US Government Censors 70 Websites

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.

The current seizures of domains did not even use the proposed bill which recently passed the US Senate Judiciary Committee. The seizures come from the US Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, and cover about 70 websites relating to potential copyright infringement and counterfeit goods, among which is Torrent-Finder.com, a mere torrent search engine which does not host or even link to torrents; it displays content hosted elsewhere through embedded iframes.

"My domain has been seized without any previous complaint or notice from any court!” the owner of Torrent-Finder explained TorrentFreak, “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."

This is equivalent to having your house seized for pointing out to someone you can buy weed in the college district. The craziness goes even further - ordinary search engines are really effective at finding unauthorised copyrighted content as well. You can use Google to find the latest Parenthood episode in 720p, and Bing, too, is pretty good at it. Why aren't we seeing notices for these domains as well?

http://www.osnews.com/story/24074/US_Government_Censors_70_Websites

If I start a website called "TheDemocraticUnderground.com",
you really don't need to do any deep research to understand
that I am blatantly infringing on the copyright (and probably
trademark) of Democratic Underground, LLC.

That's what happened here.

Tesha

I had read the article as meaning:

1. that websites were being blocked with no notice , much less due process,
allowed for the owners of the sites,

2. and in the one case mentioned, a site was blocked for simply being a directory of other sites.
( I didn't realize a directory of sites was a copyright infringement.)

3. Sites were blocked "not because owners of these sites were convicted of anything,
but merely because complaints have been filed against them."


Thanks for clearing that up.

edited for spelling, and clarification.

:hi:

Free speech....
due process.....

Quaint concepts, eh?

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

...infringing on the valid trademark of another.

That's an important role for government.

I realize that many DUers don't hold any concerns for the rights
of the owners of intellectual property, but out in the real world,
the law is very clear on what constitutes infringement.

Like I said, go try and register and use "TheDemocraticUnderground"
in infringement of DU LLC's trademark and see how long your website
lasts.

Tesha

a radar station on the coast of Somalia that tracks ships being shut down. In both cases, the operators do not engage in illegal activity and theoretically can serve non-illegal activities, but in practice both serve pirates.

A radar station on the coast of Somalia does not fall under the purview of the Constitution. Websites registered in the US to US citizens, on the other hand, does fall under the Fifth Amendment right to due process:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Try reading it and the bill of rights sometime. Good grief!

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Notice that a warrant was issued -



Property was seized by warrant but the owner has yet to be charged or tried, so there isn't a violation of the 5th.

The posts above clarify what I thought was going on. It's more an ICANN action than the government and more to the story here than some cry "censorship" game.

If the PTB wanted to shut Assage and Wikileaks down, it wouldn't take much. However the internet is not some inhouse network, it has grown to where it's difficult to block out those who want to either find sites or create mayhem. As we've seen with file sharing (and torrents are now a target), when one site is shut down it pops up somewhere else. It's easy to set up a domain outside the US...many small countries make a nice penny selling domain names that can be moved and changed quickly...so a determined website can find many ways around a block.

Cheers...

Wikileaks must have something REALLY damaging this time.

He's the asshole who wanted to cover nude statuary in the DC area from public view.

Seems like nothing ever changes but the changes. :shrug:

but the "system" goes on and on...

:(