
Feds Seize 130+ Domain Names in Mass Crackdown - nextparadigms
http://torrentfreak.com/feds-seize-130-domain-names-in-mass-crackdown-111125/
======
feralchimp
When they came for the serial registrants of bootleg sports jersey and fashion
merchandise domains, I said nothing...

~~~
animal
I want to make a difference. What can I say, and to whom?

~~~
jrockway
I think we need a new Internet that the government doesn't know about. They
move slowly and we can get another ten years of freedom if we plan this right.

(Many other posts recommend overthrowing the government. I don't think this
will work because it doesn't guarantee that the new government won't be
corrupt; the kinds of people that want to be politicians will always exist and
will always act in the same interests.)

------
hughesey
Most of the seized domains end up hosted on the Feds 'seized domain' server at
74.81.170.110.

As such, it's possible to see a list of all seized domains using a Reverse IP
tool - e.g. <http://viewdns.info/reverseip/?host=74.81.170.110>

------
pantaloons
First they came for the fake merchandise sites...

> The fact that the authorities have once again launched a large crackdown on
> “rogue” websites begs the question why this legislation is needed in the
> first place.

Isn't the difference that SOPA allows them to mandate blocking of non-US
domains by service operators? I think it's pretty clear TLDs owned or operated
in the US are a lost cause at this point unless other governments oppose the
TLD sovereignty claims.

------
yummybear
I find it disturbing that as a non-US citizen, US restricts my access to these
sites.

~~~
k-mcgrady
The FBI is allowed to seize domains which are US based (e.g. dot com). If you
setup your site with a domain from another country (e.g. dot co dot uk) the
FBI can do nothing.

From what I have head they want SOPA to fix that by allowing them to block the
domains they can't seize from being viewed within the US via a system like the
one China uses.

So if you set up your site right the US government cannot stop anyone outside
the US from viewing it.

~~~
dangrossman
This isn't the FBI, it's customs enforcement (which was moved under DHS).

~~~
k-mcgrady
Thanks for clarifying. I thought the notices had FBI on them, my mistake.

------
epoxyhockey
Last year: 82 domains seized This year: 130 domains seized ..waiting to see if
this game goes exponential..

The funny thing is that a large percentage of those domains contain
trademarked names. Can't the trademark owners go through _normal_ channels
(get court judgement, then file with ICANN) to grab the domains?

~~~
lanstein
Flashback to javanco.com... (search 'Javanco sun' if this doesn't ring a bell)

~~~
epoxyhockey
Thanks for that. It does seem like Javanco would have prevailed in court had
Sun insisted on pursuing the domain. It does make me wonder, if that exact
situation arose today, whether the outcome would have been different!

------
zavulon
It's really stupid to register domain names with "louis vutton", "NFL" or any
other obvious trademarks in the name if you're planning to make money on it.
Even if you're not planning to sell unauthorized goods by that company on that
site, they'll still come after you within weeks, if not days. I've learned
that the hard way ...

~~~
axiak
<http://nissan.com> \- <http://nissan.com/Digest/The_Story.php>

~~~
res0nat0r
The difference is Nissan.com is not selling knockoff Nissan cars.

~~~
Alterlife
The point is, they're still getting sued.

The laws are being misused by the party with deeper pockets.

------
pnathan
IANAL, and am not familiar with the procedures of law. I do know that the
courts can seize property in an entirely legal fashion via due process. So
this would seem to me to be analogous to seizure of a business building being
used for selling counterfeit clothing.

I suppose (to my mind) the real question here is the due process.

------
droithomme
I'm not a fan of domain name seizures, but, looking at the list of 131 domain
names they have there, these ones probably aren't going to be missed.

~~~
glimcat
I think that's what they call "establishing precedent."

~~~
droithomme
Yep, that's why it's so clever. Make the first cases either against someone
everyone hates, on that no one cares about. Child abusers in the first case,
counterfeit handbag salesmen in the second.

Precedent established, then the net widens.

------
ck2
Lack of due process is the new bully government.

Warrantless everything, seizures without oversight, treat everyone like a
criminal when they travel, simply live or go near the border and lose many
constitutional rights, heavily arm law enforcement under the guise of "anti-
terrorism" but instead use those weapons against peaceful protesters etc. etc.

What's strange and counterintuitive is that under democrat leadership it gets
worse than republican because they are always afraid of being perceived as
being "weak" so they overcompensate and are even more aggressive.

What's more ironic is we are critical of other governments who do these
things.

------
yaix
Surprise! I did WHOIS lookups on some of the domains, and ALL were from China.
Sometimes there is no name or address data but a phone number, and that is
Chinese of course (+86...).

------
cpeterso
Why seize the _domain names_ when they could nab the _people_ behind the
domain names selling counterfeit merchandise?

~~~
InclinedPlane
Recent legislation allows the seizure of domain names effectively by fiat,
without any tinge of due process. Arresting a physical body and putting them
on trial is still burdened by such ancient, outmoded traditional ideals, and
so is rather more difficult.

~~~
tomkinstinch
Does anyone know the citation of the statute they used?

~~~
GHFigs
18 USC § 2323 (a)(1)(A)-(B)

[http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/usc_sec_18_00002323----
000...](http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/usc_sec_18_00002323----000-.html)

18 USC § 981(b)

<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/981.html>

(Source:<http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/06/30/Warrant.pdf>)

------
njloof
What a waste of government time and resources.

~~~
refurb
Ok, I'm going to take the other side of this issue.

Private property rights for commercial use is one of the reasons why developed
nations are developed. If I start a business in the US, I generally don't have
to worry about someone else taking my trademark and selling fake versions of
my stuff. From the viewpoint of a business owner, that's one reason why you'd
setup a company in the US/Canada/Europe vs. China/Russia/etc.

I don't agree with the lack of due process, but I do think that securing
economic rights to private property is a pretty dam good use of government
resources.

RF

~~~
icebraining
Of course, they can simply buy a new domain for $10, so this didn't actually
stop anything.

------
nextparadigms
What happens to FBI if SOPA doesn't actually pass and this kind of thing is
found illegal?

~~~
icebraining
This has nothing to do with SOPA or the FBI. This is done by ICE, an agency
under the Department of Homeland Security, and by the DOJ, and it's been
happening for over a year now: [http://torrentfreak.com/u-s-government-seizes-
bittorrent-sea...](http://torrentfreak.com/u-s-government-seizes-bittorrent-
search-engine-domain-and-more-101126/)

------
nirvana
I find this _extremely_ alarming. I don't engage in piracy or serve files or
anything like that. But I consider domain names to be a form of property, and
to see the US government taking property without giving he owners recourse is
extremely troubling.

The US system is founded in innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
The requirements for this proof have been laid out and refined over 200 years.
I think those requirements are not strict enough, but these seizures don't
even include an actual trial, and thus deny the victims the right to defend
their position, or make their case before a judge.

Earlier this year I heard about a hip-hop blog that was seized which engaged
in no piracy... though it did offer songs that _the record companies_ had
given him as a form of promotion.

So, not only is this being done without due process, but it is being done
incompetently to boot!

I have zero expectation that this won't become-- like the "drug war" and the
"war on terrorism" -- an ever widening net to where it effectively becomes
seizure of politically-incorrect domains (e.g.: write a post critical of the
government on your blog? have no blog the next day...)

This is literally a form of government censorship of speech. Even if some
speech is "illegal" (I don't think even pirate spreading domains are illegal,
though there is a good _civil_ case against them) the act of speaking is
protected, and this right is acknowledged by the first amendment.

~~~
adestefan
> This is literally a form of government censorship of speech. Even if some
> speech is "illegal" (I don't think even pirate spreading domains are
> illegal, though there is a good civil case against them) the act of speaking
> is protected, and this right is acknowledged by the first amendment.

No it's not. It's analogous to the police acting on a warrant to close a store
front selling counterfeit goods. This is something that occurs constantly in
large cities all over the country.

If a judge would ever issue a warrant to remove a DNS name based upon speech,
and it's upheld, we have bigger problems than seizing DNS names.

~~~
18pfsmt
I'm not sure what a "DNS name" is exactly. DNS stands for Domain Name Service,
and I can't figure out for the life of me what it is you are referring to.

The burden of proof for these seizures was far less than a judge-issued
warrant, which is the problem with which most of _us_ are concerned. Slowly
eroding constitutionally protected rights reminds me of the boiling frog that
never jumps out of the pot as the temperature is raised ever-so-slightly.

~~~
GHFigs
_The burden of proof for these seizures was far less than a judge-issued
warrant_

Meaning what, exactly?

------
wavephorm
The United States needs to be stipped of DNS root privileges immediately. This
regime is completely out of control, and when SOPA passes the internet is
going to require some new infrastructure to route around the US.

~~~
yaix
The DNS has to stay being controled by one or more democratic countries. As
much as I like international organizations within the UN framework, but giving
control of the DNS to a UN committee would make it too easy for China to just
give a number of poor countries some more money to by their votes for whatever
China wants to see banned from the net. Not paranoia, that is common practice,
Western countries are doing it too. But at least Western governments are
controlled by their populations to some extent.

~~~
rasur
Switzerland seems the only sane choice, IMHO. ;)

------
billpatrianakos
I don't know how to feel about this. I really wish I could get people from
_both_ sides of the issue to educate me.

From what I see and read it seems piracy is running pretty rampant. In light
of that, these efforts to stop it (except SOPA, which I strongly disagree
with) don't bother me. This list of domains makes it pretty obvious what they
were up to. And I'm one of the few who still believes that content creators
(including more than just music and movies but also software) should be able
to choose how they distribute their work and how much to charge, if anything.
Piracy is taking these creations and distributing them freely or for your own
profit while the creator is getting screwed out of the money they should get
for their work.

I also see how this sets a dangerous precident and law makers are heading down
a slippery slope. There's obviously much room for abuse and cronyism.

So my question is, are we framing this the right way? The torrent sites seem
to be bringing up these issues in an effort to deflect, distract from what
they're doing, and sometimes even excuse it. Their actions and the actions of
other illegal operators are what is causing the crackdown and creating a space
for large companies and law makers to exploit with overreaching laws.

So while this stuff is definitely dangerous, how come we don't talk about
making the pirates irrelevant so we can remove their excuse? If piracy wasn't
so prevalent online then we could strengthen our argument while weakening
theirs. The post would be more credible from any other site but coming from
torrentfreak it comes off as propaganda even though I agree with them (just
not what they do)!

~~~
Zirro
I was strictly against piracy a few years ago. Nowadays it's a daily activity.
What happened?

I realized what the media companies were actually doing, how DRM hurts the
people who actually pay for the product and all these enormous sums they force
people to pay for a few cases of infringement.

I don't want my money to go to these corporations, that's why I'd choose to
pirate over buying today.

That said, my 6 terabytes of content contain no illegal music and just a few
large American-produced movies. It's mostly anime, documentaries and Swedish
TV. The anime and documentaries I have because I simply can't buy them here.
There's no way for me to consume this content legally in a way that I prefer.
The Swedish TV I store so that I, one day, can show my favourite shows to my
future kids (I'm doing backup on backup), and I'm not even sure if that's
illegal, considering I pay TV-license and all.

Well, that's my case, I'm not sure which kind of pirate I am, but I know that
as long as the media companies take a large slice of the money that's supposed
to go to the artists, and use it to fight against the public, I don't want
them to get a single penny from me.

~~~
billpatrianakos
I get that. I have heard of how DRM hurts people and I do know that artists
get screwed by their labels. But is piracy really a solution? Are you really
protesting or are you using that as an excuse to make yourself feel better?
Though the artists do get screwed by labels, piracy also hurts them. I admit
that a few years ago I acquired a large collection of movies of music through
piracy. These days I feel differently.

This is tricky because I see your point but there also has to be a better
solution. I feel like these reasons stifle progress that may solve your
problems. Do you think if piracy were curbed a lot then maybe some company
would take advantage of a space In the market and somehow let you get content
you can't in the US? Maybe even these companies supporting SOPA may do it?
Maybe I'm naive. Ive got some reading to do for sure on this. Thank you for
honestly answering my question.

~~~
DanBC
> _I have heard of how DRM hurts people and I do know that artists get screwed
> by their labels. But is piracy really a solution?_

In the UK it is a criminal offence to bypass copyright protection measures,
but it is a civil offence to download a movie. Thus, it is more illegal for me
to go and buy a DVD which I then play on my Linux laptop than it is for me to
just torrent it. (Whether anyone bothers to actually enforce these laws is
another matter)

~~~
younata
> Thus, it is more illegal for me to go and buy a DVD which I then play on my
> Linux laptop than it is for me to just torrent it.

Huh. I have several hard drives filled up with dvds that I've ripped. I always
that it was at least slightly less illegal (if not completely legal) for me to
do that than it would be for me to just torrent the content.

On the other hand, I'm in the US, so things may be completely reversed here.

------
zotz
This safely falls under the idea of "legal plunder".

Could you imagine the screaming and wailing if a .gov domain got jacked?

------
maeon3
The Internet is under attack. We need Eben Moglen's freedom box:

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgu8NUm5Zxk>

Forcing a website off the internet is like snatching my vocal chords out of my
neck when they are about to vocalize something objectionable.

