Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Piracy The Courts The Internet United States

US Pirate Movie Site DNS Seizure Fail 343

Posted by timothy
from the routing-around-it dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Last week, the US government in a highly publicized copyright protection frenzy took the extraordinary step of seizing domain names from foreign movie sites like NinjaVideo.net and TVshack.net. While the seizure raises confusing Internet legal / jurisdiction questions (the US and perhaps the state of Kentucky can seize domain names for foreign companies?), this study shows the legal issues may be moot — the raids mostly failed. Within hours of domain name seizure, tvshack.cc was back up and running (but this time using a Chinese registrar and a Cocos Islands ccTLD)."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

US Pirate Movie Site DNS Seizure Fail

Comments Filter:
  • by sopssa (1498795) * <sopssa@email.com> on Tuesday July 06, 2010 @01:41PM (#32813818) Journal

    More recently in 2008, Kentucky courts seized the domain names for 141 online gambling sites (all for companies based in other countries including Malta and Costa Rica). The Kentucky court action threatened to disrupt global traffic to PokerStars, Full Tilt, Absolute Poker and many others. As of March of this year the case is still winding its way through Kentucky appellate and supreme court (the case has been reversed then upheld and is currently resolving issues of standing).

    What gives US the right to seize domains of companies based in other countries and force their laws, views and things like ACTA and banning of internet casinos to citizens of other countries?

    You wouldn't want China to take down international sites that violate their laws, would you? Or radical countries like North Korea? It's not even just about Internet, but in general too. What makes it OK for USA to do so. Actually, instead of filtering maybe China should start just taking down the sites they don't like.

    Since US tries to put laws on the citizens of other countries, I say it's only fair other countries do the same. Like execute the death sentence of Facebook CEO [softpedia.com]. The best thing about this is that if Zuckerberg gets put into Interpol wanted list, he gets extradited to Pakistan as soon as he visits some other country. It's only fair, right?

  • by logjon (1411219) on Tuesday July 06, 2010 @01:45PM (#32813888)
    Please don't confuse us with our government. We're as fucking dumbstruck and horrified with this as you are. Just...wtf?
  • by OzPeter (195038) on Tuesday July 06, 2010 @01:49PM (#32813962)

    Please don't confuse us with our government. We're as fucking dumbstruck and horrified with this as you are. Just...wtf?

    You voted them in, so the're your responsibility. Unless you want to go the tin-foil hat route and say that the US populace has no influence or control over their government - in which case I would be looking for another country of residence.

  • by BigJClark (1226554) on Tuesday July 06, 2010 @01:49PM (#32813964)

    I think its a sign of desperation. They know they are losing the war, and instead of changing with the times, they are adopting basically undefensable, unwinnable strategies.

    I'm not forming an opinion on who's right or who's wrong, but I can tell you who is winning.
  • by wmbetts (1306001) on Tuesday July 06, 2010 @01:51PM (#32814008)

    Nothing gives the US that right. I'd say a fair amount of people here feel the same way I do about that (at least I hope so).

  • by logjon (1411219) on Tuesday July 06, 2010 @01:52PM (#32814030)
    I don't know if you realize this, but we have a 2 party system. Every four years, we're faced with a decision between a giant douche and a turd sandwich. The government is not accountable to us, so long as they're getting the terrorists.
  • by ArhcAngel (247594) on Tuesday July 06, 2010 @02:01PM (#32814192)

    Unfortunately there are a lot more like this lady [youtube.com] than there are of me.

  • by v1 (525388) on Tuesday July 06, 2010 @02:01PM (#32814198) Homepage Journal

    Streisand Effect [wikipedia.org] in motion perhaps? You'd think they would've learned this lesson by now? Or maybe they think it's working in their favor, "hey look at all the FREE PRESS we (RIAA) are getting!"

  • by WiglyWorm (1139035) on Tuesday July 06, 2010 @02:07PM (#32814270) Homepage
    Absolutely. I wanted to get a .gr domain, but I would have to be greek. Did I complain? No. I found another TLD.
  • Internet Rules (Score:1, Insightful)

    by helix2301 (1105613) on Tuesday July 06, 2010 @02:07PM (#32814278) Homepage
    The interesting thing is these admins that run these sites are more well versed in how the internet works then the people trying to take down the sites. They basically got taken down then outsmarted everyone by registering with another DNS in another country.
  • by ElectricTurtle (1171201) on Tuesday July 06, 2010 @02:09PM (#32814312)
    This should be the first and last post of the discussion, but of course this will turn into a why-I-hate-the-evil-US-imperialists topic, nevermind the fact that most other countries in the first world are more strict with their internets than we are, and the developing world regulate it into tiny pieces if it could. So, yeah, let's internationalize the internet and suffer the same sort of bullshit filtering and bullshit libel laws that exist in most of the rest of the world. That will be awesome.
  • by countertrolling (1585477) on Tuesday July 06, 2010 @02:15PM (#32814396) Journal

    I don't know where you vote, but my ballots frequently have more than two candidates on them, in addition to a write in option. You are perfectly free to choose as you please. The government is as accountable as we make it, and not one iota more. All this whining is just an attempt to shed personal responsibility.

  • by paeanblack (191171) on Tuesday July 06, 2010 @02:15PM (#32814398)

    I think its a sign of desperation. They know they are losing the war, and instead of changing with the times, they are adopting basically undefensable, unwinnable strategies.

    Given that I'd never heard of these sites until they got some federally subsidized free publicity, I'd have to agree with you.

    That said, I'd love to see the MPAA turn around and sue the Feds for contributory copyright infringement.

  • by shutdown -p now (807394) on Tuesday July 06, 2010 @02:19PM (#32814458) Journal

    Those rules are quite reasonable when talking about country TLDs (such as .us). The problem is that .com/.net/.org are semantically global, not US-specific. If you're a global company, you're supposed to have a .com. And that shouldn't automatically mean that US laws apply to you all of a sudden.

  • Re:PWn3d (Score:2, Insightful)

    by mcgrew (92797) * on Tuesday July 06, 2010 @02:22PM (#32814492) Homepage Journal

    I hope that was sarcasm, because most of the drug problems are caused by the drug laws themselves. We're having the same problems with drugs we had with alcohol during prohibition.

    Don't people ever learn from history?

  • by mldi (1598123) on Tuesday July 06, 2010 @02:25PM (#32814548)

    I don't know where you vote, but my ballots frequently have more than two candidates on them, in addition to a write in option. You are perfectly free to choose as you please. The government is as accountable as we make it, and not one iota more. All this whining is just an attempt to shed personal responsibility.

    Or it's just realistic. You can vote, technically, for whoever you want. But when the media and 99% of everyone else is touting a choice between a giant douche and a turd sandwich, the dumb masses of the public:
    a) won't vote for someone else in an organized effort
    b) think voting with "their" party is still the best option (even though their views might be wildly different), or
    c) have no idea what the other options are

    Realistically, you'd have to have more than a 2-party system in order to pull anything off. That means including more parties in official debates, getting some media exposure (they are currently largely ignored), etc. No exposure = no chance, and right now the media and the existing 2 major parties control the exposure, and thus the chance of anything different happening.

    It's not so black and white, and it's not about shedding personal responsibility. It's about what the current situation is.

    But yes, actions DO speak louder than words.

  • by countertrolling (1585477) on Tuesday July 06, 2010 @02:34PM (#32814690) Journal

    You, and only you are responsible for your vote. Propping up the regulars is your choice.

  • by WiglyWorm (1139035) on Tuesday July 06, 2010 @02:34PM (#32814694) Homepage
    Remember, mods there is no "-1 disagree" and troll is not a substitute. Personally, I find this a worthy point of discussion.
  • by countertrolling (1585477) on Tuesday July 06, 2010 @02:36PM (#32814714) Journal

    No write in? Then work your magic on the primaries

  • by jgagnon (1663075) on Tuesday July 06, 2010 @02:37PM (#32814722)

    It is not that other countries are saying their laws are worse than the US laws, it is the US saying theirs are better than everyone else. The sooner the US realizes it isn't alone in the world the better the world will be. The sooner the US realizes it isn't at the top of the totem pole for every issue the better the world will be. This blind arrogance needs to stop.

  • by natophonic (103088) on Tuesday July 06, 2010 @02:48PM (#32814922)

    Fortunately for you, people like that lady rarely can be bothered to actually go vote, whereas people like this lady [youtube.com] take it as their Holy Mission to get to the polls for every single general, primary, or school board election.

    Perhaps if we all didn't get so wrapped up in the moral panics and anger points politicians use to manipulate us, you and I could elect people who'd actually do something sane about things like IP laws and their enforcement... you know, "stuff that matters."

  • by OzPeter (195038) on Tuesday July 06, 2010 @02:56PM (#32815040)

    You obviously have tuned in to all of none of the shows.

    I have tuned in to quite a few of those shows and find in general that their discussions are so propped up by logical fallacies and bad research that they are a joke.

    • I have heard Rush emphatically contradict himself and also use emotive methods to try and slip invalid arguments past critical thinkers.
    • I have heard Hannity complain about politicians not wanting to come on his show and accusing them of basically hating him - yet continue to refer to them with denigrating language.
    • I have heard Beck take lots of topics, focus on some small part of them and beat it to death without considering the whole, because he can't understand overall consequences.
    • I have heard Savage yell and scream and shout down people who disagreed with his extremist views and then whine about how the UK won't let him in.
  • by shutdown -p now (807394) on Tuesday July 06, 2010 @02:59PM (#32815094) Journal

    It's not a problem. The servers, and companies running these TLDs are american companies running their servers in the US. As such, they have to obey US laws. Just like Google China has to obey US laws and Google US has to obey US laws: do (physical|legal) business in a location, obey the laws of the place.

    Like I said, the problem isn't that servers on US soil have to obey US laws - that's perfectly reasonable. The problem rather is that servers for what are effectively international TLDs are on US soil (and don't have any special arrangements for exterritoriality, the way e.g. foreign embassies do).

  • by selven (1556643) on Tuesday July 06, 2010 @03:00PM (#32815112)

    The US is always right. That's why the US can have 2400 active warheads while Iran having even one is geopolitical heresy, why the US pushing copyright on the rest of the world is acceptable while China pushing internet censorship on just their own citizens is not, and why the US can invade Afghanistan and Iraq while Russia can't invade Georgia.

    At least that's what the US media says. I imagine Pravda et al. are equally biased in their own directions.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 06, 2010 @03:04PM (#32815188)

    Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos. -Homer Simpson

  • by bjourne (1034822) on Tuesday July 06, 2010 @03:20PM (#32815496) Homepage Journal
    Don' you in the US have some laws that prevent your authorities from randomly seizing property? The operators of the sites have not been called to any trial, have had no verdict against them and from what has been reported, no investigation has even been opened. It is understandable if they would have seized the servers, as those can be used as evidence in a trial. Domain names on the other hand can not, which makes it plainly obvious that the only reason for their seizure was to disrupt the websites operations.
  • by bit9 (1702770) on Tuesday July 06, 2010 @03:22PM (#32815520)

    And this is why third-party voting in the US fails so miserably. "I don't wanna waste my vote by voting for a guy who actually represents what I want in government. I wanna vote for someone who might win."

    You are absolutely right about why there is no viable third party in the US.

    However, you are completely and utterly missing the GP's point (at least I think you are - I don't speak for him, obviously).

    The point is not that we are forced to vote for one of the two main parties, lest we waste our votes.

    The point is that even when we do vote for a 3rd party candidate, it has essentially zero effect, precisely because of the problem you mentioned, and thus, those of us who do vote for 3rd party candidates are truly not responsible for the actions of our government.

    Your point does not rebut the GP's point - it supports it.

  • by commodore64_love (1445365) on Tuesday July 06, 2010 @03:24PM (#32815560) Journal

    >>>You voted them in, so the're your responsibility.

    No I didn't. I have never voted for Bush, never voted for Obama, and never voted for my current Democrat asshole in Congress (Arlen Spewtrum) Actually I may have voted for him back when I was in college and stupid, but not anytime during the 2000s. Also as I'm sure you're aware, whether I vote D or R makes no difference. They are both Progressives, both pushing for bigger government, both inching us toward neo-feudalism (you're a serf and congress is your master).

    I wish I could vote for someone like Ron Paul or Daniel Hannan or Nigel Farage, but these people never appear on my R or D ballot. It's just more of the same: "Let's make government bigger" candidates.

  • by daveime (1253762) on Tuesday July 06, 2010 @03:27PM (#32815628)

    Except in the case of BBC productions, we have ALREADY paid for it via the licence fee. Then if you want to watch a 25 year old Sci Fi show again, you have to shell out a futher 80 quid for DVDs that cost approx 12 pence each and a pretty box.

    It's not a case of downloaders being "cheap", it's a case of corporations being "too fucking expensive" (and double dipping).

  • by commodore64_love (1445365) on Tuesday July 06, 2010 @03:34PM (#32815778) Journal

    You're against anti-texting laws? Why? The AAA performed studies showing that texting-while-driving causes 2-3 times slower reaction time than drinking-and-driving. If DUI should be banned because it's dangerous, then so too should DWT (driving while texting) because it's much much worse.

    I almost got hit by a woman who was talking-while-driving. She blasted right through the red light as if it wasn't there, almost clipping my front end (fortunately I was only going 5 mph and could slow down quickly). These people are stupid. They CAN'T multitask because they're brains aren't smart enough. They should not be allowed to anything else while driving. It should be banned.

  • by mcgrew (92797) * on Tuesday July 06, 2010 @03:37PM (#32815852) Homepage Journal

    Yes, but not because of the internet, it's because of corporate power. The US (and maybe the whole world) had become a plutocracy, where legislation and law enforcement are blatantly for sale.

  • by countertrolling (1585477) on Tuesday July 06, 2010 @03:55PM (#32816236) Journal

    Actually my point is, if you vote for the status quo, then you are just as much a part of the problem as the drones. Compromising your vote is a sign of surrender, that you gave up. and you have a less than zero effect. You're "Just another brick in the wall". Voting for an alternative won't knock down the building, but at least it's a brick through the window. Like sinking a boat with a hundred lawyers on board, it's a start..

  • by ElectricTurtle (1171201) on Tuesday July 06, 2010 @04:01PM (#32816348)
    Just because Lincoln and his speeches are esteemed does not make them inherently right. Not to mention that he was responsible for overseeing the effective termination of the sovereignty of the individual states, so he would definitely see government as responsible only to the majority, and the minority should suffer any imposition the majority sees fit.

    Your concept is not hard, but you see simple does not automatically mean correct.

    A democracy is accountable only to the majority of its electorate within the bounds of its constitution. If you would like to demonstrate otherwise, you're going to have to do better than quoting political scripture.
  • by ravenspear (756059) on Tuesday July 06, 2010 @04:03PM (#32816372)
    The point is that even when we do vote for a 3rd party candidate, it has essentially zero effect

    In some cases it may even have the opposite effect intended.

    If everyone who voted for Nader in 2000 in Florida had voted for Gore (someone who as a Nader voter, they surely agreed with more than Bush), Gore would have won the election.
  • by commodore64_love (1445365) on Tuesday July 06, 2010 @04:12PM (#32816542) Journal

    >>>No, blasting through red lights like they're not there should be banned

    Yeah I'll really be comforted to know the woman-on-her-phone got a Red Light ticket, after I'm laying in my coffin. Wouldn't it make more sense to ban texting and DUI *before* I or someone else ends up killed? Yes.

  • by russ1337 (938915) on Tuesday July 06, 2010 @04:14PM (#32816582)

    If you vote for a third party fruitlessly you have wasted your chance to vote for your second choice party, and as a result your last choice party may get in.

    and unless you can break the cycle, as each election goes by your country will head further and further away from what you want it to be.

  • by shutdown -p now (807394) on Tuesday July 06, 2010 @06:37PM (#32818546) Journal

    Look, I don't know how else can I make it clear. I'm absolutely not against US laws being applied to US servers! What I don't like is that .com is a "US domain name" in the first place. It shouldn't be - there's .us for that, and .com/.net/.org are international, and should be handled as such. If US laws must apply to every site hosted under a generic TLD, something is wrong about the way gTLDs are managed.

    The BBC does very well in .uk because it's British Broadcasting Corporation. Indeed, kudos to them for using the right domain name for their website. And yet there are many other entities for which .com would be proper (and a national TLD would not).

  • $10 (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Lehk228 (705449) on Tuesday July 06, 2010 @08:43PM (#32820146) Journal
    so they seized an asset that costs a whole $10 to replace.

    i bet they don't even realize how pointless and stupid it was
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 06, 2010 @10:49PM (#32821040)

    Comprehension FAIL. His other choice is the turd sandwich.

To the systems programmer, users and applications serve only to provide a test load.

Working...