Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 29th Nov 2011 21:28 UTC
Legal "After a series of one-sided hearings, luxury goods maker Chanel has won recent court orders against hundreds of websites trafficking in counterfeit luxury goods. A federal judge in Nevada has agreed that Chanel can seize the domain names in question and transfer them all to US-based registrar GoDaddy. The judge also ordered 'all Internet search engines' and 'all social media websites' - explicitly naming Facebook, Twitter, Google+, Bing, Yahoo, and Google - to 'de-index' the domain names and to remove them from any search results."
Thread beginning with comment 498408
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
A sticky problem
by WorknMan on Tue 29th Nov 2011 23:05 UTC
WorknMan
Member since:
2005-11-13

This is a very sticky problem. On one hand, you don't want to give somebody the authority to close down hundreds of websites without due process. On the other hand, it would be far too costly and time-consuming to go after each one individually.

So the question is, what to do? In this particular instance, these aren't cases of a bunch of 15yos downloading the latest Snoop Dogg album for free, but rather people who are selling counterfeit products, so it's a little harder to dismiss outright.

The real question is, if this kind of thing is unstoppable without violating some basic rights, does that mean we should give up some of those rights in cases like this, or just say that the concept of copyright can't exist in the digital age?

Reply Score: 3

RE: A sticky problem
by looncraz on Wed 30th Nov 2011 00:27 in reply to "A sticky problem"
looncraz Member since:
2005-07-24

[...]it would be far too costly and time-consuming to go after each one individually.

So the question is, what to do? [...]

The real question is, if this kind of thing is unstoppable without violating some basic rights, does that mean we should give up some of those rights in cases like this, or just say that the concept of copyright can't exist in the digital age?


NEVER give up ANY of your RIGHTS!! EVER!!

The system is perfectly capable, as is, of handling this issue - maybe with some minor tweaks.

The steps are as follows:

1. File single lawsuit with multiple defendants.
2. Present information, in court, for each claim.
3. Jury/judge rules on each defendant individually.
4. Guilty defendants required to pay reasonable fees.

No need to lose a single right. An injunction can be filed that could shut down sites before a final ruling - the result of the filing is up to the discretion of the court but should be limited, by law/rule, to simple de-listing - as in this case.

Our rights cost MILLIONS of lives - we would doing a major disservice to those who fought for what we have by giving even the most simple of those rights away - our founding fathers said so themselves:


"Those willing to give up freedom for security deserve neither and will lose both."

--Benjamin Franklin

That is a fact learned the hard way!

--The loon

Reply Parent Score: 12

RE[2]: A sticky problem
by WorknMan on Wed 30th Nov 2011 00:44 in reply to "RE: A sticky problem"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

The steps are as follows:

1. File single lawsuit with multiple defendants.
2. Present information, in court, for each claim.
3. Jury/judge rules on each defendant individually.
4. Guilty defendants required to pay reasonable fees.


Except that the article says:

Concerned about counterfeiting, Chanel has filed a joint suit in Nevada against nearly 700 domain names that appear to have nothing in common.

So are you going to file 700 different lawsuits? You would be in court the rest of your life, and as soon as you shut one down, two or three more will have popped up. This is exactly the same problem that the content publishers have with shutting down pirate websites; as soon as one is gone, another one appears.

I'd agree that giving up rights is not a reasonable solution to the problem, but neither is taking them on one at a time.

Edited 2011-11-30 00:46 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: A sticky problem
by cmchittom on Wed 30th Nov 2011 00:59 in reply to "RE: A sticky problem"
cmchittom Member since:
2011-03-18

An injunction can be filed that could shut down sites before a final ruling - the result of the filing is up to the discretion of the court but should be limited, by law/rule, to simple de-listing - as in this case.


I don't understand you—you say we shouldn't give up rights, but then you say that what you think should happen is in fact what happened.

Reply Parent Score: 2