was not written by the judge, and (2) the term chosen was broad because it means to retrieve both the posts on the internet and the hard copies that were given to third parties.
The fact that so many people think the judge is dumb over this only shows how incredibly stupid people around here are. It says nothing of the judge. The only thing "indefensible" is the premise behind this whole article.
Since when? The website doesn't reside in the US, which means it is NOT subject to US laws. Is the US the caretaker of all the internets, now? Really? Are YOU making this shit up? The domain name is managed by an international committee on US soil. Does the US have dominion over the United Nations just because they meet in the US?
No, I'm not making this up. Think about it. Let's say I have a website with every crime you can think of on it: infringement, child porn, treason, etc. Do you think that if my website is hosted in Spain, the U.S. can't arrest me if I'm in the U.S., but if my website is hosted in the U.S., they can arrest me? That's not how it works.
If that was the case, every criminal would just set up their website abroad and then walk around the U.S. with immunity. That would make no sense.
If you don't believe me, look up the caselaw I've cited in this very thread. In one case, a U.S.-based company was subjected to the law of Australia for a defamatory story posted on a U.S. server. In the other case, an Italian-based website was subjected to U.S. law for trademark infringement.
Believe it or not, but what matters is where the impact of one's website is felt, not where the website is located.
I see nothing in that statute that would provide for these seizures.
18 U.S.C. 2323 provides:
"(1) Property subject to forfeiture.—
The following property is subject to forfeiture to the United States Government:
(A) Any article, the making or trafficking of which is, prohibited under section 506 of title 17 . . . .
(B) Any property used, or intended to be used, in any manner or part to commit or facilitate the commission of an offense referred to in subparagraph (A)."
Section 506 of Title 17 is criminal copyright infringement. The statute says that "any property used, or intended to be used, in any manner or part to commit or facilitate the commission of" criminal copyright infringement can be forfeited. The domain name is such property.
On the post: Will Homeland Security Domain Seizures Lead To Exodus From US Controlled Domains?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So my choice of username makes me logically inconsistent? You weren't on the debate team, were you?
On the post: Will Homeland Security Domain Seizures Lead To Exodus From US Controlled Domains?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Should property that is purportedly used for crime be seized from the criminals? Sure.
Nothing. But i still feel that seizures of any property prior to trial is in direct conflict of Constitutional rights. Just because it happens does not make it less so in my mind.
You may feel that seizure of property conflicts with people's constitutional rights, but such seizures have existed since the day the Constitution was signed.
Where's the proof that any damages to the victims has actually occurred? Lost sales do not equal damages.
You don't think violating someone's rights is a harm? I'm glad you're not in charge.
On the post: Will Homeland Security Domain Seizures Lead To Exodus From US Controlled Domains?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nice comeback. I'm reeling.
On the post: Will Homeland Security Domain Seizures Lead To Exodus From US Controlled Domains?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I follow the ideals that I agree with. Doesn't everyone?
I try and analyze things from all sides, especially the ones I don't agree with. Being a good lawyer means being able to argue all sides. If I wanted to have people pat me on the back and tell me I'm right, I'd go to some other board. People that post opposing views on techdirt are shunned and called names, and that's too bad. It's a real middle school mentality around here. I appreciate those who do challenge me though.
On the post: Will Homeland Security Domain Seizures Lead To Exodus From US Controlled Domains?
Re: Re:
Oh no, some internet coward called me a name! Grow a pair and get a username.
On the post: Will Homeland Security Domain Seizures Lead To Exodus From US Controlled Domains?
Re: Re:
On the post: Homeland Security Seizes Spanish Domain Name That Had Already Been Declared Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Will Homeland Security Domain Seizures Lead To Exodus From US Controlled Domains?
Re: Re:
Put aside the "letter of the law" part for a moment and think in terms of "the spirit of the law" - Do you feel that these seizures are within the spirit of the law? IE: Do you feel that punishment prior to trial (which effectively has happened in these cases) is the correct path that the US Government should take?
Search and seizure warrants are executed every single day before an adversary trial has taken place. What makes these seizures so special? Is it the fact that the target is piracy? It's kind of scary how much you guys get all riled up when the government goes after pirates. The spirit of the law is that people shouldn't violate other people's rights. Where's the concern for the actual victims? I see none from the bulk of techdirt commentators, and absolutely none from techdirt itself. That's scary to me.
On the post: Will Homeland Security Domain Seizures Lead To Exodus From US Controlled Domains?
Re: Re:
And you are a blind follower of the herd.
On the post: Will Homeland Security Domain Seizures Lead To Exodus From US Controlled Domains?
[I'll leave the FUD-packer joke just laying there... :)]
On the post: Homeland Security Seizes Spanish Domain Name That Had Already Been Declared Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/ra-agreement-21may09-en.htm#3.7.7.10
Essentially this domain is subject to US Law both in terms of the registered name holder (DomainsByProxy) and the registrar (Godaddy.com).
The licensee is Spanish, but that is irrelevant.
And there you go. According the ICANN website you linked to:
So a domain name is subject to the laws of holder's country and the laws of the registrar's country. In other words, there is absolutely no question that there domain names are subject to U.S. law. Thanks!
On the post: Homeland Security Seizes Spanish Domain Name That Had Already Been Declared Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I've said it over and over in this thread, but apparently since no one wants to hear it, it doesn't get heard.
If a Spanish website violates U.S. law, that website has to answer to the U.S. Most of the time the U.S. can't do anything about it. But when that illegal website happens to have property located in the U.S., the U.S. can do something about it.
You guys seem to think that how you think things should be is how they actually are. Ever thought about learning about how things actually are? It would make you look smarter to girls.
On the post: Homeland Security Seizes Spanish Domain Name That Had Already Been Declared Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't follow you. The seizure is the culmination of the investigation.
On the post: Homeland Security Seizes Spanish Domain Name That Had Already Been Declared Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Analyze facts, apply your knowledge of law, express your opinion to a client, and when it supports them they are happy, and when not they are not.
Unfortunately, it seems that here most "clients" fall into the latter category.
At least take some solace in the fact that there are some here who understand the difference between explaining the metes and bounds of US law, and not expressing an opinion of the wisdom or lack thereof of a law.
One piece of advice to keep in mind as you enter the legal profession. You will likely find a majority of the lawyers with whom you are required to deal as bordeline idiots. Of course, it is bad form to call them on it.
Point taken. Thanks.
On the post: Homeland Security Seizes Spanish Domain Name That Had Already Been Declared Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
They are subject to the blasphemy laws in Pakistan. Do you think people can avoid the blasphemy laws of Pakistan by just setting up their website outside of Pakistan. Pakistani criminals would love that.
That would mean that US citizens could be extradited and then executed for something they wrote?
The U.S. would not extradite their citizens for that. The U.S. doesn't just extradite its citizens to any country who asks or for any crime.
In practice, once you are dealing with things that pass your nation's borders then your nations law is at the mercy of international diplomacy. Your judges can huff and puff but nothing will happen except by force majeure or international bargaining.
U.S. judges issue orders that affect foreigners all the time. No huffing and puffing, actual orders that carry actual weight.
This is a good thing - because if it were not true then US citizens would find themselves liable against all kinds of laws that exist in other countries.
A U.S. citizen can be liable to the laws of other countries. Set up a website that breaks English law, then travel to England and see what happens.
In the present case local force majeure has prevailed for now but even if the US courts do not reverse any of this it is not the end of the story.
Force majeure means something different to me than it does to you apparently. Property used for crime that exists in the U.S. was ordered forfeited by a U.S. court. Happens all the time.
What happens if the GATT decides that the US courts action breaks international trade agreements?
Look at the US trade dispute with Antigua if you want to see where this kind of thing leads.
I don't think Hollywood would be happy to see Spain given carte blanche to ignore US IP by the GATT.
I don't think there's a chance in hell that happens. Pure FUD. Nothing would make some of you happier though, from what I can tell.
On the post: Homeland Security Seizes Spanish Domain Name That Had Already Been Declared Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Don't pretend like you know me. It makes you look like an idiot. I'm only addressing the legal issues. That doesn't mean I don't have opinions on the rest of it. I bet if my legal analysis was what you wanted to hear, you wouldn't be suggesting anything about my morality. You like to hear people agree with you. Good for you. I like analysis, whether it agrees with me or not. I'm open minded. You're not.
This won't bite the U.S. in the ass because this isn't anything new. Instruments of crime that exist in the U.S. get seized by the U.S. all the time. All the talk about "international incident" is silly FUD, which you and many others apparently are buying wholesale.
On the post: Homeland Security Seizes Spanish Domain Name That Had Already Been Declared Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It means other countries now have an excuse to exclude everybody else, it means American interests can be persecuted and the U.S. government can't say anything because they started the whole thing.
These actions don't change the reality of anything. All of those things can and do already happen. These jurisdictional issues existed with almost all of the seizures done so far. Why is everyone freaking out about this one? Makes no sense to me.
On the post: The PS3 Hack Injunction Shows The Problems Of Judges Who Don't Understand Technology
Re: Re:
You would get more respect around here if you refrained from trying to defend the indefensible.
Considering all of the stupid posts that get marked as "insightful," I don't know that I do want any "respect" around here.
As explained already in this thread: (1) the term was not written by the judge, and (2) the term chosen was broad because it means to retrieve both the posts on the internet and the hard copies that were given to third parties.
The fact that so many people think the judge is dumb over this only shows how incredibly stupid people around here are. It says nothing of the judge. The only thing "indefensible" is the premise behind this whole article.
On the post: Homeland Security Seizes Spanish Domain Name That Had Already Been Declared Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, I'm not making this up. Think about it. Let's say I have a website with every crime you can think of on it: infringement, child porn, treason, etc. Do you think that if my website is hosted in Spain, the U.S. can't arrest me if I'm in the U.S., but if my website is hosted in the U.S., they can arrest me? That's not how it works.
If that was the case, every criminal would just set up their website abroad and then walk around the U.S. with immunity. That would make no sense.
If you don't believe me, look up the caselaw I've cited in this very thread. In one case, a U.S.-based company was subjected to the law of Australia for a defamatory story posted on a U.S. server. In the other case, an Italian-based website was subjected to U.S. law for trademark infringement.
Believe it or not, but what matters is where the impact of one's website is felt, not where the website is located.
On the post: Homeland Security Seizes Spanish Domain Name That Had Already Been Declared Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
18 U.S.C. 2323 provides:
"(1) Property subject to forfeiture.—
The following property is subject to forfeiture to the United States Government:
(A) Any article, the making or trafficking of which is, prohibited under section 506 of title 17 . . . .
(B) Any property used, or intended to be used, in any manner or part to commit or facilitate the commission of an offense referred to in subparagraph (A)."
Section 506 of Title 17 is criminal copyright infringement. The statute says that "any property used, or intended to be used, in any manner or part to commit or facilitate the commission of" criminal copyright infringement can be forfeited. The domain name is such property.
Next >>