The other day we wrote about 9 domain names that were seized by the HomeLand Security Department based on selling or helping the transfer of copyrighted material or selling allegedly fake designer goods
Now according to AVN the number of seized domains and sites appear to be closer to 70 than to 9.
The seizures which all took place by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)which is part of the Homeland Security Department.
Looks like many of these additional domains were selling products rather than music.
According to AVN here are the domains that have been seized so far:
2009jerseys.com
51607.com
amoyhy.com
b2corder.com
bishoe.com
borntrade.com
borntrade.net
boxedtvseries.com
boxset4less.com
boxsetseries.com
burberryoutletshop.com
cartoon77.com
cheapscarfshop.com
coachoutletfactory.com
dajaz1.com
discountscarvesonsale.com
dvdcollectionsale.com
dvdcollects.com
dvdorderonline.com
dvdprostore.com
dvdscollection.com
dvdsetcollection.com
dvdsetsonline.com
dvdsuperdeal.com
eluxury-outlet.com
getdvdset.com
gofactoryoutlet.com
golfstaring.com
golfwholesale18.com
handbag9.com
handbagcom.com
handbagspop.com
icqshoes.com
ipodnanouk.com
jersey-china.com
jerseyclubhouse.com
jordansbox.com
lifetimereplicas.com
louis-vuitton-outlet-store.com
lv-outlets.com
lv-outlets.net
lv-outletstore.com
massnike.com
merrytimberland.com
mycollects.com
mydreamwatches.com
mygolfwholesale.com
newstylerolex.com
nfljerseysupply.com
nibdvd.com
odvdo.com
oebags.com
onsmash.com
overbestmall.com
rapgodfathers.com
realtimberland.com
rmx4u.com
scarfonlineshop.com
scarfviponsale.com
shawls-store.com
silkscarf-shop.com
silkscarfonsale.com
skyergolf.com
sohob2b.com
sohob2c.com
storeofeast.com
stuff-trade.com
sunglasses-mall.com
sunogolf.com
tbl-sports.com
throwbackguy.com
timberlandlike.com
topabuy.com
torrent-finder.com
usaburberryscarf.com
usaoutlets.net
How do brand knock-offs impact Homeland Security?
If a fake Rolex or Gucci bag is a real threat, they better get down to Times Square and get busy.
Owen
The fake Rolex and the fake LV bags are no doubt the biggest threat to our nation and our security.
Don’t you feel safer now?
BTW China Town (I hear) is the best place to score such goods in NY, I’m just saying
Guys, the US Customs Service was moved under DHS when the DHS was formed.
Interdiction of counterfeit goods has always been a part of what the US Customs Service does. It has nothing to do with security, but it is part of what Customs does and has done for a very long time.
Recent History:
1. The Whitehouse politely invited ICANN to participate in meetings. ICANN declined.
2. Canada recently wrote ICANN a letter. ICANN responded.
3. Heading into the ICANN Colombia meeting, the U.S. Government has to send a clear message of who is in charge.
4. While ICANN is headed to Colombia, the ISOC has scheduled key meetings in San Francisco.
While all that is going on, Obama is preparing for a career in the .NBA
This was posted on another site:
“COICA would allow the government to block access to Web sites located anywhere in the world, while Homeland Security’s take-downs are limited to servers inside the United States.”
So does this mean that the 77 sites had their servers and or domains in the USA?
So if you have a non USA registry and server outside the USA, they cannot touch you. But then other places say ICANN was involved, if that’s the case doesn’t ICANN control all the domains regardless of extension and registry?
Steve
I would say right now that the seized sites were either hosted in the US and/or had its domains registered with a US based registrar but that would changes under the COICA
Hello Mike,
These sites that have been seized, smell more like a power grab of valuable conduits to internet commerce. This is highly suspicious behavior and We are wondering whether our country is repeating a theme of power grabs of capitalism plays, much as Russia has DONE BY SEIZING PUBLIC COMPANIES and so-called nationalizing them. We are particularly interested in the criteria behind seizing usaoutlets, seems like a rather interesting play for whoever winds up with it in the future. Yes, Rick was right in saying domain values are definitely being noticed by just about everyone and are becoming mainstream pirating targets. I just Maxi-locked a few of my domains at Moniker!
Gratefully, Jeff
It has alot to do with home land security because these counterfeiters use the proceeds to fund terrorism. Not in all situations obviously but counterfeiting is a multi billion dollar industry. If they were knocking of your products or selling your music/movies you would want someone helping you too.
Next you’ll be telling us that they’re going to park the domains and get to use the income to fund their efforts…sound familiar?
MHB, so if COICA does pass, that means that they will simply blacklist the site so USA computers won’t be able to view them correct? So for example if a site is hosted offshore and the registry is non USA, it will be viewable to the rest of the world except for USA IP’s?
If this all results in the U.S. Department of .COMmerce being ordered to operate the .COM Registry at SUB-One-Dollar (or FREE via Microsoft PNRP) Domainers may be very happy.
Would .COM Domainers prefer to hear that some smooth-talking Australians tricked the U.S. Department of .COMmerce into a Post-JPA Affirmation Cluster F*CK that is clearly meaningless ?… while .COM prices continue to go up and up despite SUB-One-Dollar manufacturing costs.
The domains are registered with a Chinese registrar. I somewhat doubt the the Chinese registrar would make the nameserver changes, because a part of the US government ask them to do so. Possibly they ask Verisign to do so ?
snicksnack – the registrars might have been through a china registrar but the hosting/server might have been in the USA. I have read where ICANN was involved but I seriously doubt that, it was either through VERISIGN or USA hosting..
snicksnack – also there are china registrars that have USA branches, for example Zentek is affiliated with ENOM which is USA based so it might have been through a USA registrar afterall
The U.S. Department of .COMmerce needs to prepare for TWO major contracting events.
1. The infamous IANA contract is up for renewal next year. Some sort of Term Limits will likely prevent ICANN from being a candidate for the RE-bid.
2. The .COM zone is clearly different. No other Top Level Domain is close in size. The U.S. Department of .COMmerce and the struggling Obama Administration could step in and RE-bid .COM as part of their active roll in trying to jump-start
the .USA economy.
The ball is in Obama’s Court. ICANN decided not to play in his game.
New sites will be popping up just as quick as they can shut them down but it’s worth a shot and its probably a cheaper way of slowing down the problem a tad, especially when it comes to shutting down sites selling counterfeit medicines online.
There’s bound to be a few innocent casualties along the way though.
It looks to me as warning signal, we are here, ready to protect and serve 😀
“Look people of USA look! We seized 70 bad, bad domains,
as you can clearly see the COICA is very important to every one of us.
This was just a small fraction of the nasty sites out there!
COICA will give us even more power to protect everybody who needs it.
In god and voting of our senators we trust. ”
Apart of this , in my opinion, we need in EU law as this or at least DMCA like something.
Steve
If the if COICA does pass, the department of homeland defense can just go to the registry, by passing the registrars and grab domain registered offshore with non-US based registrars.
However the language of the COICA is pretty broad so could effect say a parking page which contains an advertisement to a site selling counterfeit goods.
In which case I guess Google and Yahoo will have to pre-screen each advertiser to see exactly what goods they are offering for sale and make sure they have all the proper and relevant licenses to sell such goods.
Or they won’t and we will just lose our domains
MHB but what if your domain, let’s say is a .in or through a non USA registry how will they be able to seize it?
I thought that they were just going to block the IP so then someone in the USA couldn’t view the site, but it would still be available to the rest of the world.
Anyway, the bill hasn’t even been voted on and the bill could be revised as well if it even passes at all..
The U.S. FCC is also under a lot of pressure to DO SOMETHING – Anything!!!
://reboot.fcc.gov/
Why have U.S. Government agencies that do the same thing as ICANN / IANA ?
Technological Advisory Council Meeting
November 4, 2010 | Washington, DC
Cybersecurity Roadmap Workshop
November 5, 2010 | Washington, DC
registrar used are mainly:
http://www.xinnet.com
http://www.dns.com.cn
and they are Chinese registrars. The hosting might have been in the US, but the nameservers of all the above domains have been changed to ns1/ns2.seizedservers.com, so this can only be done by the registrar of by verisign and I still believe that the chinese registrars don’t really care about US homeland security.
@MHB “Or they won’t and we will just lose our domains” – so if google displays the ads on their homepage or in the search results, will they also loose their domain ? I doubt.
Well,
As i have been preaching to the choir for months …
let’s not get diverted from a Senate Bill ,,,
THAT COULD BE REINTRODUCED …
“The Domain Blocking Bill,”
://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/11/oregon-senator-vows-block-internet-censorship-bill/
Senator Ron Wyden has lead the charge to stop it
learn about it and let Senator Wyden know you want to …
HELP STOP THIS FASCIST BILL
PERMANTLY!
://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combating_Online_Infringement_and_Counterfeits_Act
AND
://www.temple.edu/lawschool/dpost/COICA.html
many of them sound like pirated products’ websites
@DomainersGate: I am sure they were all selling counterfeits, but this doesn’t give the US government the right to seize the domains, they can ask the hosting company to take down the site.
These sites “steal” from the IP owners just like p2p violators “steal” music. Each one supposedly results in a lost sale.
Why the outrage over domain seizures and not for the RIAA’s outrageous legal treatment of p2p violations? Each is simply a technological conduit to “stealing”, no?
I recently read a comment, about how anybody would want to register a .co because they could be seized by the Columbian government at any given time. Doesn’t seem like a bad bet after all, especially if they can now confiscate a .com without warning.
Interesting comment threads about this on Mashable and Mashable’s Facebook thread
Some claim “DHS is trying to limit the release of the WIkileaks documents IMO, via bittorrent. The two are in too close of proximity to be a shear coincidence. Plus, it explains why DHS is shutting em down.”
Others say your agreement to operate the domain is subject to terms and conditions and misuse is cause for revocation.
I do know that VeriSign does not assign the domain as property, but treats like a telephone # that you can use until you move or unless you violate TOS. For example if you don’t have real and accurate contact information- that can be grounds for termination. I’m sure in the fine print is buried many loopholes that allow them to find cause to seize a domain.
Any how, interesting reading:
http://mashable.com/2010/11/27/homeland-security-website-seized/#comments
http://www.facebook.com/mashable
“Do you think the DHS followed due process in these cases? Do you think that agency shoud *have* to do so?”
Looks like they’re trying to do something similar with .co.uk domains
“The police are seeking powers to shut down websites deemed to be engaged in “criminal” activity.”
bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11845961
“they can ask the hosting company to take down the site”
but it’s a slow way to stop a bad online business
DON’T SAY ANOTHER WORD TILL YOU READ THIS …
://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/11/oregon-senator-vows-block-internet-censorship-bill/
IN a FREE SOCIETY … GOVERMENT agents
doe not TAKE DOWN A WEBSITE, etc
WITH-OUT “DUE PROCESS”
Some comments made here are starting to
sound like there kiss up’s cause THEY might be watching.
“Be Free or DIE”
unless you wanna be there bitch!
“I would say right now that the seized sites were either hosted in the US and/or had its domains registered with a US based registrar”
Registry.
And, by the way, all of these seizures are subject to a warrant issued by a court.
The notion that this is done without any judicial involvement is wrong, and is typical of folks who seek to spread hysteria over what have been fairly mundane procedures in place for a long time.
The drums of war sound in the UK….
UK Registry to Clarify Domain Name Suspension Rules
By Jeremy Kirk, IDG News
“The U.K.’s domain name registry is examining its policies around suspending domain names, a move ococasionally undertaken in order to prevent criminal activity on the Internet.”
This policy would formalize that process,” Bradley said.
Nominet and its registrars have suspended domain names in the past: At the request of the Police Central e-Crime Unit, another U.K. agency that deals with cybercrime, Nominet pulled 1,200 domain names used predominantly for marketing counterfeit goods, Bradley said.
Usually, if a Web site is connected with illegal activity, the ISP is notified and the connection is cut off
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/211717/uk_registry_to_clarify_domain_name_suspension_rules.html
************
This is to an extent diferent since the UK it’s a member of the EU , copycat Countries could propagate this practice.
Good comments across the board … 🙂
Cough, Cough,
Yes, John Doe Warrants,
Gotta love em ….
Steve
If the domain in question is a ccTLD which is not US based and the domain is not hosted in the US nor registered with a US registrar then the proposed bill would not allow seizure.
John
I think the government went to the registrars not the registry to get the domains
It has alot to do with home land security because these counterfeiters use the proceeds to fund terrorism.
————————————-
Just wondering- it’s something I’d love to learn more about.
Is there any actual documented evidence of counterfeit goods being used to fund terrorism? Like, “…here is Achmed who sells fake Prada bags. He then sends that money to Al Qaeda…”
That really, really seems like it’s becoming a very popular pretext for banning, limiting or regulating certain channels of commerce.
Does not matter. If you own generic names and don’t mess around you will be ok.
that is why rick is the king at generics.
Opp is still there though.
Did you read this.
But Citi’s estimates may be too kind to the PC. Craig Berger, who follows Intel (INTC) for FBR Capital Markets, gave a more aggressive estimate on Monday, with 40 million tablets sold by Apple next year and 30 million by the rest of the pack.
Basically Tablet domain names are going to skyrocket into the 7 figure range.. MMM would just bought tablets.com smart dude.. Also 3d is going nowhere people buy tv’s not 3d..DUH.
So lesson here people is to buy generic names and don’t misuse your domain name.
@ Johhny T
(Quote) So lesson here people is to buy generic names and don’t misuse your domain name. (Unquote)
———————————————————————–
The lesson here Folks is “stand up for your rights” and don’t allow
any CREEPING socialism/fascism (Obama anybody?) and backroom puppet
money grubbing senators sell your freedom away by acting like scared sheep.
Remember, Rights is just like a copyright mark …
why, if you don’t protect and monitor its fair use,
you will lose that right forever.
You will sleep better at night 🙂
The problem with AVN’s reporting on this is that none of these sites have anything to do with torrents or the like. They all seem to have been trafficking in actual hard goods… some had TV shows, some had knockoff electronics, one had counterfeit golf equipment (with an Illinois customer service number even?)… not one that I can find had torrents.
I found one that wasn’t even created until less than 2 weeks ago… it seems that they were all owned by just a few, if not one, individual as well… that’s hard to see but it does look that way upon investigation.
I do think they went through the Registry for this one… just a hunch but if you notice – there are only domains that go through VGRS (Verisign) Registry -.net & .com… no .orgs even(PIR). Note that none of the Registrant info is changed, more like the name was hotlisted at the Registry to override any NameServer directives at all eminating from the Registrars.
example: usaoutlets.net shows completely different nameservers on the Registrar whois output, while the AInternic output shows the SeizedServers NS. – and it has been 4 days since this happened.
I’m not thinking that it matters much where they were hosted either… most of these names changed IP’s more often than some people do laundry… they flipped around all over the place.
I could be wrong, but it looks to me like there is a lot more behind this than it seems upfront. My guess would be that ICE was targeting a few (or even one) individual that they had in their cross hairs after investigating the source of what seems to be a pretty substantial counterfeit/piracy endeavor.
The seemed lack of “Due Process” should alarm anyone though…
Also, before you go off and paste any of those names into your browser to go have a look-see… be warned – ICE has a rather nasty looking tracking code embedded into their landing page.
Possible hoax
http://grandgood.com/2010/11/27/domain-name-seizures-of-popular-rap-file-sharing-sites-potentially-an-elaborate-hoax/
ONE LAST VERY IMPORTATN THING:
Wait! there’s some one at my Door? ….
No,No, Don’t shoot …
Oh, God … Im Hit
I researched some of the names, the golf18 one for example by a doing a few online searches. Most said it was a scam, so no harm done to the web, but saved consumers millions of $$ and as Berryhill said a court issues the warrant.
“saved consumers millions of $$”
true, every single day that a scam site remains online, makes money this way
On the issue of counterfeit goods and IP theft, it seems like the sea is changing and the US is going from a benign, soft-enforcement model to a much harder, proactive, criminal enforcement model. I say good.
There should probably be some due-process involved and yes, as is the case with any other law, it can be subject to abuse by a heavy-handed cubicle-cop with an agenda. Still, if the domain is being used as an instrument to further IP theft, I don’t really care what happens to that domain or the domains owner. At that point, it’s a ‘domain issue’ about as much as an armed robber forfeiting his pistol is “gun rights issue”.
When you utilize an otherwise lawful “thing”to commit a crime, you lose rights to said “thing”. Not too difficult. A house is a house until cook meth in it. Then, it ceases being a ‘house’ and becomes an instrument of a crime. A domain is a domain until you use it to commit crimes.
“ICE has a rather nasty looking tracking code embedded into their landing page.”
Cookie or trojan?
Anon
How about if a “Snowe” bill gets passed making trademark infringement criminal?
Couldn’t the government go out and seize millions of domains, THEY think fringing without notice to you or given you a right to a hearing?
Haven’t you seen enough UDRP on generic terms where the “trademark holder” has gotten the domain?
Put it all together and don’t be so quick to take people’s “things” away because it soon might be your think
Lassy
The link your citing to is from June 30 of this year.
We wrote about the government seizing those domains when it happened:
http://www.thedomains.com/2010/07/01/feds-seize-9-domains-for-copyright-infringement-but-based-on-what-law/
This is a new bunch
IP theft is a serious problem and one that seems to get defended often with the first amendment. I honestly have no problem with sites that are selling pirated movies and TV shows getting shut down. They steal money from individuals who have worked extremely hard to bring their vision to the big (or small) screen. Additionally it chews up bandwidth and the resources that all of the networks (including mobile) complain about.
So IP theft just increases prices for lawful individuals who pay for their entertainment, don’t steal internet access from their neighbors and operate ethical businesses. Fake Rolex watches and Gucci handbags? I really hope there aren’t going to be people defending someone’s right to blatantly rip someone off on an even more ridiculous level.
I think if we take a hard look at things we’d see that ICE isn’t so far off base in terms of their seizures. These are sites that just straight up rip people off. The fact that its being enforced via ICE has to do with logistics, not some 1984 scenario.
Be concerned when someone wants to take your domain because you were selling leads to a financial adviser who then ripped off people without you knowing. Be concerned if you’re running a social media site (like YouTube) and because some people upload IP they don’t own and you try to comply with the owners requests to have it removed and yet still ICE decides to take your domain.
But if you operate a pirated movie site, or sell replica Rolex watches via the net I’m not going to lose a wink of sleep if your once thriving business is shut down.
“Couldn’t the government go out and seize millions of domains, THEY think fringing without notice to you or given you a right to a hearing?”
Where there is probable cause and a court issued warrant, the Fourth Amendment authorizes seizure. If you are engaged in the commission of a crime, you can be imprisoned before you get your arraignment and trial. No, there is no right to continue engaging in a crime prior to a hearing and after a warrant has issued.
I’ll be the first one jumping up and down to represent a domain registrant who has been unduly deprived of a domain name. That’s what I’ve done for more than a decade now.
But snarky BS about how law enforcement is all corrupt, or that execution of a warrant under the Fourth Amendment is “creeping fascism”, are really just statements of general hostility to the American form of government as it has existed since adopted in 1790. If you want to make a statement about “socialism” then quit using the internet, since it was one of those government funded programs you can’t stand, and stop using domain names, which exist only because of a contract between IANA and the Department of Commerce to manage the root server system (of the IANA root).
The irony of a bunch of armchair libertarians profiting from aspects of a US government project while whining over a seizure made in compliance with the Fourth Amendment is like the teabaggers saying “get government out of my Medicare”.
John
Well a well known corporation swears out a complaint with the feds that Haywood.com or ChilliBeans.com is violating their trademark, their intellectual property in violation of a “Snowe” type bill and the feds take the complainst to the judge and he issues the warrant.
You know who these thinks go.
The government starts with the easiest cases, the most winnable, and then builds out a winning history off of these types of cases and then comes knocking on your door.
But snarky BS about how law enforcement is all corrupt, or that execution of a warrant under the Fourth Amendment is “creeping fascism”, are really just statements of general hostility to the American form of government as it has existed since adopted in 1790.
————-
The form of government we live under today bears absolutely no resemblance to the one enacted in 1790. We imprison more people, per-capita, than any other nation on earth. Significantly more than places like Russia, China, Cuba, Iran… We went off the ideological rails a while back.
I agree with your larger sentiment- domainers are probably a touch hysterical here- but I think your view on law enforcement and government in general is unrealistically rosy.
Suspicion and cynicism is perfectly warranted.
Haven’t you seen enough UDRP on generic terms where the “trademark holder” has gotten the domain?
Put it all together and don’t be so quick to take people’s “things” away because it soon might be your think
————
You raise a great point here and if the government ever tries to make this (huge) leap- from enforcing clear cut examples of IP theft to using that same system to arbitrate TM disputes- I’ll be the first to make my lone voice heard to oppose it. Until then, I have no problems with them instituting protocols to attack IP theft in some meaningful way and if this means attacking it at the DN level, so be it.
“stop using domain names, which exist only because of a contract…”
=========
“domain names” actually exist because Software developers (and inventors) found that exporting a HOSTS.TXT file mapping a memorable name to IP Address was too hard to maintain.
Domain names and the DNS protocol are NOT required to operate THE Internet.
The domain name system and DNS protocol that replaced the simple HOSTS.TXT file is a complex and odd combination of a hierarchical database with tiny relational databases.
Very little of the DNS functionality is used. It is an academic/military research project that became the control knob the legal community seized to impose their views.
There are many other ways to map memorable names to IP addresses. It is ironic that most of those methods are FREE (as in money). It is also interesting to note that FREE name to number mapping services get almost no attention from government and legal communities. Artificial scarcity is not generally found in FREE services.
People are starting to see that they really do not “own” their domain names.
More and more governments “own” the domain names. Many businesses prefer that over having a bunch of “geeks” pontificating about their names and numbers.
It is “Lord of the Flies Ugly”…
://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2010-November/018909.html
://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large/2010q4/date.html
It is “Lord of the Flies Ugly”…
://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2010-November/018909.html
://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large/2010q4/date.html
“The original semblance of order imposed by Ralph quickly deteriorates as the majority of the boys turn idle. At one point, Jack summons all of his hunters to hunt down a wild pig, including those who were supposed to be maintaining the fire. A ship approaches, but passes by because the signal fire has gone out. Although the hunting of the pig turns out to be the hunters’ first successful hunt, Ralph is infuriated that they have missed a potential rescue. Around the same time, many of the young people begin to believe that the island is inhabited by a monster, referred to as “the beast”. Jack gains control of the discussion by boldly promising to kill the beast. Later, Ralph envisages relinquishing his position, though Piggy discourages him from doing so while the two of them and Simon yearn hopefully for some guidance from the adult world.”
“The government starts with the easiest cases, the most winnable, and then builds out a winning history off of these types of cases and then comes knocking on your door.”
Yes, if the government can arrest criminals, they can arrest anyone. So they should arrest no one?
The vast majority of UDRP cases involve outright blatant cybersquatting. The fact that a small incidence of cases go the wrong way, or the fact that sometimes innocent people are arrested for crimes is not some massive indictment. There are remedies for those situations, and one of your examples – chillibeans – worked out quite swimmingly for everyone.
Private parties cannot swear out seizure warrants, but if your broader complaint relative to private parties is “Anyone can file a lawsuit”, then yes, welcome to the world of business.
What, really, do you expect to happen when someone is running a meth lab in a trailer you rented to them? Does we say, “oh no, they have to be allowed to keep running the meth lab until the end of a jury trial”? No, the whole works is seized, and there are ways to get it back. There are also substantial civil damages available when your rights are truly violated.
When a site is selling counterfeit crap with BS Whois data, what is it you want to see happen? A trial of the nonexistent registrant, who isn’t going to show up? That’s no different from the warrant hearing in the first place.
“The fact that a small incidence of cases go the wrong way, or the fact that sometimes innocent people are…”
===
What about the RegisterFLY case (or cases) ? Mis-guided ICANN Policies allowed a Registrar to create Resellers. Resellers then became big enough to become Registrars. Domain Names (and owners) became confused. ICANN did little.
Then, Domain Names became Trapped in the original Registrar. ICANN did nothing.
Registrants attempted to do the simple thing of moving their domains from the original Shadow Registrar to the Reseller (now Registrar). ICANN did nothing.
Eventually, Trapped Domains were sold / auctioned by the ICANN Registrar that claimed superior ethics ?
Who is responsible for the flawed ICANN legal contraptions ?
Did ICANN step in and go thru domain by domain, case by case ? NOPE
The courts ruled Class Action was not what “they” wanted, they want to hear EACH case.
What is the annual cost and benefit to the Legal Community for Domain Mania?
I’ve read on a few other sites that claim ICANN was involved in this, what does everyone think? If ICANN was involved doesn’t that mean they could simply go after any domain regardless of registry even non USA? If that is the case then why do they need the COICA Bill? I find it hard to believe ICANN was involved, looking at the seizure list they are all .com which is through Verisign so it was either through them or a USA based registrar..
Steve
I believe that those stories that involve ICANN in this process are inaccurate
“stories that involve ICANN in this process are inaccurate”
====
The wide-spread domain industry pressure is to remove ICANN from the picture and get the spot-light back on Verisign (and other Registries).
Registries have had a free ride in the ICANN Gravy Boat for years. ICANN has provided that hive.mind swarm buffer of noise and distractions to protect the Queen Bee Registry.
The U.S. Government needs to simply seize control of the .COM Registry and operate it in a fair and ethical manner. The ICANN-Verisign Tango can then go appear on Dancing With the Stars. (Men’s Hair Dye Provided Free)
@TheBigLieSociety
Shut the F*ck up already!
Another view
http://mathaba.net/news/?x=625365
this was done via the registry (Verisign)
http://nenolod.net/did-icann-really-seize-torrent-finder-com-or-was-it-verisign/
://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/ag/speeches/2010/ag-speech-101129.html
Remarks as Prepared for Delivery by Attorney General Eric Holder at the Operation in Our Sites II Press Conference
Washington, D.C. ~ Monday, November 29, 2010
Good morning, and thank you all for being here.
Today I’m joined by two of the key leaders in the U.S. government’s work to combat intellectual property crimes – John Morton, the Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and Ron Machen, the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia.
We are pleased to announce an important step in our ongoing efforts to protect the interests and safety of consumers, to ensure the strength of our markets, and to safeguard the intellectual property rights of innovators and entrepreneurs.
…
Based on what John said about the agency being Customs- to minimize giving domains another black eye which will asscoiate domains=terrorism, the headline both HERE and on the Drudge Report should have been: “Customs agents target Web sites selling counterfeit goods”
and so it was on the SiValleyMercuryNews:
Tech dirt has some good articles on this. Among the more interesting is that the federal rule allowing for pre-trial seizures requires a finding that the property must be preserved from destruction or relocation outside the court’s jurisdiction.
Here they took the domains (which were not going anywhere) BUT they evidently did not take the servers. Thus other than historical copies of sites they have protected nothing from destruction or relocation.
Also several of the domains clearly held content that was not infringing.
I wonder who will contest this and see the eventual outcome to be contrary to what HLS desires. But of course they are only going after the domains at the request of the entertainment industry,
I think this is very bad news for dotcom domains. Here is an interesting article related to this:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/11/us-government-seizes-82-websites-draconian-future
so for each of these 70+ domains, would dhs have had to order some goods and have them delivered to the us, to dhs? (to prove the sites were actually importing into the us)
i’m curious about the process dhs took to obtain the warrants.
I have seen several of the orders. They apparently did order products. When they arrived they inspected them and the trademark owner claimed they were counterfeit. The order was signed by a judge in Washington. There’re many legal issues here including issues concerning the de laration supporting the order.