US Gov has seized 307 domain names - NFL - really?? | Warrior Forum - The #1 Digital Marketing Forum & Marketplace

15 years ago

Originally Posted by QJN

It has been reported that Immigration and Customs Enforcement has seized 307 domain names related to counterfeit NFL merchandise and NFL streaming....seriously?

But shouldn't they?

Thanks

Signature

:)

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5550866].message }}

QJN

15 years ago

I'm just saying the law is already in effect... they can seize just about anything anywhere. It's just funny to me that NFL before the superbowl is making news with this. it's free and extra publicity.

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5550913].message }}

iAmNameLess

15 years ago

Originally Posted by QJN

I'm just saying the law is already in effect... they can seize just about anything anywhere. It's just funny to me that NFL before the superbowl is making news with this. it's free and extra publicity.

This has nothing to do with SOPA, SOPA did not get passed. Seizing like this happens all the time and it is due to counterfeiting and trademark violations which are against the law.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

The Best Damn Marketing and Local SEO Blog

Ultimate Blueprint To Start Your Own Agency | Get Clients Without Cold Calling

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5551213].message }}

onSubie

15 years ago

Originally Posted by rusty1027

I really don't get posts like this. What's your point?

The point is the government doesn't need SOPA to seize websites without due process. They are already doing it.

Originally Posted by iAmNameLess

This has nothing to do with SOPA, SOPA did not get passed. Seizing like this happens all the time and it is due to counterfeiting and trademark violations which are against the law.

How do you know the violations are against the law?

There was no presentation of evidence. There was no arms-length review and decision process (i.e. the courts) to validate the complaint before punitive action was taken.

How do you know the sites sold counterfeit NFL products other than going by the word of the NFL and Homeland Security?

Was their evidence clear enough (in your opinion) to warrant this action without a court order?

Do you think there should be a regulatory body (like a court) that vets the evidence presented before action is taken?

How about if you were accused of a crime?

Would you like to be able to respond to the charges or is it fine that your side of the story means nothing. You believe the government should be able to take unilateral action on behalf of a private corporation?

How do you feel about your taxpayer dollars being used to police the Internet on behalf of corporations? Shouldn't the PRIVATE COMPANIES fund their own policing and use the courts to enforce regulations?

If they say "It's too difficult and expensive", does that justify putting the burden on the taxpayer?

Why is it Americans who are the most ardent defenders of these policies that undermine their rights and freedoms?

I thought the US was built on liberty and freedom and self-government.

When did popular opinion change that the government's job is to protect Wal-Mart and the NFL but not you?

Mahlon

[ 3 ] Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5551465].message }}

Cataclysm1987

14 years ago

Originally Posted by QJN

I'm just saying the law is already in effect... they can seize just about anything anywhere. It's just funny to me that NFL before the superbowl is making news with this. it's free and extra publicity.

No dude, SOPA and PIPA would have been way worse.

The govt would have been able to take down not only those sites, but any sites linking to them. That is an extreme measure.

Like when Bush said, we will go after terrorists and not distinguish between terrorists and those who help them.

Extremism. Tyranny. It must be fought and you have to know the difference between genuine tyranny and the government doing its job to protect copyright and trademark laws.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

No signature here today!

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5728648].message }}

Internet Wizard

14 years ago

Originally Posted by Centurian

If you have an alleged violation of property rights, or a copyright dispute, where is the Constitutional authorization for government SWAT teams to rush in and seize all the alleged's private property, confiscate his money, cash, and bank accounts so he can't even defend himself!

There is none. The government will just do as they please since there are seldom any consequences to their illegal actions.

Originally Posted by Centurian

Law enforcement officials can seize and keep assets they feel are used in a crime before a finding of guilt by a lawful jury.

In the report below from the Institute For Justice you can read about the "Policing For Profit" that is going on in virtually every state of the US.

"In 42 states the police departments keep at least 50% of everything they seize and in 26 states they get to keep 100%."

The report shows local police departments seizing 100s of millions of $ in assets with little or no proof, (10 states have the absolute lowest level of suspicion required to seize assets). These assets are then used as gifts & entertainment for the police departments and district attorney's, (including football tickets, trips to Hawaii and a Dodge Viper).

Here is the link to the report from The Institute For Justice: Policing For Profit

I am not claiming this is the case with these latest domain names that have been seized, but its another example of that the government couldn't care less about "due process" or what is constitutional (or even legal in many cases). They just make it up as they go along!

Originally Posted by Kay King

Am I the only one tired of the same old arguments about these "freedoms" when it comes to law breakers?

That is a really interesting comment.

I bet that you are acting in the breach of some law yourself several times per year, (including some laws that could get you imprisoned if you were prosecuted).

Most people don't even realize that there are tens of thousands of new laws passed in the US every year, (40,000 new state laws in 2012), and old laws are virtually never repealed.

Here is an example of a new law just passed in Louisiana making it illegal to use cash to buy or sell second-hand goods!
Law Bans Cash for Second Hand Transactions - Acadiana's News Leader

Not that its any of my business, (or that I would want to know

) but if you happen to own an "adult toy" I sure hope you don't live in Alabama. Female adult toys are illegal there unless your doctor has confirmed that you have a special need for one!

There are so many crazy laws in the US that almost every citizen will be breaking the law at some point.

To say that you don't care about the "freedoms" of law breakers could put you on very thin ice one day soon...

Have a look at this TV special from a few days ago:

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

[ 3 ] Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5729961].message }}

PlotHost

15 years ago

I think we'll see many similar actions from now on ...

Thanks

Signature

PlotHost - http://www.plothost.com
99.9% uptime | 15 days money back | 24/7 support

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5550936].message }}

Centurian

15 years ago

Originally Posted by QJN

It has been reported that Immigration and Customs Enforcement has seized 307 domain names related to counterfeit NFL merchandise and NFL streaming....seriously? I don't know about you but it seems like SOPA and PIPA have been passed long time ago... something by the name ACTA. This is getting interesting... I wonder what else they gonna seize. Maybe they'll seize Google, Youtube and Yahoo

Illegal sports streaming sites get sacked by feds - The Washington Post

ACTA
Prison Planet.com » ACTA = Global Internet Censorship

No! They won't seize Google, YouTube and Yahoo. These companies work for the feds by gathering intelligence and providing back-door access.

How do you think Google got access to advanced satellite technology? Even so, we see the magnetic draw this treasure trove of data has on big brother bureaucrats.

Most informed entrepreneurs realize big banks and big business have an incestuous relationship with government.

And yes, ACTA has been lurching and is already in practice. Damn the Constitution, full speed ahead. Even some of our Supreme Court Justices don't care.

“I would not look to the U.S. Constitution, if I were drafting a Constitution in the year 2012.” says Ruth Bader Ginsburg, whom President Clinton nominated to the court in 1993.

Some people are waking up from their Kool-Aid induced stupor:
Poland freezes anti-piracy pact ratification

That's not all. The author of the SOPA bill is back with a new demon; an ISP data retention bill. Send him some love.

Anti-SOPA forces have ISP snooping bill in their crosshairs | Privacy Inc. - CNET News

For those who think the government should seize private property without a trial, consider what Benjamin Franklin had to say:

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

[ 3 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5550999].message }}

kelsa

14 years ago

Originally Posted by Centurian

No! They won't seize Google, YouTube and Yahoo. These companies work for the feds by gathering intelligence and providing back-door access.

How do you think Google got access to advanced satellite technology? Even so, we see the magnetic draw this treasure trove of data has on big brother bureaucrats.

Most informed entrepreneurs realize big banks and big business have an incestuous relationship with government.

And yes, ACTA has been lurching and is already in practice. Damn the Constitution, full speed ahead. Even some of our Supreme Court Justices don't care.

"I would not look to the U.S. Constitution, if I were drafting a Constitution in the year 2012." says Ruth Bader Ginsburg, whom President Clinton nominated to the court in 1993.

Some people are waking up from their Kool-Aid induced stupor:
Poland freezes anti-piracy pact ratification

That's not all. The author of the SOPA bill is back with a new demon; an ISP data retention bill. Send him some love.

Anti-SOPA forces have ISP snooping bill in their crosshairs | Privacy Inc. - CNET News

For those who think the government should seize private property without a trial, consider what Benjamin Franklin had to say:

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

OMG!! What a nightmare. Thanks for a great post! Lovin it...but I feel like slitting my wrist and or throat now, even though I am in the UK...god help us all!!

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5727587].message }}

rusty1027

15 years ago

Originally Posted by QJN

It has been reported that Immigration and Customs Enforcement has seized 307 domain names related to counterfeit NFL merchandise and NFL streaming....seriously? I don't know about you but it seems like SOPA and PIPA have been passed long time ago... something by the name ACTA. This is getting interesting... I wonder what else they gonna seize. Maybe they'll seize Google, Youtube and Yahoo

Illegal sports streaming sites get sacked by feds - The Washington Post

ACTA
Prison Planet.com » ACTA = Global Internet Censorship

I really don't get posts like this. What's your point? Illegal businesses are a good thing? They shut down an illegal operation - good! What if your business was an Amazon site selling NFL Jerseys. As long as they're using these laws for purposes like this, we should appreciate it. Seriously.

[ 4 ] Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5551028].message }}

SteveJohnson

15 years ago

Originally Posted by rusty1027

I really don't get posts like this. What's your point? Illegal businesses are a good thing? They shut down an illegal operation - good! What if your business was an Amazon site selling NFL Jerseys. As long as they're using these laws for purposes like this, we should appreciate it. Seriously.

No, businesses that traffic in counterfeit or pirated products are not a good thing. I think most of us would agree on that.

What I see is the erosion of the concept of due process, especially regarding government seizure of assets. In recent years, people have given the government the power (by not voicing opposition or even outright encouragement) to seize property on the faintest hint of suspicion, the owner having little or no recourse in the situation.

This isn't the place for a long diatribe, but those who champion these kinds of actions by government officials should seriously ask themselves, "Where is this leading?" The honest answer should concern, if not alarm, you.

[ 2 ] Thanks

Signature

The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.

Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5551242].message }}

Centurian

15 years ago

Originally Posted by rusty1027

I really don't get posts like this. What's your point? Illegal businesses are a good thing? They shut down an illegal operation - good! What if your business was an Amazon site selling NFL Jerseys. As long as they're using these laws for purposes like this, we should appreciate it. Seriously.

You're right Rusty.

Nevertheless, these actions are a slippery slope. It's one thing to stop an illegal act, but another to take possession of private property or silence freedom of speech.

If someone steals your property, you can contact the police and make a claim. If they believe your claim has merit, they can act and recover the property. But a court of law exercising your right to a trial by a jury of your peers must determine the merits of your claim.

If you have an alleged violation of property rights, or a copyright dispute, where is the Constitutional authorization for government SWAT teams to rush in and seize all the alleged's private property, confiscate his money, cash, and bank accounts so he can't even defend himself?

Isn't that what despots and dictators do to citizens who oppose them? Isn't that what they do in Russia? Why do we as citizens allow special corporate interests to use the power of the gun to protect their monopolies?

The reason they now seize property, cash, and assets is because of an abuse of civil asset forfeiture practices that have gone beyond the pale. Law enforcement officials can seize and keep assets they feel are used in a crime before a finding of guilt by a lawful jury. They've become judge, jury, and executioner and have a jaw-dropping conflict of interest.

Yes, we need to stop piracy. We already have take-down laws. We can enforce them in court. There often is a fine line between justice and tyranny. But it must be a bright line. We shouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water.

By seizing the rule of law from a jury and giving it to a bureaucrat or the police, we are subject to the whims of those who have the guns and the shifting sands of friends in high places. This puts the little guy at greater risk of influence peddling from those who can afford to buy the law.

That's what concerns me. So the issue is not so much the take-down of alleged theft of broadcast rights, but the growing use of "guilty until proven innocent" gestapo tactics.

The growing practice of domain seizures and expansive global treaties like ACTA (that supersede the Constitution) are a fearful harbinger of dreaded days to come.

[ 7 ] Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5551247].message }}

Kay King

15 years ago

Why on earth is anyone using this action as an excuse to argue constitutional rights - privacy - free speech -again? Am I the only one tired of the same old arguments about these "freedoms" when it comes to law breakers?

I don't care how many illegal domains are shut down - the more, the better. I don't care about the privacy rights - or the freedoms - of people who are trying to steal from others. I don't care about the freedoms of those trying to sell fake - and often dangerous - cloned products.

I am not going to complain about authorities "violating the rights" of people who are trying to profit from the efforts of others in an underhanded and illegal way.

There was a similar action last year before the superbowl - on a smaller scale. You'd think some people might have figured it out - but apparently not. My Grandfather always said:

"Your right to free speech stops at my ear"

Working online - maybe your right to privacy, free speech and protection stops at the pocket of honest marketers.

kay

[ 3 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog

***

One secret to happiness is to let every situation be

what it is instead of what you think it should be.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5551323].message }}

Centurian

15 years ago

Originally Posted by Kay King

Why on earth is anyone using this action as an excuse to argue constitutional rights - privacy - free speech -again? Am I the only one tired of the same old arguments about these "freedoms" when it comes to law breakers?

I don't care how many illegal domains are shut down - the more, the better. I don't care about the privacy rights - or the freedoms - of people who are trying to steal from others. I don't care about the freedoms of those trying to sell fake - and often dangerous - cloned products.

I am not going to complain about authorities "violating the rights" of people who are trying to profit from the efforts of others in an underhanded and illegal way.

There was a similar action last year before the superbowl - on a smaller scale. You'd think some people might have figured it out - but apparently not. My Grandfather always said:

"Your right to free speech stops at my ear"

Working online - maybe your right to privacy, free speech and protection stops at the pocket of honest marketers.

kay

Agreed dear Kay.

It's about SOPA, PIPA, and ACTA. That was part of his post.

My further comments are noted above.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5551353].message }}

E. Brian Rose

14 years ago

Originally Posted by Kay King

Why on earth is anyone using this action as an excuse to argue constitutional rights - privacy - free speech -again? Am I the only one tired of the same old arguments about these "freedoms" when it comes to law breakers?

The reason people are up in arms is not because law breakers are being punished, it is because alleged law breakers are being punished without a trial. This is the exact opposite of innocent until proven guilty.

From a sideline perspective, it is easy to shrug it off and say things like, "They are getting what is coming to them", but where does it stop? If pirates have to prove their innocence, rather than prosecutors having to prove their guilt, who is next? Murder suspects? Robbery suspects? Traffic violators?

The Constitution is for everybody, even the despicable ones.

[ 3 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Founder of JVZoo. All around good guy :)

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5742382].message }}

bitriot

14 years ago

I have a website that sells an NFL teams Hats...called... NFL-TEAM-HATS that is on the first page but was not shut down. Must be because I am selling official gear from fans edge.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5742462].message }}

The Real Deal

14 years ago

Originally Posted by bitriot

I have a website that sells an NFL teams Hats...called... NFL-TEAM-HATS that is on the first page but was not shut down. Must be because I am selling official gear from fans edge.

You should be aware that you can probably lose your domain due to trademark infringement since NFL is almost certainly a registered trademark. If NFL was to initiate a UDRP against you with ICANN I believe you run a serious risk of losing that domain name. You could potentially also face a lawsuit.

If that were to happen through the normal ICANN dispute resolution policy, which you agree to abide by when you register a domain name, it would be fine IMO. It would be far worse if some law enforcement official just took your domain name from you "because you are under investigation", which is what seems to have happened to hundreds of other NFL related domain names.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5742545].message }}

richard_s_smith

15 years ago

Originally Posted by Centurian

You're right Rusty.

Nevertheless, these actions are a slippery slope. It's one thing to stop an illegal act, but another to take possession of private property or silence freedom of speech.

If someone steals your property, you can contact the police and make a claim. If they believe your claim has merit, they can act and recover the property. But a court of law exercising your right to a trial by a jury of your peers must determine the merits of your claim.

If you have an alleged violation of property rights, or a copyright dispute, where is the Constitutional authorization for government SWAT teams to rush in and seize all the alleged's private property, confiscate his money, cash, and bank accounts so he can't even defend himself?

Isn't that what despots and dictators do to citizens who oppose them? Isn't that want they do in Russia?

The reason they now seize property, cash, and assets is because of an abuse of civil asset forfeiture practices that have gone beyond the pale. Law enforcement officials can seize and keep assets they feel are used in a crime before a finding of guilt by a lawful jury. They've become judge, jury, and executioner and have a jaw-dropping conflict of interest.

Yes, we need to stop piracy. We already have take-down laws. We can enforce them in court. There often is a fine line between justice and tyranny. But it must be a bright line. We shouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water.

By seizing the rule of law from a jury and giving it to a bureaucrat or the police, we are subject to the whims of those who have the guns and the shifting sands of friends in high places. This puts the little guy at greater risk of influence peddling from those who can afford to buy the law.

That's what concerns me. So the issue is not so much the take-down of alleged theft of broadcast rights, but the growing use of "guilty until proven innocent" gestapo tactics.

The growing practice of domain seizures and expansive global treaties like ACTA (that supersede the Constitution) are a fearful harbinger of dreaded days to come.

A slippery slope indeed. Well said.

Thanks

Signature

Love the life you live so you can live the life you love.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5551333].message }}

Rus Sells

15 years ago

Centurian,

How do you think Google got access to advanced satellite technology?

Through public API from NOAA and such. They didn't need to make a deal with the GOV to get Sat imagery for maps. = )

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Review Sentry

Dotcomcodex

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5551306].message }}

Centurian

15 years ago

Originally Posted by Rus Sells

Centurian,

Through public API from NOAA and such. They didn't need to make a deal with the GOV to get Sat imagery for maps. = )

I know Rus. =) But it wouldn't be the first time major corporations have engaged in quid pro quo with government interests.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5551338].message }}

Kay King

15 years ago

It's not the first time sites have been shut down en masse - either. The difference is there was not much outcry last year or the year before.

More interesting to me is finding several sports related sites announcing the sites in question were owned mainly by one person in the US - and that due to the domain seizures...."we will not be streaming the game".

Numerous Streaming Sites Shut Down By Feds In Advance Of Super Bowl - Daily Norseman

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog

***

One secret to happiness is to let every situation be

what it is instead of what you think it should be.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5551366].message }}

Kay King

15 years ago

It's about SOPA, PIPA, and ACTA. That was part of his post.

No - it's not. This is a different issue so why keep arguing the sopa/pipa/acta line?

These seizures have happened year after year - long before those 4-letter issues. People want you to think that what's it is about...but it isn't. If anything, this show the dramatic arguments over sopa were a bit exaggerated as the laws are in place now to accomplish this inside the US.

You have one or a few people investing in hundreds of domains with the intention of profiting from selling cheap/fake/imported goods and profiting from streaming a sports event they have no rights to. I'm not going to worry about the rights of people like that.

Was their evidence clear enough (in your opinion) to warrant this action without a court order?

This isn't a matter of an "opinion" - do you really think authorities are operating outside the law on something that would be expected to get wide exposure in the press? Opinions without the inside knowledge - are conjecture. We don't know what the evidence was or how long the investigation was conducted - so opinions are argued only from a personal view.

kay

[ 1 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog

***

One secret to happiness is to let every situation be

what it is instead of what you think it should be.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5551480].message }}

Centurian 15 years ago

Originally Posted by Kay King

If anything, this show the dramatic arguments over sopa were a bit exaggerated as the laws are in place now to accomplish this inside the US.

Yes, I agree the laws are already in place.

No one can even count the number of U.S. federal laws that bury us now.
The Many Failed Efforts to Count Nation's Federal Criminal Laws - WSJ.com
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5551627].message }}

onSubie

15 years ago

Originally Posted by Kay King

I'm not going to worry about the rights of people like that.

"And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak..."

This isn't a matter of an "opinion" - do you really think authorities are operating outside the law on something that would be expected to get wide exposure in the press?

I was referring to the opinions of the posters/readers here who, in this thread, are sharing their opinions.

I find it funny that you think if something was done by the government then it is a natural assumption that everything was done legally and above board.

We don't know what the evidence was or how long the investigation was conducted

And in a open, regulated, democratic society don't you think that disclosure of evidence should be part of any judicial process? In your opinion, of course.

Mahlon

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5551649].message }}

Kay King

15 years ago

I find it funny that you think if something was done by the government then it is a natural assumption that everything was done legally and above board.[/qu"And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak..."

I don't believe that - but I don't automatically make a claim of "illegal" either. As for the quote - it's a good one but should not be used to excuse bad behavior. I don't speak up for those charged with violating the rights of others - until I know the facts. It's interesting to examine this from both sides - but a bit premature to take sides.

And in a open, regulated, democratic society don't you think that disclosure of evidence should be part of any judicial process?

Of course it is - disclosure of evidence IN a judicial process. That doesn't mean all evidence should be released to joe q public for his blog within 24 hours of an action.

kay

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog

***

One secret to happiness is to let every situation be

what it is instead of what you think it should be.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5551758].message }}

onSubie

15 years ago

Originally Posted by Kay King

but I don't automatically make a claim of "illegal" either.

Nobody is claiming what the government is doing is illegal. Governments pass many laws that allow them to operate legally in secrecy.

But the prevailing opinion seems to be that it should be illegal for the government to accuse, try and convict without due process. Many of the Internet regulatory laws and proposed laws work hard to remove the "due process" part.

I am not saying a site should have the right to steal and conduct illegal activities, but there should be regulatory oversight to ensure that the democratic rights of the populace are not unreasonably infringed in the zeal to shut down offenders.

It is fine to say "I support the government using any methods necessary to crack down on 'evil'". But who defines 'evil'? What happens when they start targeting Pro Choice sites, Union and Labour ogranization sites, Public Broadcast sites and sites that don't support the "official" government point-of-view?

There is a difference between defending democratic principles and defending the actions of the accused.

Of course it is - disclosure of evidence IN a judicial process. That doesn't mean all evidence should be released to joe q public for his blog within 24 hours of an action.

No, but there should be publicly accessible records, court motions and decisions- unless the courts decide to limit the publishing of the information on reasonable legal grounds.

Mahlon

[ 2 ] Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5551930].message }}

davezan

15 years ago

Originally Posted by onSubie

But the prevailing opinion seems to be that it should be illegal for the government to accuse, try and convict without due process.

Which it always has been for the most part. It's probably the details that lots
of people aren't necessarily aware of, and sometimes need to be worked out.

While this shouldn't be treated as an authoritative source, this will at least give
you an idea:

Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There's a lot more so just go through that article. While nothing currently says
domain names can be seized for a similar scenario, there's nothing banning that
either. (at least for now...)

The domains may have been seized, but its owners are still presumed innocent
until a court of competent jurisdiction says otherwise. Sure government thinks
they're guilty and all, but why else would they bother to investigate, look for
proof, try to secure warrants, seize something if applicable, and/or charge the
respondents in court if they didn't believe in "due process"?

If there's one scenario government is rightly wrong for, it's what happened to
Dajaz1.com. That's mainly because they couldn't produce any proof of sort to
support its seizure to begin with, though I doubt it's the same with this one.

Then again, it can feel conveniently easier to rage against something someone
might not necessarily and/or totally understand, much more like. If one is keen
on trying to learn more about this, though, it might help make some sense of
the method behind the madness.

Just saying, of course, and I can always be wrong. I'm only human, heh.

[ 2 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

David

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5554638].message }}

Kay King

15 years ago

No, but there should be publicly accessible records, court motions and decisions- unless the courts decide to limit the publishing of the information on reasonable legal grounds.

And there will be - once the cases have gone to court. It's not at all unusual to seize property that will be evidence in a criminal trial - and I don't think that only happens in U.S.

Thanks

Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog

***

One secret to happiness is to let every situation be

what it is instead of what you think it should be.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5554659].message }}

CDarklock 15 years ago

Originally Posted by onSubie

But the prevailing opinion seems to be that it should be illegal for the government to accuse, try and convict without due process.

Accusing, trying, and convicting IS due process.

I swear, are you people retarded?
- [ 5 ] Thanks
- 2 replies
Signature

"The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5555492].message }}
- fluffythewondercat 14 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by CDarklock
  
  Accusing, trying, and convicting IS due process.
  
  I swear, are you people retarded?
  
  Politically incorrect but pithy. (And I'm not lisping.)
  
  fLufF
  --
  
  Thanks
  
  Signature
  
  Fiverr is looking for freelance writers for its blog. Details here.
  Love microjobs? Work when you want and get paid in cash the same day!
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5728200].message }}
- Tom Reed 14 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by CDarklock
  
  Accusing, trying, and convicting IS due process.
  
  I swear, are you people retarded?
  
  He is not retarded ... he wrote it correctly, and you wrote it correctly, it's simply that you did not read it as he wrote it.
  
  You both agree as to what due process is, what he stated is that due process needs to follow the path of "accuse, try and convict". When you go from accuse and jump straight to convict, due process is circumvented and he is simply proposing that all the steps of due process be followed.
  
  I agree with him fully on this point.
  
  Thanks
  
  Signature
  
  Sell More ...Faster! CloudNet360.com
  
  The ultimate CRM / Autoresponder & Sales Automation System - The Online Coaches Dream Team
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5728633].message }}

sentinelsoft

15 years ago

If truely these website violate the law then they deserve to be taken down but what I don't like is coporations or big organisations using their power and money to control the government.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5551780].message }}

Kay King 15 years ago

what I don't like is coporations or big organisations using their power and money to control the government.

That seems to be a popular argument - but if you want "someone" to "take action" when the content on your site is taken and used by someone else....how can you argue big companies should not be able to protect THEIR content?

I agree with you in theory - but in practice it's not that clearcut.
- Thanks
Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
***
One secret to happiness is to let every situation be
what it is instead of what you think it should be.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5551910].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 15 years ago

Good riddance to rubbish. It is illegal to pirate NFL, movies, TV shows, sell counterfeit products, etc. The US didn't need SOPA/PIPA to accomplish this ... or ACTA either. They already have ICE in place which handles these criminals rather nicely.

[ 1 ] Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5552451].message }}

twelvejewelz

15 years ago

The government can and will do as they please. Its a shame what they have done to online gambling as well..

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5554716].message }}

tebor79

15 years ago

The funny thing is that when i googled "streaming sports" all the old sites were there with new domain extensions like .eu instead of .tv

they stopped nothing.
I don't understand why cable channels don't just stream games from their web sites for free, with commercials of course.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

If you having blog problems I feel bad for you son.
I got 99 problems but a niche ain't 1.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5554966].message }}

Black Hat Cat

Banned 15 years ago

Originally Posted by tebor79

The funny thing is that when i googled "streaming sports" all the old sites were there with new domain extensions like .eu instead of .tv

they stopped nothing.
I don't understand why cable channels don't just stream games from their web sites for free, with commercials of course.

If I had to guess, I'd say there's probably a law against it, lol. Having said that, why would they stream it for free? Kind of defeats the purpose of charging for cable channels if you're just going to let people who haven't paid anything watch your programming online for free.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5555368].message }}

CDarklock

15 years ago

Originally Posted by QJN

I don't know about you but it seems like SOPA and PIPA have been passed long time ago

The FBI has been able to physically seize domestic internet servers that engage in copyright infringement since 1986.

Which is why all the fear about what the government would do with SOPA is stupid. It's actually easier to just show up at your data center and take the machine. SOPA and PIPA would primarily be applied to sites hosted outside the United States, where the FBI has no jurisdiction.

Translation: that site in Belize where you download all the new WSOs every month would probably become inaccessible without using a proxy.

Most of the anti-piracy legislation is never going to work. Piracy won't stop. Pirates won't even be overly inconvenienced.

But a side benefit of SOPA was establishing that downloads are distribution, not broadcast, which is a very critical legal point that currently prevents a lot of good movies from getting on Netflix Instant and a lot of good music from getting on iTunes. If SOPA had passed, we would have all gotten more LEGAL access to movies and music... rendering piracy somewhat less lucrative.

Kind of makes you think, doesn't it?

Thanks

Signature

"The Golden Town is the Golden Town no longer. They have sold their pillars for brass and their temples for money, they have made coins out of their golden doors. It is become a dark town full of trouble, there is no ease in its streets, beauty has left it and the old songs are gone." - Lord Dunsany, The Messengers

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5555471].message }}

HeySal

14 years ago

I agree with you Centurian - but not sure if this take down was actually done without due process. Right now there is so much fascist garbage going on that it makes people panicky any time anything happens. While I agree with your statements -- not sure this applies. Did they use due process (court orders) or not to take this one down. It is apparent that they at least did a bit of investigation on it.

I am glad they caught a criminal - but sincerely hope that they followed due process to get them. If they didn't, while it's awesome that the pirates were nabbed, the means may be cause for some deep thought. If they are later found innocent - there is cause for not just deep thought, but some very valid fear.

I just don't know enough about this case to say either way whether I think it's great or whether it should scare the livin' bejeebers out of me. Of course - without looking over actual court documents, I'll never know. I read that BS they put out as news about those 82 sites that got seized last year and it was nothing but a pile of bull sh** propaganda released to hide that they violated due process and any semblance of sanity in that action, as well as hurt many respectable and legally run businesses.

Its a scary time in our history. Actions such as this one will cause concern - and should. At least enough concern to keep an eye on the way such things are accomplished.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5731155].message }}

The Real Deal 14 years ago

If we start to accept domain name seizures by law enforcement without a court order as something "normal" we are on a slippery slope.

Some of these domains apparently had fake NFL goods for sale on them.

So does Ebay.

Do we think its ok for law enforcement to seize ebay.com because of this, without getting a court order?

A couple of weeks ago the secret service seized the domain name jotform.com "as part of an investigation".

The only thing jotform does is let websites easily create a contact form that can be embedded into their website, and the seizure of jotform.com caused the contact form on hundreds of thousands of websites to stop working. The domain was held with Godaddy so no surprise there! :rolleyes:

I think we have to react to law enforcement seizing domain names without a court order or going through the normal ICANN process.
- [ 1 ] Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5742350].message }}

davezan

14 years ago

Originally Posted by Tom Reed

what he stated is that due process needs to follow the path of "accuse, try and convict". When you go from accuse and jump straight to convict, due process is circumvented

http://www.warriorforum.com/main-int...ml#post5477266

So...should actual drug lords not have their drug labs seized upon being served a
warrant - to stop the manufacturing of drugs - while they're being heard in trial?
I realize the unauthorized sharing of copyrighted material doesn't seem as harmful
materially as selling drugs, but the idea behind it - again - is to stop the activity
while still giving the accused a chance to dispute it all in court.

Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

When police conduct a search, the amendment requires that the warrant establishes probable cause to believe that the search will uncover criminal activity or contraband. They must have legally sufficient reasons to believe a search is necessary. In Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925), the Supreme Court stated that probable cause to search is a flexible, common-sense standard. To that end, the Court ruled in Dumbra v. United States, 268 U.S. 435 (1925), that the term probable cause means "less than evidence that would justify condemnation," reiterating Carroll's assertion that it merely requires that the facts available to the officer would "warrant a man of reasonable caution" in the belief that specific items may be contraband or stolen property or useful as evidence of a crime.

Originally Posted by HeySal

Did they use due process (court orders) or not to take this one down.

Originally Posted by The Real Deal

If we start to accept domain name seizures by law enforcement without a court order as something "normal" we are on a slippery slope.

http://www.justice.gov/usao/nys/pres...seizurespr.pdf

The following allegations are based on the Complaint unsealed yesterday in Manhattan
federal court, and the seizure warrant through which the website domain names were seized:

...

As authorized by the warrant, all visitors to these websites are being redirected to a
banner that advises them that the domain name has been seized by Order of the Court, in
connection with criminal copyright violation

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

David

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5742798].message }}

The Real Deal

14 years ago

Originally Posted by davezan

As authorized by the warrant, all visitors to these websites are being redirected to a banner that advises them that the domain name has been seized by Order of the Court, in connection with criminal copyright violation

Fair enough, but that only deals with 16 domain names. What about other 300 or so domains that were seized?

Originally Posted by davezan

So...should actual drug lords not have their drug labs seized upon being served a warrant - to stop the manufacturing of drugs - while they're being heard in trial? I realize the unauthorized sharing of copyrighted material doesn't seem as harmful materially as selling drugs

Drug labs are not the same as domain names!

I am quoting Lawrence G. Walters in regards to the recent Bodog.com seizure as this accurately reflects my opinion in regards to domain name seizures:

Seizing a global website domain based on alleged criminal law violations in a single country served by that domain appears to be abuse of the legal process.

At a minimum, a conviction should be required before any type of prior restraint is imposed on the online speech emanating from the domain name.

The First Amendment requires as much. Even with a criminal conviction, seizing and forfeiting a venue for online speech and activity that may be completely legal in many other counties seems excessively harsh, and disproportionate to the alleged crime.

This practice of routinely reaching out to the .com Registry every time the Department of Justice believes a website operator is violating the law is a practice subject to abuse, and one that should be carefully reviewed by the judges assigned to these cases

I am sure that a lot of users on this forum host content on their domain names that would be illegal in some country around the world, (think Saudi Arabia, China...).

Should we perhaps allow these countries to seize domain names hosting content that is illegal in those countries also? Or this is only a power that should be given to the US Government?

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5743070].message }}

davezan

14 years ago

Originally Posted by The Real Deal

What about other 300 or so domains that were seized?

If I can find that PDF I linked here previously, then I'm sure you can find the
rest in either DOJ or ICE's web site if you're up to it.

Originally Posted by The Real Deal

Drug labs are not the same as domain names!

I am quoting Lawrence G. Walters in regards to the recent Bodog.com seizure as this accurately reflects my opinion in regards to domain name seizures:
I am sure that a lot of users on this forum host content on their domain names that would be illegal in some country around the world, (think Saudi Arabia, China...).

Should we perhaps allow these countries to seize domain names hosting content that is illegal in those countries also? Or this is only a power that should be given to the US Government?

The point of my previously-quoted comment is not that domains are similar at
all to drug labs, but rather the idea on why law enforcement seize something
with a court-secured warrant. Speaking of which:

http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/D...2012-02-29.pdf

The
Web site's domain name was seized February 27 and the indictments, which were
handed down February 22, were unveiled February 28 in Baltimore, prosecutors said

I realize it's tempting to lump them all together, and I don't blame people for
feeling that way. A key difference, though, is in looking at the details behind
each action.

There are a few things behind the recent Bodog seizure that does bother me,
though I'm still looking into that. One thing I'll say is that any .com is at risk
of seizure because the authoritative .com Registry is in the U.S., but only if
there is a material cause like (arguably) this one.

Time will tell how this dispute will eventually turn out.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

David

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[5743366].message }}

The Real Deal

14 years ago

Originally Posted by davezan

If I can find that PDF I linked here previously, then I'm sure you can find the rest in either DOJ or ICE's web site if you're up to it.

Possibly, but I am not so sure.

There are more and more examples of domains being seized by US law enforcement as "part of an investigation" as I showed in this link for example: Secret Service seized jotform.com

Personally I believe that a conviction should be requirement for a domain name to be seized.

It is interesting to note the reasoning in the US Attorney's Office press release that you linked to:

The seized sites were popular “linking” sites – a type of website that provides access, or links, to other websites that hosted pirated sporting and Pay-Per-View events. At such sites, users simply click on a link to begin the process of downloading or streaming an illegal broadcast of a sporting event to their own computer. These illegal broadcasts are from a third party website that is hosting the stream. Linking websites are popular because they allow users to quickly browse content and locate illegal streams that would otherwise be more difficult to find.

So linking to copyrighted content is enough to get your domain name seized, even if you are not actually hosting any copyrighted material on your own website.