Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Government Piracy The Internet United States Your Rights Online

DOJ Ramping Up Crackdown On Copyright-Infringing Sites 366

Posted by Soulskill
from the let-joe-pesci-sort-'em-out dept.
An anonymous reader writes "The Obama administration is just getting started in its mission to shut down rogue websites that illegally share copyrighted content such as movies and music. The White House's intellectual property czar, Victoria Espinel, said Monday that the Internet community should 'expect more of that' pre-emptive action as the administration ramps up its efforts to combat online copyright infringement — especially the illegal copying and sale of pharmaceutical drugs."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

DOJ Ramping Up Crackdown On Copyright-Infringing Sites

Comments Filter:
  • Next up (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Dyinobal (1427207) on Monday December 06, 2010 @03:20PM (#34463100)
    Christ what next declaring another stupid war, like 'the war on drugs'. How long before they start to censor sites with political views not approved by the government, or blocking sites deemed 'risks to national security'. I really get tired of my country trying to police and control everything. What ever happened to wanting more freedom.
    • Re:Next up (Score:4, Interesting)

      by chemicaldave (1776600) on Monday December 06, 2010 @03:26PM (#34463202)

      How long before they start to censor sites with political views not approved by the government, or blocking sites deemed 'risks to national security'. I really get tired of my country trying to police and control everything. What ever happened to wanting more freedom.

      That's quite a leap you're making. I'f you're really upset then why not write a letter to your congressman and/or donate to the EFF?

      • Re:Next up (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 06, 2010 @03:35PM (#34463402)

        I'f you're really upset then why not write a letter to your congressman ...

        I find rubbing my lucky rabbit foot to be much more effective - and pleasant.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        quite a leap? hardly so imo. This thought i think is verified in the internet kill switch debate. A button(essentially) to disable any website deemed harmful or infringing, if u think use of that will stop at copyright u are ignorant of politics and american history. Case and point= Wikileaks(i know we are all sick of hearing the name) they keep getting taken down based on a political reasons, not legal ones.

        U dont lose rights, they are eroded away.

        • A button(essentially) to disable any website deemed harmful or infringing

          And to think, China was content to just block their own subje^Wcitizens from seeing it but, by gum, WE gotta wipe em off the face of the internet...

      • Well, I suppose we can wait and see what they do with Wikileaks...
      • I don't think its as far a leap as you might make it sound. If "Pre-Emptive" action gets too comfortable with internet laws, its not a far step to getting around regular warrant procedures.

      • by houghi (78078)

        Write a letter? They light up their fat cigars they got as a present from the MAFIAA. So all that is left is the EFF, although that would mean a battle between lawyers and then they will change the law.

        So as long as the majority of people does not show any interest, I would say we are doomed.

    • Re:Next up (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Ancantus (1926920) on Monday December 06, 2010 @03:30PM (#34463302) Homepage Journal
      "Day by day and almost minute by minute the past was brought up to date. In this way every prediction made by the Party could be shown by documentary evidence to have been correct; nor was any item of news, or any expression of opinion, which conflicted with the needs of the moment, ever allowed to remain on record." ~ 1984 by George Orwell
    • Re:Next up (Score:4, Interesting)

      by retech (1228598) on Monday December 06, 2010 @03:36PM (#34463426)
      Too late Joe Lieberman has already proposed legislation to say that:

      All gov't communications are classified. Leaking a classified document is an act of terrorism. Default to Patriot Act.

      Give them a few years and we'll not be able to object to anything.

      • by blair1q (305137)

        How you solve that is you don't vote for Joe Lieberman. Vote for someone who won't do that.

        • by Fry-kun (619632)

          Yeah, vote for Mickey Mouse - he doesn't have an agenda!

        • Re:Next up (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Runaway1956 (1322357) on Monday December 06, 2010 @03:59PM (#34463826) Homepage Journal
          Have you forgotten how the (un)Patriot act was passed? Remember the days after 9/11, while the Anthrax scare was really raging? Every sniveling, whining dog in Washington wanted action, immediately, to take the fear out of their timid little hearts. They ALL voted for the (un)Patriot act - liberals, conservatives, libertarians, male and female, black and white, straight and queer, big and little, it just didn't matter who or what they were. In fact, the (un)Patriot act alone makes the best single argument in favor of the conspiracy nuts who think it was an inside job.
          • by blair1q (305137)

            How you solve that is don't let people like bin Laden think that blowing up buildings will work.

            • by sjames (1099)

              That's hard to do when it works so well!

              He orchestrated a single attack and got our own government to spend the next 9 years and counting trashing our country for him.

              • by blair1q (305137)

                I think we trashed his country, and a couple of its neighbors, quite a bit more.

                • by Rakarra (112805)

                  I think we trashed his country, and a couple of its neighbors, quite a bit more.

                  And he's fine with that sacrifice. As long as it takes us down, that's really all that matters.

                • Re:Next up (Score:4, Insightful)

                  by sjames (1099) on Monday December 06, 2010 @04:58PM (#34464710) Homepage

                  He's from Saudi Arabia.

                  He moved to Afghanistan, but that was already trashed by the Soviets and then again by the Taliban.

                  Given his beliefs, he probably would have gotten around to attacking Iraq eventually, but we saved him the trouble.

                  As for MORE, that's a matter of perspective. Neither his birth country, any country he lives in, nor their neighbors have given up the fundamental ideas behind their foundation. We keep chiseling away at our own foundation.

          • Re:Next up (Score:4, Informative)

            by XxtraLarGe (551297) on Monday December 06, 2010 @04:17PM (#34464098) Journal

            They ALL voted for the (un)Patriot act - liberals, conservatives, libertarians, male and female...

            Uh, not all [wikipedia.org].

          • In the 107th Congress, there were:

            *Senate:
            - Dean Barkley (I - MN) [Independence Party of Minnesota]

            *House of Representatives:
            - Bernie Sanders (I - VT) [democratic socialist, only one actually]
            -Jim Jeffords (I - VT) [Former Republican]

          • For the 2001 Patriot Act:
            Republicans: 98.6% Yeas
            Democrats: 70.0% Yeas

            For the 2006 Renewal:
            Republicans: 94.3% Yeas
            Democrats: 34.7% Yeas

            The Patriot Act was passed unquestioningly TWICE by the GOP. Once with some questions by the Dems and rejected once by the Dems. And if you broke this into the liberals vs conservatives, the libs would have never passed it.

            Lets try to be factual about this. It really is sad that just a few days ago I had to prove to someone that the democrats voted against entering
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Stregano (1285764)
      Oh no, it is still a war on drugs since they are going after people that clone prescription drugs. See, our government gets no piece of the pie when people do that, so this is just a nice way for them to go after those places and say they are going after all copyright infringement. Remember, we now live in CSA (Corporate States of America). If it is not about money that is thrown to CSA, they won't bother
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by blair1q (305137)

      Why do you think that shutting down theives is the same thing as shutting down newspapers?

      Seriously, the depth of cluelessness that surrounds this issue is abyssal.

      The government protects MPAA and RIAA members against torrent sites. Given.

      But if you were ever so industrious as to write something that was worth something, the government would protect you from the MPAA, the RIAA, and itself.

      • Re:Next up (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Mordok-DestroyerOfWo (1000167) on Monday December 06, 2010 @03:48PM (#34463662)
        Perhaps artists should look into either creating new work or getting a real job like the rest of us instead of expecting to get paid in perpetuity. Any work done should automatically go into the public domain after 30 years regardless of whether or not the artist is still living. Righs should also be non-transferable. Copyright is a contract between artists and society, they create work and we grant them a temporary monopoly on distribution, what's happened is they still have their monopoly but are refusing to let the work fall into the public domain. The market is adjusting accordingly.
        • by Amouth (879122)

          i always have problems when people try to put a # on how long it should last.. 30 years? why not 29? or 31?

          i personally thing it should be for the life of the artist.. the actual person who created it.. not the company .. but the person to whom it came from.

          sure this brings other questions when dealing with companies and other crap.. but i feel that if i made something i should have the say in how that is used.. but once i'm dead.. there isn't shit i can do about it.

          and while i will agree that you sho

          • Re:Next up (Score:4, Insightful)

            by Mordok-DestroyerOfWo (1000167) on Monday December 06, 2010 @04:55PM (#34464662)
            I think the 30 year mark is just a nice round number that to the average person represents an appreciable amount of time...but not too much. The problem I have with the lifetime of the artist is with bands. If you had a band of 4 people and 3 have died, does the copyright die with you? What if you replaced your drummer at year 5, does the copyright of everything between years 1-4 not apply to him? Thirty years seems like an ample amount of time to profit from a work, and in all honesty having copyrights expire within the lifetime of the artist (in my mind at least) will encourage them to create more work. It's a song, not a retirement plan.
        • by Sycraft-fu (314770) on Monday December 06, 2010 @05:19PM (#34465104)

          I support copyright. You need to be able to make money from creative works if we want people who work on that kind of thing full time. So there has to be some kind of protection, exclusivity, otherwise you can't make money in a capitalist society. Now if you want to replace capitalism with something else, that's another issue so let's not discuss that here. However in the framework we have, we need something like copyright.

          Fine, however we need to recognize that it IS an artificial construct, and the only reason we have it is to, as the Constitution says "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts." Well to best do that it needs to be a reasonably limited period. That ensures a few things:

          1) You can't just make money forever by doing one thing. If you wish to continue to make money, you'll have to continue to make new works.

          2) It ensures works get distributed, not locked away. When they are under copyright you want to distribute it so you can make money for the short period permitted, and after that anyone can distribute it.

          3) It allows for others to build on existing works. Creativity does not exist in a vacuum, we build on idea from the past. When idea enter the public domain it allows them to be used as the foundations of new ones.

          So I agree, we need a shorter copyright term. Personally I'd do it something like thus:

          Upon the creation of a work you get an automatic 10 year copyright, no work required. This means that even if you create something you don't think has value, but realize later it does you aren't screwed. During this time you have unlimited control and rights over the work. You do as you please with it. At the end of 10 years you have three choices:

          1) Do nothing, the work then falls in to the public domain.

          2) Register for an exclusive extension. You then receive another 10 years of exclusive, unlimited control. After that the work will be public domain.

          3) Register for a non-exclusive extension. You then receive another 30 years of rights, however you are required to license derivative works for a standardized fee to all that want it. You can profit from your work, and from the derivatives, but you MUST license it for derivatives and the fee you get is fixed.

          My objection now is this forever copyright thing we've got going.

    • I am disappointed. I RTFA and saw no mention how I was supposed to be able to copy and pirate drugs over the internet. I had utorrent all fired up and waiting for the torrent to download some good codeine and cocaine.
    • Re:Next up (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ubermiester (883599) * on Monday December 06, 2010 @04:18PM (#34464110)

      How long before they start to censor sites with political views not approved by the government, or blocking sites deemed 'risks to national security'

      That's the kind of thinking that leads to statements like "If we let gay people get married, what's next - marrying your dog?" Please stop the Bush/Obama=Hilter madness. If you're going to make the case for hypothetical future govt abuses, at least come up with something remotely based on reality.

      Similarly, selling bootleg DVDs on the street is illegal and those who do so are shut down and arrested/fined. This has not in any way led to the shutdown of legit video stores that sell "objectionable" content. To make that link is to create a classic straw-man.

      tired of my country trying to police and control everything

      By any measurable standard, the average American citizen has more freedom of movement and behavior than anyone in human history. And the trend continues. Gay/inter-racial marriage, hardcore porn, sodomy, public nudity, medical marijuana, etc, etc, etc. There has been an explosion of new rights and freedoms in the 20th century. What freedoms do you feel you have lost?

      If you're concerned about your right to steal music/movies/books/etc by getting them from torrent sites, then you are claiming that your "right" to steal trumps the creator's (intellectual) property rights. Not exactly what you had in mind I don't think, but that's what you're complaining about in the current context.

      • Re:Next up (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Mordok-DestroyerOfWo (1000167) on Monday December 06, 2010 @04:31PM (#34464294)
        For the record I do believe homosexuals have the right to get married, but to play Devil's advocate, would you support polygamy? It's the same logic in that the people entering into the contract are consenting adults who happen to have a different way of expressing their love/sexuality.
      • the average American citizen has more freedom of movement and behavior than anyone in human history. And the trend continues. Gay/inter-racial marriage, hardcore porn, sodomy, public nudity, medical marijuana, etc, etc, etc

        What parts of the country allow such things and what is the cheapest ticket to... oh, you meant separately, didn't you?

    • by syousef (465911)

      Christ what next declaring another stupid war, like 'the war on drugs'. How long before they start to censor sites with political views not approved by the government, or blocking sites deemed 'risks to national security'. I really get tired of my country trying to police and control everything. What ever happened to wanting more freedom.

      Well since they're cracking down on pharmaceutical IP rights, perhaps they can call this "The war on the poor and sick or infirm".

    • Once someone puts up a political view on one of these websites it puts the government in a position of censoring that.

  • Nice... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TrisexualPuppy (976893) on Monday December 06, 2010 @03:20PM (#34463108)
    So I won't be able to order Pfizer terramycin from Greece anymore and will be required to spend 10x the amount and purchase it locally?
    • Even worse, I fear that they might shut down my Viagra torrent site!
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Do you know why it costs more locally? Just like chip makers have runs of "the good stuff" and the items that won't work at the original intended speed that they then mark as a lower speed and sell for less, drug makes have batches that meet local regulations and ones that don't. If a batch doesn't meet US federal regulations it is sent to some country where it DOES meet the regulations. This may be fine for you if, for example, your needs only require your pill be within 30% tolerance of the labeled amount
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by crypticedge (1335931)

        Do you know why it costs more locally? Just like chip makers have runs of "the good stuff" and the items that won't work at the original intended speed that they then mark as a lower speed and sell for less, drug makes have batches that meet local regulations and ones that don't. If a batch doesn't meet US federal regulations it is sent to some country where it DOES meet the regulations. This may be fine for you if, for example, your needs only require your pill be within 30% tolerance of the labeled amount. But if you required 95% tolerance - you would have to pay more for it. Some countries have higher purity / tolerance standards than the US. Buy brand name drugs from there: you'll find they are more expensive than in the US. It is all about how much it costs to make and which batches meet the requirements of which place.

        Incorrect. The US has higher drug costs because we have trade agreements with most other countries that states we will foot the entire cost of research and development for any drug made by US companies, even if the research happens overseas. Thats why you can get some drugs in Canada for 5% of the total cost of the same drug in the US. It has nothing to do with the purity, and entirely due to those trade agreements.

        If people really cared about the cost of medicine in the US that would be one of the first th

  • Cognitive Dissonance (Score:4, Interesting)

    by The Living Fractal (162153) <banantarr@NoSPAM.hotmail.com> on Monday December 06, 2010 @03:25PM (#34463192) Homepage
    I'm struck with CD... As an artist, a musician, I don't want my work to be copied and people to 'take advantage' of me. But on the other hand, I feel like copyright is an artificial device that only hurts the economy and, on a higher level, human progress as a whole. We can't have 'copied' drugs for much cheaper, thus some people who might have been able to afford said drugs are no longer able to... just to secure the profits of some corporation? I must be missing something here. Someone cure my CD?
    • by JTsyo (1338447)
      Who's going to research new drugs if the work will be stolen and sold for just the cost of production? The companies that need to do the research and then go through years of trials for approval needs the charge higher to make back the money they invest and to have funds for future research. Now asking what's the right amount to charge that gets tricky. there won't be any market forces since they'll be the only ones producing it.
      • by Stregano (1285764)
        and since they will lose their competition, prices will sky rocket. They can charge what they want as long as people keep buying them, which they will. Some people need to take this stuff to not die, so the big corporations will just get retarded about prices.
        • by JTsyo (1338447)
          If they didn't bother to make the drug in the first place, the patient would be in the same situation. Though I do agree that the cooperations markup price more than needed. Should the government be running drug research labs and then making the result available for others to produce?
      • by Compholio (770966)

        Who's going to research new drugs if the work will be stolen and sold for just the cost of production? The companies that need to do the research and then go through years of trials for approval needs the charge higher to make back the money they invest and to have funds for future research. ...

        The vast majority of this research is funded or subsidized by your tax dollars already. So, why exactly should these companies be making huge profits off of marginal investments in government work?

      • For starters, the government fronts a lot of the bill, with some estimates as high as 75%. Secondly, people are idiots that still buy Tylenol when generic acetaminophen is half the price (I've read that advertising is double the R&D costs on average). Other problems include the added costs of me-too drugs like Claritin and Clarinex, the latter of which hit the market just as Claritin patents were expiring, and Big Pharma pressuring docs to push new expensive drugs in what isn't far removed from payola
      • by Amouth (879122)

        ahh the reason that my little pills that make me able to move every day cost more than my fucking house payment..

        i agree what the "right amount" to charge is a tricky question... but i think we call all agree it's a lot less than what they are charging now.

        and no i'm not joking when i say that - my monthly medication costs more than my house payment - and without it i wouldn't be able to function.

    • "copied drugs" may not necessarily contain what they are advertised to. They may pose a health risk, or may not have as much active ingredient as they claim to.

      Plus I don't think most of the people getting them have had the legitimate alternatives prescribed to them by a doctor.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by benjamindees (441808)

      So, lemme get this straight. You're against copying music, because you create music. But you're for copying drugs, because you use drugs?

      Just think of it this way. If more people do drugs, then there would be more people creating music. More competition means fewer people buying your music. And that means you would have less money for lava lamps.

      So, as you can see, it's clearly in your interest to be against free drugs.

    • by pixelpusher220 (529617) on Monday December 06, 2010 @03:45PM (#34463584)
      What you call 'taking advantage of you' could also be called 'free advertising'. A copy of a work (song, painting), have previously been treated as a 'product' in and of themselves. That will change to being a 'physical copy'. A digital copy of a work can be reproduced perfectly and in an infinite supply.

      So that now the 'value' of a copy is going to be for practical purposes, zero.

      The music industry is fighting this, but simply can't win that war. Eventually new artists will skip the established labels and go straight online and the labels and 'old' companies will wither.

      As an artist, use the power of the internet to drive sales of the intangible things you create. Like playing a live concert, or an actual painting. That is the way of the future.

      And to be sure there will be some 'need' for a good marketing company to promote bands, but it will be less of the master/slave relationship that the labels currently have and more of the customer/client relationship that exists in normal non-monopoly situations.
      • by cdrguru (88047)

        The problem is that for most people once you have the zero-cost digital copy you have no need for the artist or his orginal physical copy. I claim that once I have seen Avatar a couple of times I have no need to possess it. Similarly, I don't need to possess the Mona Lisa having seen it.

        I don't really need to go to the concert if I have listened to the music. And I won't ever go, period. You can say that sufficient people will go to support the artist, but I seriously doubt that. In the last 50 years t

    • by Greyfox (87712)
      Copyright in some form is good. Copyright in its current form is bad. You should be able to retain control over your own work, and you should be able to make a living off of it. However, since the laws of the land are for sale to the highest bidder, Copyright has been subverted by corporations who want to be able to ride that money train until the end of time.

      To some extent sharing is also good, it helps get word of your art around. However you would hope that once someone has heard a song or two from you

    • by jbeaupre (752124)

      Could your indecision stems from wanting at least a little control of your work for at least a little while? Not absolute control for eternity?

      Well, that was what copyright was supposed to be: control for a limited time. Your gut instinct jives with what it was supposed to be. You get first crack at trying to commercialize your effort (or give it away), then after a few years anyone who could figure out how to use it was free to make a go of it.

      Same for someone who dumps money into writing a book, coming

    • I think it has more to do with people getting scheduled drugs, that they shouldn't more than it has to do with CD copying. Just a guess.

    • by gadlaw (562280)
      It would be worth your effort to take a look at the ways in which various artists are learning to monetize their efforts. From the work that Trent Reznor does with giving his work away and charging for higher quality sound files to selling tee shirts to other merchandise to engaging the community of fans for him in ways that keep interest up and keep his work relevant to jazz guys like Larry Carlton who has a best selling Jazz album out right now and is a major music artist but who also sells Instructional
  • by noobermin (1950642) on Monday December 06, 2010 @03:31PM (#34463332) Journal

    "DoJ's announcement immediately won the praise of the entertainment industry and renewed interest on Capitol Hill for legislation that would grant the administration additional power to shutter malicious and rogue websites."

    The entertainment industry. Yup, of the people, by the people, and for the people. More like the oligarchy.

    • by gstoddart (321705)

      The entertainment industry. Yup, of the people, by the people, and for the people. More like the oligarchy.

      And what really chaffs most about this is they pressured the US government to pressure other countries to adopt copyright legislation treaties more stringent than what the DMCA was, and then use that to basically cause the US to now have to adopt those as well.

      It's like they managed to negotiate on behalf of the oligopolies and then make everyone beholden to them. I've said before, the "entertainment/

    • by Nadaka (224565)

      Of the people, by the people and for the people (who own majority share in the worlds largest and wealthiest corporations).

    • by Stregano (1285764)
      That is why I now refer to the USA as the CSA (I just started calling it that in my last post, but it is a good term. Welcome to the Corporate States of America. For the corporations, but the corporations. Please enjoy your stay
    • by blair1q (305137)

      Sing us a song. If it's any good, the entertainment industry will include you.

  • New Boss = Old Boss

  • by Mysteray (713473) on Monday December 06, 2010 @03:47PM (#34463634) Homepage
    So if they keep this up, jacking with .com, .org, .net, etc. the only thing that's going to happen is that those top-level names will fall into disuse. Even if you could make .com have all the safety and law-abiding-ness of .museum, do you really want to?

    This is the first crack in the US's losing control of the internet. Not that the US or any one entity "controls" it per se, but we did have a big influence in the technical direction of it.

  • I wonder if this has anything to do with a certain poison-pill that has been circulating on the torrent sites.

  • by erroneus (253617) on Monday December 06, 2010 @04:03PM (#34463874) Homepage

    Wikileaks have shown in very clear detail how the U.S., often at the request of U.S. business (and isn't this exactly how imperialism works?), meddles in the affairs of other nations... sometimes with guns and explosives. The U.S. seems to be expanding or otherwise pushing its weight around a lot lately where pushing its agenda around. Now it is using its ICANN control to mess with DNS and it won't be long before IP routing is also a tool in its belt as well.

    All of this is going to (and already is) make people very angry with the U.S. and eventually stop doing business with U.S. companies out of principle. That will pretty much spell the end of the U.S. as we know it.

    The U.S. exists in a world among MANY nations. Once we turn the majority of them against us, we're in trouble... I think we already are.

    It's time for the U.S. to behave. The next round of Wikileaks will turn up the truth further by exposing the REAL causes of the problems -- world banks.

  • Which "high campaign donation" industry will the US gubmint protect next?

  • Far as I am concerned the U.S is abusing it's own law for the gain of the rich distribution companies. As this is not about the copyright infringement as they so often claim.

    The life time of a tv shows is short, less then five years for the poorer ones and up to few decades of years for the better ones. If you want to see what I mean, just check the re-runs at your tv station.

    Life time of movie is sometimes even shorter then of a tv show.

    In both cases there is also the rule that good stuff is going to going

  • Out of curiosity, what do they mean by "shutting down" websites? Remove domain names from DNS servers or really shutting down the physical servers? As far as I can see so far they have primarily fooled around with the international DNS system. If it's just that, who cares.

  • While comments seem to be transfixed on the "hip" rejection of authority, did anyone actually stop to consider the nature of the infringement?

    We're talking about people sharing content not for academic purposes, criticism or comment, but simply because some individuals believe that their convenience outweighs another party's right to control the distribution, exhibition or other presentation of their work, as well as the right to decide who to grant license to do the same.

    I use other copyrighted works all t

  • Wait... explain to me again how it is possible to get a patent on a chemical compound (as opposed to the method and process for producing that compound), especially a naturally occurring substance? If you're making money by ripping off other people's copyrighted material and selling it, you should go to jail. If you're saving lives by providing life-saving medication to people that otherwise could not afford it, the ethics are not as clearly defined.
  • Wow, I didn't know I could torrent viagra from the pirate bay!

    Gives whole new meaning to the term "Seeder"

  • by AdamWill (604569) on Monday December 06, 2010 @06:52PM (#34466504) Homepage

    never mind the debate about whether it's right to aggressively 'protect' the rights of pharma companies, did anyone actually see any pharmaceutical sites at all in the initial list of seized domains? I only remember file sharing sites and counterfeit fashion stuff.

    Sounds like the classic PR tactic to me: cite the most horrible possible thing your new law could be used to prevent, when it's actually going to be used for something entirely different. 'We need these CCTV cameras to protect us from child-molesting terrorists! (oh, but we're also going to use them to have you sent to Guantanamo Bay for parking illegally. But don't think about that too hard.)'

If you're not careful, you're going to catch something.

Working...