Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 27th Nov 2010 10:46 UTC
Legal The US is really ramping up its war on intellectual property infringement, a war which I'm sure will be just as successful, cheap and supported by the people as the wars on drugs and terrorism. The US has started seizing the domain names of various websites through ICANN - not because owners of these sites were convicted of anything, but merely because complaints have been filed against them. Anyone want to take a guess how long it will be before the US government blocks WikiLeaks? Update: The blocks function outside of the US too. In other words, the US is forcing its views upon the rest of the world once again.
Thread beginning with comment 451290
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Correction
by Thom_Holwerda on Sat 27th Nov 2010 14:06 UTC in reply to "Correction"
Thom_Holwerda
Member since:
2005-06-29

You're mistaken.

The host (i.e., the servers and the company/people they belong to) have not been seized. The domain has been seized - as in, the US told ICANN: block that domain name. While it may be legal in the US to seize domain names without so much as a complaint (let alone a court order), such actions certainly are not legal in Europe.

This would be like Germany dumping boatloads of toxic waste in the Rhine, polluting The Netherlands downstream. I can assure you that The Netherlands would then have an international legal leg to stand on to confront Germany - even if such dumping is legal in Germany.

Edited 2010-11-27 14:07 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Correction
by Sausage on Sat 27th Nov 2010 14:32 in reply to "RE: Correction"
Sausage Member since:
2010-11-27

First I'd like to point out that if you look at the website graphic, a seizure warrant was issued by the courts and they are not required to tell you before seizing your stuff. In a practical sense it prevents things like drug dealers flushing their stash prior to thepolice showing up. Anyway, you are right, but the domain, for that one example anyway, is still held by GoDaddy within the US. If they shut down a website completely unrelated to the US at all then I'll change my tune. Frankly, a more accurate anology would be that the Justice Department stopped the flow of downstream toxic waste; not starting it. People are pissed because they got cut off from stolen goods? Color me devastated.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[3]: Correction
by Thom_Holwerda on Sat 27th Nov 2010 14:41 in reply to "RE[2]: Correction"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

People are pissed because they got cut off from stolen goods? Color me devastated.


1) It might be illegal in the US to download illegally uploaded content, but it's not illegal in many European countries.

2) Many of these sites do not do anything that should be even remotely illegal, just as much as informing someone you can buy weed in the college district (bloody obvious) should not be illegal.

3) Most importantly, I see that you take the "guilty until proven otherwise"-approach to justice.

Good luck with that.

Edited 2010-11-27 14:42 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Correction
by FrankenFuss on Sat 27th Nov 2010 15:12 in reply to "RE[2]: Correction"
FrankenFuss Member since:
2009-08-05

I completely agree with you. It's amazing how people here will defend to the death their alleged inalienable right to STEAL. Now, of course, you have the Black Helicopter Gang saying, "Oh...now WikiLeaks is next..." and other nonsense, completely ignoring the fact that copyright infringement is not the same as free speech issues. If they were, WikiLeaks and jihadist websites would have been blocked already.

So...why throw up these canards about WikiLeaks, free speech, etc...? How else can they rationalize their thievery.

Edited 2010-11-27 15:13 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[3]: Correction
by tylerdurden on Sat 27th Nov 2010 23:59 in reply to "RE[2]: Correction"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

"People are pissed because they got cut off from stolen goods? Color me devastated."

There is no such thing as "stolen goods" when it comes to a digital realm, there are "copied goods"

Let's leave newspeak where it belongs; in Orwell's 1984

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: Correction
by dc396 on Sat 27th Nov 2010 21:22 in reply to "RE: Correction"
dc396 Member since:
2008-02-05

The host (i.e., the servers and the company/people they belong to) have not been seized. The domain has been seized - as in, the US told ICANN: block that domain name.


Do you have any evidence of ICANN's involvement? I'm honestly curious. The only thing I've seen is GoDaddy blaming ICANN, specifically the torrentfreak.com article states:

'“I firstly had DNS downtime. While I was contacting GoDaddy I noticed the DNS had changed. Godaddy had no idea what was going on and until now they do not understand the situation and they say it was totally from ICANN,” he explained.'

The way ICANN works and its role in coordinating generic top-level domains, it would be beyond surprising if they were to have any role in the takedown of the domains. It is far more likely that either GoDaddy removed the names or VeriSign did (since all the names appear to be in COM/NET).

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Correction
by 2ndshot on Sun 28th Nov 2010 13:18 in reply to "RE[2]: Correction"
2ndshot Member since:
2010-11-28

That is a good point. Is there anyway to verify this?

Reply Parent Score: 1