Looks like the government can't keep its hands to itself

[NoStateofMind]

Dirty cowards. Who does the internet belong to? One entity or everyone? If you can seize domains at will then we know damn well which one it is.

http://www.engadget.com/2010/11/27/us-government-seizes-domain-names-claims-to-have-a-warrant/

 

[LegendKiller]

Dirty cowards. Who does the internet belong to? One entity or everyone? If you can seize domains at will then we know damn well which one it is.

http://www.engadget.com/2010/11/27/us-government-seizes-domain-names-claims-to-have-a-warrant/

Websites hocking illegal wares and housing copyrighted materials. Taking those down is logical.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Websites hocking illegal wares and housing copyrighted materials. Taking those down is logical.

According to the article those sites didn't have any of that only links to sites that did. Secondly, who gets to draw the line on what is acceptable or unacceptable?

 

[Wreckem]

According to the article those sites didn't have any of that only links to sites that did. Secondly, who gets to draw the line on what is acceptable or unacceptable?

It is simple, US Laws apply to US hosted sites, or those doing business in the US(ie: company is based in US, site is on a foreign server). The internet is NOT, as some think, a land with no laws.

95% of the domains seized were those dealing in black market goods. The other 5% might have been copyright infringers.

 

[fskimospy]

There are all sorts of laws that allow for government seizure of property that is being used to commit crimes. While I think the whole copyright business has gone way too far, I have no idea why this seizure represents some loss of liberty.

 

[NoStateofMind]

There are all sorts of laws that allow for government seizure of property that is being used to commit crimes. While I think the whole copyright business has gone way too far, I have no idea why this seizure represents some loss of liberty.

Blatantly selling bootleg copies of intellectual property would incur a seizure and I would agree with that. However the question is whether that was the case or did they just have links to places that did do that. If the latter is true then the seizure is unwarranted.

 

[Pulsar]

I think you missed the part where you can respond to these takedown actions but then have to be prepared to defend yourself if prosecuted. These folks aren't going that route because they know what they are doing is illegal in the US.

Hosted in the US is equivalent to store in the US, fully subject to US laws. Quit your bitchin'.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Aiding and abetting a crime in itself is a crime

 

[dabuddha]

Guilty until proven innocent I suppose.

 

[IBMer]

I knew someone was going to post about this. My teabagger friend told me about and and like parrots to a party all the right wingers are writhing over this. Limbaugh or Beck must have spoken about this.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Aiding and abetting a crime in itself is a crime

Sure is. I guess any website or book with bomb making instructions or other illegal activity should be taken down as well.

I think you missed the part where you can respond to these takedown actions but then have to be prepared to defend yourself if prosecuted. These folks aren't going that route because they know what they are doing is illegal in the US.

Hosted in the US is equivalent to store in the US, fully subject to US laws. Quit your bitchin'.

Or they simply didn't make any money from hosting links and cannot pay for restitution.

I knew someone was going to post about this. My teabagger friend told me about and and like parrots to a party all the right wingers are writhing over this. Limbaugh or Beck must have spoken about this.

Thats funny cause one of my best friends swears up and down I would vote democrat.

 

[sMiLeYz]

I'm totally against this, but they're seizing the domain names... not necessarily the servers or anything. They could get another domain name.

This begs the question of whether or not the US government is running and regulating the internet itself and how much does it have exactly and what jurisdiction etc.

 

[Pulsar]

Sure is. I guess any website or book with bomb making instructions or other illegal activity should be taken down as well.



Or they simply didn't make any money from hosting links and cannot pay for restitution.



Thats funny cause one of my best friends swears up and down I would vote democrat.

I think you need to get a couple things sorted out in your head before going any further with your 'outrage':

1. Books and bomb making instructions are protected under free speech (you know... the constitution). It does not apply to this case.

2. I don't think restitution means what you think it means. Did you perhaps mean representation? Those two are pretty different things.

3. Your voting record is meaningless. What drivel you choose to parrot without understanding is the issue here, regardless of how stupid some posters insist on being by dragging unrelated political issues into the mix.

 

[Pulsar]

I'm totally against this, but they're seizing the domain names... not necessarily the servers or anything. They could get another domain name.

This begs the question of whether or not the US government is running and regulating the internet itself and how much does it have exactly and what jurisdiction etc.

Without digging into it further, I would guess that the actual hosts are not in the US and not subject to US law. The domain names, however, were registered by US companies and hence subject to all US laws.

I also draw issue with people who choose to bash the US when they choose to enforce perfectly legitimate laws. You may not copy music. Or movies. Or pirate software. It is illegal, should be illegal, and people who do so should face the consequences. Of course, the majority of these products (Microsoft, Autodesk, Music, etc) come from the US, so it's perfect fodder for the anti-Americans to jump on the bandwagon.

Unfortunately many people on the net have a very twisted view of law. They don't seem to understand that taking down these domains doesn't mean the owners did anything wrong. That is for the courts to decide - not the US government nor a bunch of posters on a message board.

 

[NoStateofMind]

I think you need to get a couple things sorted out in your head before going any further with your 'outrage':

1. Books and bomb making instructions are protected under free speech (you know... the constitution). It does not apply to this case.

2. I don't think restitution means what you think it means. Did you perhaps mean representation? Those two are pretty different things.

3. Your voting record is meaningless. What drivel you choose to parrot without understanding is the issue here, regardless of how stupid some posters insist on being by dragging unrelated political issues into the mix.

You poor thing. I must have offended your world and caused you to lash out like a child. My apologies. Let me explain.

1. It does pertain to this case IF what was stated in the article is true. That being that those domains simply housed links to sites that had "bad stuff". I think you will understand now.

2 Restitution: an act of restoring or a condition of being restored. Put more simply, its merely getting what is rightfully yours given back to you. Which would include retaining an attorney.

3. Sorry bob, you missed what this was about by posting without reading the thread first. The issue isn't the illegal things, thats obviously not good. The issue is the domains that were seized simply for having information (read that as links).

I hope I haven't cause you an aneurysm. Here's a cookie, now go play like a good little boy.

 

[Darwin333]

Aiding and abetting a crime in itself is a crime

Is that what they charged them with?

 

[manimal]

SO IP law is unamerican? Gotcha...

 

[Pulsar]

You poor thing. I must have offended your world and caused you to lash out like a child. My apologies. Let me explain.

1. It does pertain to this case IF what was stated in the article is true. That being that those domains simply housed links to sites that had "bad stuff". I think you will understand now.

2 Restitution: an act of restoring or a condition of being restored. Put more simply, its merely getting what is rightfully yours given back to you. Which would include retaining and attorney.

3. Sorry bob, you missed what this was about by posting without reading the thread first. The issue isn't the illegal things, thats obviously not good. The issue is the domains that were seized simply for having information (read that as links).

I hope I haven't cause you an aneurysm. Here's a cookie, now go play like a good little boy.

1. "Linking" to bad stuff may or may not be illegal. The precedent has not been settled in the US. However, I suspect that the US precedent that will be set will follow other cases like the Isohunt case and the Pirate Bay case. However, your assertion that the government did not have a legal right to do what they have done is baseless. They took the domains based on suspicion of piracy. Much like someone weaving in their car may be pulled over on suspicion of drunk driving. It doesn't make the accusation true, but it is a reasonable action.

2. You still don't have a clear understanding of definition of the word restitution. You don't pay for restitution. You pay for representation. The goverenment may end up making restitution by restoring the domain names. A fine point, I admit, yet clarity is key. Especially in legal matters. Not so much in internet posts....

3. This issue is exactly about illegal things. The point here being whether or not it is illegal to link to and make a profit from those illegal things. It is not such a stretch to argue they are making a profit from those links - the ad space and click throughs generated by people brought to their sites can be considered ill-gotten-gains.

In addition, I would expect the hosts of those sites to claim innocence. That means nothing. The owners of The Pirate Bay and Isohunt claimed the same. IF they are charged with a crime, they are entitled to representation. On the other hand, they have to go through and file the anti-takedown notices. It is unclear that they have done that.

Your outrage is very misplaced. Even the site you linked to has the good sense to say "may have crossed a line" with regards to the government. Until this case goes to trial we simply will not know whether the owners of the sites were doing illegal things or not. Our court system is based on that premise.

 

[Darwin333]

1. "Linking" to bad stuff may or may not be illegal. The precedent has not been settled in the US. However, I suspect that the US precedent that will be set will follow other cases like the Isohunt case and the Pirate Bay case. However, your assertion that the government did not have a legal right to do what they have done is baseless. They took the domains based on suspicion of piracy. Much like someone weaving in their car may be pulled over on suspicion of drunk driving. It doesn't make the accusation true, but it is a reasonable action.

2. You still don't have a clear understanding of definition of the word restitution. You don't pay for restitution. You pay for representation. The goverenment may end up making restitution by restoring the domain names. A fine point, I admit, yet clarity is key. Especially in legal matters. Not so much in internet posts....

3. This issue is exactly about illegal things. The point here being whether or not it is illegal to link to and make a profit from those illegal things. It is not such a stretch to argue they are making a profit from those links - the ad space and click throughs generated by people brought to their sites can be considered ill-gotten-gains.

In addition, I would expect the hosts of those sites to claim innocence. That means nothing. The owners of The Pirate Bay and Isohunt claimed the same. IF they are charged with a crime, they are entitled to representation. On the other hand, they have to go through and file the anti-takedown notices. It is unclear that they have done that.

Your outrage is very misplaced. Even the site you linked to has the good sense to say "may have crossed a line" with regards to the government. Until this case goes to trial we simply will not know whether the owners of the sites were doing illegal things or not. Our court system is based on that premise.

Wouldn't you think it be good policy for the government to be required to charge you with a crime BEFORE they take your shit (just in general)?

 

[Pulsar]

Wouldn't you think it be good policy for the government to be required to charge you with a crime BEFORE they take your shit (just in general)?

No, because the court issued them a seizure warrant, implying that they provided enough cause for the court to believe it was necessary. Much like the investigation into the iphone prototype where things were seized during the investigation before anyone had been charged. A court does not simply hand someone a warrant: reasonable proof is required.

To wit: they cannot simply walk in and "take your shit" without a warrant. That is also in the bill of rights under search and seizure.

This is not new. Many people simply don't understand the legal system and get upset when it doesn't work the way they think it should.

 

[fire400]

information overload. when we move to a stronger knowledge age, we'll probably have wireless-everything and large corporations will continue to reign internationally.

human needs: internet?

compared to food and water that so many lack in the world, I'm not sure if people are really thinking anymore in the white house. just think about illegal e-waste alone from us soil exported to china.

 

[werepossum]

I think you need to get a couple things sorted out in your head before going any further with your 'outrage':

1. Books and bomb making instructions are protected under free speech (you know... the constitution). It does not apply to this case.

2. I don't think restitution means what you think it means. Did you perhaps mean representation? Those two are pretty different things.

3. Your voting record is meaningless. What drivel you choose to parrot without understanding is the issue here, regardless of how stupid some posters insist on being by dragging unrelated political issues into the mix.

LOL You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. /Princess Bride channeling

Granted it was awkward phrasing, but it was clear to me that he meant they probably cannot afford to seek restitution - meaning that they probably cannot afford the representation and other expenses required to successfully seek restitution.

I would think though that the outrage here would be primarily from the left. Righties tend to be more supportive of IP rights.