" Damage to a business's reputation is very difficult to quantify, much less remedy, and it's certainly difficult to remedy by the mere provision of money damages, which likely will not be paid by the infringing domain owner"
The GAO piracy report says that people aren't fooled by counterfeit products. Also, I'm pretty sure if the business that is being "infringed" can't figure out the harm, then the government can't do it for them. I can't tell if you're actually looking at the prices between the official jerseys and the unofficial ones. Something else occurred to me... What happens if the people selling this paraphernalia were trying to sell official products at the wholesale price? What if they got this through third parties? Looking at the qualifications on the NFL website, it seems abundantly clear they only want to deal with licensors that already have previous experience, effectively splitting the market of vendors of products.
"But that's why we have the procedure of getting a judge-issued warrant."
That's laughable and erroneous. ICE is making a determination based on evidence from one side of the argument as has been explained. The court order is gained and they proceed without the holder having any type of say in the matter. The better solution maintains that before the government can do anything, they make their claims known in a court before a judge with the domain holder answering those claims. Seeing the "evidence" that ICE has used before, they know nothing about how domains function, merely echoing what other companies have said without any regard to due process.
Give me some evidence that these sites were not selling counterfeit goods and proves my assumptions wrong. I dare you.
You're incredible. Fine. Prove me wrong. Give me evidence that these sites were selling counterfeit goods and proves my assumptions wrong. I dare you.
(You see how this works? There's no evidence either way, and the sites are locked up behind a server hack of ICE's. So unless you can show one way or another, this back and forth can continue ad nauseum)
I know that the NFL is the only party that can determine whether a particular seller is authorized to sell first hand goods bearing the NFL mark, so I can reasonably assume that the NFL did its homework prior to asking ICE to shut these websites down.
But if you have some evidence indicating otherwise, you're free to present it. Otherwise, you have little basis questioning the legitimacy of these seizures
I can question the NFL as well as ICE since their past experiences show that they are censoring sites for supposed economic gain. I've done so with this post as well as one above focused on ICE's lack of due process in other issues relating to their job. If you believe them wholesale, feel free. But it's that much harder to take you seriously when evidence of their past behavior isn't very positive.
I have the fact that the domains were in fact taken down, presumably by government officials who are trying to do the right thing---
Excuse me for one second.
BWAAAHAHAHA! AND HE'S SERIOUS ABOUT THIS *snicker*...
Okay, continue.
and did their best to verify the facts that the NFL claimed.
The dissonance is strong with you. ICE's track record in regards to constitutional rights is not very strong, given their persecution through the Secure Communities program they endorse. Here's the stats for ICE in regards to deportation:
+ 1.6 percent of those arrested were actually U.S. citizens
+ 39 percent of people arrested through Secure Communities have at least one child or spouse who is a U.S. citizen
+ 93 percent of those arrested are Latinos, even though they account for 77 percent of the entire undocumented population
+ 83 percent of people arrested via Secure Communities are placed in Immigration and Customs Enforcement [ICE] detention; the average Department of Homeland Security immigration detention rate is 62 percent
+ Only 24 percent of individuals arrested via Secure Communities had a lawyer present during an immigration hearing; in general, about 41 percent of all immigration court respondents do
So what we can surmise:
“The results are disturbing because they point to a system that is funneling people towards deportation without due process,” said the study’s lead author Aarti Kohli. “Based on our findings, we recommend that the Department of Homeland Security suspend the program until the government addresses the issues we identify, particularly wrongful U.S. citizen arrests, potential racial profiling, and lack of discretion in detention.”
So would I believe that ICE is following the law or just the claims of one side of a civil argument? Are they being paid for their private police force? All signs seem to be that court dates are anathema for ICE. They shoot first and deal with collateral damage later. This occurred with Moo.com along with every domain seizure since. All to support businesses that don't need it.
So is that concrete? No, but its better than your entirely fabricated claims of there being forums at which protected speech is present.
My argument is that ICE is proceeding with takedowns without due process. Fifth Amendment, not the First. If a judge declares the site illegal then by all means take it down. But the least they can do is have a chance to answer the allegations, fight the seizure, and find out if the site is within its means to takedown. But I guess that's too much work for these "people trying to do the right thing". Hilarious.
Then the domain user should speak up.
That's funny coming from you. You still advocate that Roja is a criminal site when the government hasn't said they were.
No one is going to vindicate their rights for them, assuming they have any in this case.
So you're saying that no one has rights for the government not to mess with them? Very dangerous ground here...
And the aggrieved party should have to wait around for the domain owner to show up for a hearing while the aggrieved party's legal interests are irreparably harmed.
[citation needed]
It could take weeks for the domain owners to travel to the United States from wherever they are located, especially since the expense of traveling is on them. And while we wait for those domain owners to show up, the goodwill of the aggrieved party gets continually tread upon as each day goes by.
Oh my gosh, the NFL loses a penny a day while someone travels to the US to answer for "crimes" against their economic hardship. *gasp* The ticket for one football game might go down by $1. How DARE these people cause such a travesty as having shirts similar to NFL jerseys that are already labeled as unofficial/unauthorized products!
Why? Why must a hearing be held before the site is seized? Why allow for the opportunity for the goodwill of a law-abiding citizen or entity be damaged continually as we wait to have a hearing?
Amazing. What quantifiable harm is being hurt from a few days to a month with the trademark or material being displayed before it's seized? Loss of revenue? To whom? And what if the domain is that of a law abiding citizen that hasn't done any harm and doesn't know what's going on? Don't you think all of that would be ironed out before ICE takes up to a year and a half for proceedings to forfeit the domain?
Why not prevent irreparable harm from being caused to the aggrieved entity before having a hearing on the merits?
Because by the very logic professed in this sentence, you're assuming guilt before innocence. The domain has the right to face its accuser and answer the charges presented.
Whatever "speech" being provided on these sites was commercial speech, which is subject to less protection than non-commercial speech. If these sites were selling counterfeit goods (and I have no reason to believe that they were not), then whatever speech existed on these sites was affiliated with the selling of counterfeit goods.
Again, this is an assumption. You don't know and it's not like anyone can peer review the site in regards to legality.
I find that very hard to believe. Counterfeiting has been illegal for a very long time, and those who sell goods on these types of websites know full well that they are doing something wrong.
Your argument makes no sense. How does one know about the illegality of counterfeit goods if they possibly put up the fact that they're selling products at cheaper rates? What if the goods are official without a logo representing the NFL? You don't know that. All you know is that the NFL wanted these seized for being competitors to their product and the ICE bent over backwards to oblige them.
"I see. So you're speculating. Good to know that you have no facts to back up your fanciful theories."
Neither are you. Did you visit any of the sites before they were taken down? Nice to know that you can't use facts to support your position when you have none.
"Jay, you are not the arbiter of what is legal and what is not. No judge has to speak to you prior to issuing a warrant for the seizure of a domain name. Perhaps it would be best to not assume that every judge and every ICE agent is up to something nefarious when it performs a seizure of a domain name."
Did I say that Judge Nagle was up to something nefarious because she signed the takedowns in February? No, I did not. I have less regard for ICE since they're the ones stretching the law. The fact is, if a judge signs anything that comes to their desk for law enforcement, then that's not a protection.
And yet again, the fact remains, no judge has heard from the domain user about this. So it's akin to ICE coming into your home at 6 in the morning to check your legal status. Oh wait, they already do that. They barely respect the rights of immigrants. I'm supposed to believe they'll follow the law in regards to copyright?
If the domain name owners want a hearing, they can file suit.
Ah, increased liability, similar to 3 strikes. "You're a criminal before you're allowed to protest what's happened to your site". Tell me, how well did that work for mooo.com again? How hard is it to get a judge to see them before going to seize a domain to allow both sides in a hearing?
Reagan has had his fair share of bankers that he's relied on. And I'm not going to get into Bush and his problems with the financial sector in taking "lobbying" dollars. This was more an issue about how the private sector uses a LOT of money to control the ones passing legislation.
I don't adhere to the Republican vs Democrat debate. It's partisan politics that does nothing but take focus away from the issues at hand.
Maybe next time you would do better to understand what is said than try to make this a partisan issue.
"Where is your evidence that such a forum exists on these sites?"
Well, gee. It's conveniently hidden behind the BIG SIGN that ICE put up that says "You can't go here". I guess when anyone wants to talk to the merchant and see if this stuff is counterfeit, no one will know because we can't see the merchandise for ourselves.
"If the forum is a legitimate exercise of free speech, then the forum should extricate itself from the criminal enterprise with which it associates."
Yet again... When were they determined to be a criminal enterprise by a court of law when they have had no hearing to discuss it with the judge?
One, you'll have two parties that don't represent the majority rule.
Two, it results in a two party system regardless of results. By voting third party, you take away votes for a person that may be closer to you. Remember how Ross Perot ran as an independent, taking votes away from the main presidential candidates in 92 and 96? Yeah, that's a result of our system. People blame Perot for causing the defeats of Bush and Dole respectively.
Three, gerrymandering laws are still ridiculous.
There's more here, but that's the gist of the video.
I didn't type "press release". I typed "press conference". Such as this right here. They haven't talked about the seizures in great length recently. Before, during the July and February takedowns, they were saying "mission accomplished". Now, people find out through their website.
"You think they did it without even opening the website in a browser? "
You know damn well that's not what he meant. You also understand that at no time have any of the domain owners been able to defend the allegations against them before the domain seizures are completed. So the fact is, a government entity is taking away a domain with a one sided look at the law, protecting the antiquated business model of the NFL (in this case).
Have you noticed that for every bill signed Obama always has a lobbyist in the background?
Further, the contributions for this have been ridiculous. Sadly, I can't find any information in regards to how much they've paid people to look the other way as they're trying to pass this trainwreck of a bill.
So... You want people who have been close to US citizens for 10 years to up and quit coming to the United States illegally.
You want US citizens that have been here for 10+ years to grow up without a father or mother because of the thicket to becoming a US citizen is beyond bad.
You believe that every illegal alien has no right to any type of due process rights when they are detained, submitting that they have to be fingerprinted, searched and deported. If they complain about their problems, be it the fact that guards can rape them, they can be beaten while guards throw out racial slurs or ICE bullying them into silence for their treatment, it's their own fault because of some belief that entering the country illegally is robbing the US of jobs.
That is beyond an ignorant statement, and I would highly suggest you look into the website linked for a review of the Secure Communities program, the devastating effect of immediate deportation, and the consequences of the detainment program of ICE.
On the post: Comcast, Verizon Ordered To ID Subscribers In Copyright Trolling Suit
Re:
On the post: ICE Seized 20 Domain Names For The NFL Over The Weekend
Too much unquantifiable...
The GAO piracy report says that people aren't fooled by counterfeit products. Also, I'm pretty sure if the business that is being "infringed" can't figure out the harm, then the government can't do it for them. I can't tell if you're actually looking at the prices between the official jerseys and the unofficial ones. Something else occurred to me... What happens if the people selling this paraphernalia were trying to sell official products at the wholesale price? What if they got this through third parties? Looking at the qualifications on the NFL website, it seems abundantly clear they only want to deal with licensors that already have previous experience, effectively splitting the market of vendors of products.
"But that's why we have the procedure of getting a judge-issued warrant."
That's laughable and erroneous. ICE is making a determination based on evidence from one side of the argument as has been explained. The court order is gained and they proceed without the holder having any type of say in the matter. The better solution maintains that before the government can do anything, they make their claims known in a court before a judge with the domain holder answering those claims. Seeing the "evidence" that ICE has used before, they know nothing about how domains function, merely echoing what other companies have said without any regard to due process.
Give me some evidence that these sites were not selling counterfeit goods and proves my assumptions wrong. I dare you.
You're incredible. Fine. Prove me wrong. Give me evidence that these sites were selling counterfeit goods and proves my assumptions wrong. I dare you.
(You see how this works? There's no evidence either way, and the sites are locked up behind a server hack of ICE's. So unless you can show one way or another, this back and forth can continue ad nauseum)
I know that the NFL is the only party that can determine whether a particular seller is authorized to sell first hand goods bearing the NFL mark, so I can reasonably assume that the NFL did its homework prior to asking ICE to shut these websites down.
They've been wrong before. On various occasions. But I guess fumbling over takedowns isn't considered in this day and age is it?
But if you have some evidence indicating otherwise, you're free to present it. Otherwise, you have little basis questioning the legitimacy of these seizures
I can question the NFL as well as ICE since their past experiences show that they are censoring sites for supposed economic gain. I've done so with this post as well as one above focused on ICE's lack of due process in other issues relating to their job. If you believe them wholesale, feel free. But it's that much harder to take you seriously when evidence of their past behavior isn't very positive.
On the post: ICE Seized 20 Domain Names For The NFL Over The Weekend
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Excuse me for one second.
BWAAAHAHAHA! AND HE'S SERIOUS ABOUT THIS *snicker*...
Okay, continue.
and did their best to verify the facts that the NFL claimed.
The dissonance is strong with you. ICE's track record in regards to constitutional rights is not very strong, given their persecution through the Secure Communities program they endorse. Here's the stats for ICE in regards to deportation:
So what we can surmise:
So would I believe that ICE is following the law or just the claims of one side of a civil argument? Are they being paid for their private police force? All signs seem to be that court dates are anathema for ICE. They shoot first and deal with collateral damage later. This occurred with Moo.com along with every domain seizure since. All to support businesses that don't need it.
So is that concrete? No, but its better than your entirely fabricated claims of there being forums at which protected speech is present.
My argument is that ICE is proceeding with takedowns without due process. Fifth Amendment, not the First. If a judge declares the site illegal then by all means take it down. But the least they can do is have a chance to answer the allegations, fight the seizure, and find out if the site is within its means to takedown. But I guess that's too much work for these "people trying to do the right thing". Hilarious.
Then the domain user should speak up.
That's funny coming from you. You still advocate that Roja is a criminal site when the government hasn't said they were.
No one is going to vindicate their rights for them, assuming they have any in this case.
So you're saying that no one has rights for the government not to mess with them? Very dangerous ground here...
And the aggrieved party should have to wait around for the domain owner to show up for a hearing while the aggrieved party's legal interests are irreparably harmed.
[citation needed]
It could take weeks for the domain owners to travel to the United States from wherever they are located, especially since the expense of traveling is on them. And while we wait for those domain owners to show up, the goodwill of the aggrieved party gets continually tread upon as each day goes by.
Oh my gosh, the NFL loses a penny a day while someone travels to the US to answer for "crimes" against their economic hardship. *gasp* The ticket for one football game might go down by $1. How DARE these people cause such a travesty as having shirts similar to NFL jerseys that are already labeled as unofficial/unauthorized products!
On the post: ICE Seized 20 Domain Names For The NFL Over The Weekend
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Amazing. What quantifiable harm is being hurt from a few days to a month with the trademark or material being displayed before it's seized? Loss of revenue? To whom? And what if the domain is that of a law abiding citizen that hasn't done any harm and doesn't know what's going on? Don't you think all of that would be ironed out before ICE takes up to a year and a half for proceedings to forfeit the domain?
Why not prevent irreparable harm from being caused to the aggrieved entity before having a hearing on the merits?
Because by the very logic professed in this sentence, you're assuming guilt before innocence. The domain has the right to face its accuser and answer the charges presented.
Whatever "speech" being provided on these sites was commercial speech, which is subject to less protection than non-commercial speech. If these sites were selling counterfeit goods (and I have no reason to believe that they were not), then whatever speech existed on these sites was affiliated with the selling of counterfeit goods.
Again, this is an assumption. You don't know and it's not like anyone can peer review the site in regards to legality.
I find that very hard to believe. Counterfeiting has been illegal for a very long time, and those who sell goods on these types of websites know full well that they are doing something wrong.
Your argument makes no sense. How does one know about the illegality of counterfeit goods if they possibly put up the fact that they're selling products at cheaper rates? What if the goods are official without a logo representing the NFL? You don't know that. All you know is that the NFL wanted these seized for being competitors to their product and the ICE bent over backwards to oblige them.
On the post: ICE Seized 20 Domain Names For The NFL Over The Weekend
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Neither are you. Did you visit any of the sites before they were taken down? Nice to know that you can't use facts to support your position when you have none.
"Jay, you are not the arbiter of what is legal and what is not. No judge has to speak to you prior to issuing a warrant for the seizure of a domain name. Perhaps it would be best to not assume that every judge and every ICE agent is up to something nefarious when it performs a seizure of a domain name."
Did I say that Judge Nagle was up to something nefarious because she signed the takedowns in February? No, I did not. I have less regard for ICE since they're the ones stretching the law. The fact is, if a judge signs anything that comes to their desk for law enforcement, then that's not a protection.
And yet again, the fact remains, no judge has heard from the domain user about this. So it's akin to ICE coming into your home at 6 in the morning to check your legal status. Oh wait, they already do that. They barely respect the rights of immigrants. I'm supposed to believe they'll follow the law in regards to copyright?
If the domain name owners want a hearing, they can file suit.
Ah, increased liability, similar to 3 strikes. "You're a criminal before you're allowed to protest what's happened to your site". Tell me, how well did that work for mooo.com again? How hard is it to get a judge to see them before going to seize a domain to allow both sides in a hearing?
On the post: ICE Seized 20 Domain Names For The NFL Over The Weekend
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: ICE Seized 20 Domain Names For The NFL Over The Weekend
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: House Trying To Rush Through Its Version Of PROTECT IP; Tech Industry Asks Why?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Reagan has had his fair share of bankers that he's relied on. And I'm not going to get into Bush and his problems with the financial sector in taking "lobbying" dollars. This was more an issue about how the private sector uses a LOT of money to control the ones passing legislation.
I don't adhere to the Republican vs Democrat debate. It's partisan politics that does nothing but take focus away from the issues at hand.
Maybe next time you would do better to understand what is said than try to make this a partisan issue.
On the post: ICE Seized 20 Domain Names For The NFL Over The Weekend
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, gee. It's conveniently hidden behind the BIG SIGN that ICE put up that says "You can't go here". I guess when anyone wants to talk to the merchant and see if this stuff is counterfeit, no one will know because we can't see the merchandise for ourselves.
"If the forum is a legitimate exercise of free speech, then the forum should extricate itself from the criminal enterprise with which it associates."
Yet again... When were they determined to be a criminal enterprise by a court of law when they have had no hearing to discuss it with the judge?
On the post: ICE Seized 20 Domain Names For The NFL Over The Weekend
Re: Re: Re: Re:
We've had a Libertarian Party along with various other parties that can't get any traction because of the rules enforcing the two party rule.
The problems are detailed here the best.
One, you'll have two parties that don't represent the majority rule.
Two, it results in a two party system regardless of results. By voting third party, you take away votes for a person that may be closer to you. Remember how Ross Perot ran as an independent, taking votes away from the main presidential candidates in 92 and 96? Yeah, that's a result of our system. People blame Perot for causing the defeats of Bush and Dole respectively.
Three, gerrymandering laws are still ridiculous.
There's more here, but that's the gist of the video.
On the post: House Trying To Rush Through Its Version Of PROTECT IP; Tech Industry Asks Why?
Re: Re: Re:
Then insult the people pointing out the problem in order to show the problems of your position.
Bravo on trolling.
On the post: ICE Seized 20 Domain Names For The NFL Over The Weekend
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: ICE Seized 20 Domain Names For The NFL Over The Weekend
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What did they charge the domains with? How is the domain a criminal tool when no one's been charged beforehand?
On the post: ICE Seized 20 Domain Names For The NFL Over The Weekend
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: ICE Seized 20 Domain Names For The NFL Over The Weekend
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: ICE Seized 20 Domain Names For The NFL Over The Weekend
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You know damn well that's not what he meant. You also understand that at no time have any of the domain owners been able to defend the allegations against them before the domain seizures are completed. So the fact is, a government entity is taking away a domain with a one sided look at the law, protecting the antiquated business model of the NFL (in this case).
On the post: House Trying To Rush Through Its Version Of PROTECT IP; Tech Industry Asks Why?
Re:
Further, the contributions for this have been ridiculous. Sadly, I can't find any information in regards to how much they've paid people to look the other way as they're trying to pass this trainwreck of a bill.
On the post: ICE Seized 20 Domain Names For The NFL Over The Weekend
Re: Re:
On the post: Court Tells Users They Can't Use RECAP
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You want US citizens that have been here for 10+ years to grow up without a father or mother because of the thicket to becoming a US citizen is beyond bad.
You believe that every illegal alien has no right to any type of due process rights when they are detained, submitting that they have to be fingerprinted, searched and deported. If they complain about their problems, be it the fact that guards can rape them, they can be beaten while guards throw out racial slurs or ICE bullying them into silence for their treatment, it's their own fault because of some belief that entering the country illegally is robbing the US of jobs.
That is beyond an ignorant statement, and I would highly suggest you look into the website linked for a review of the Secure Communities program, the devastating effect of immediate deportation, and the consequences of the detainment program of ICE.
On the post: ICE Seized 20 Domain Names For The NFL Over The Weekend
Re: Re:
Next >>