US DOJ Drops Charges Against Two Seized Websites 152
angry tapir writes "The U.S. Department of Justice has dropped its case against two Spanish websites that stream sports events nearly 17 months after U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement seized the sites and shut them down for alleged copyright violations. In a one-page brief to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on Wednesday, U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara of the district said his office had dropped the case against Rojadirecta.com and Rojadirecta.org. ICE seized the two sites on Jan. 31, 2011, and the DOJ asked the court to order that Puerto 80 Projects, the owner of the sites, forfeit the sites to the U.S. government."
Seizure without cause (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems that this tactic has some interesting consequences. The DOJ can seize the website, take it offline and make it unavailable to users. Thus removing all revenue streams. In the mean time, they wait. After a significant amount of time passes they go and "unsieze" the websites which now have lost revenue and users.
Seems to me like a use of the courts as a tool that they were not intended. What sort of remediation can the site owners take on the DOJ?
Re:Seizure without cause (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems that this tactic has some interesting consequences. The DOJ can seize the website, take it offline and make it unavailable to users. Thus removing all revenue streams. In the mean time, they wait. After a significant amount of time passes they go and "unsieze" the websites which now have lost revenue and users.
Seems to me like a use of the courts as a tool that they were not intended. What sort of remediation can the site owners take on the DOJ?
I've been saying this for a long time - if you're hosting something, doing it outside the US is a good plan. If you can host it somewhere that's US-hostile, even better (so long as the US doesn't bomb the datacentre).
Re:No even a "we're sorry?" (Score:5, Insightful)
What about the lost money? Time to sue.
And for damaged reputation and lost customers, due to those went to one of the seized sites, freaked out, then never visited again. Definitely damage was done to Puerto80 Projects (their owner), but can the the DOJ escape liability by claiming the seizure was not unlawful?
Re:Seizure without cause (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone with a .org, .net, .com, etc US controlled domain [slashdot.org] even if their servers are hosted elsewhere in the world won't escape a similar fate.
Re:No even a "we're sorry?" (Score:5, Insightful)
Better sue them for thousands of dollars for each potential lost customer! I estimate that they owe over 100 trillion dollars.
Re:Seizure without cause (Score:5, Insightful)
Seems to me like a use of the courts as a tool that they were not intended. What sort of remediation can the site owners take on the DOJ?
Intended by who? Somehow I suspect this was exactly what was intended by these kinds of seizure rules.
Winning court cases is hard. So, the solution has been to turn the process of justice into its own form of punishment. If you don't like somebody you accuse them of a crime, and seize half their possessions as evidence. Then you hold onto them for years, or drag them through a long and very expensive process. By the time it is over the person has lost their job, family, home, and is in a mountain of debt. At that point, does it really matter what the verdict is?
And seizure is often even worse - in many cases there may not even be an opportunity to mount a defense. The property is sezied, and the owner need not even be charged with a crime.
Re:Seizure without cause (Score:5, Insightful)
What remediation will happen? None. The government has sovereign immunity except under special cases. This would not qualify as you would have to prove they not only did not have a case but could never have reasonably thought they could ever have had a case. That isn't going to happen.
Time to go back to raw IP addresses (Score:2, Insightful)
Or finally kick the US off the Internet. Seems to me it will do a lot better without them holding things back.
Lazy or corrupt? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Careful with the opposition here (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Seizure without cause (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't know. May be Kim Dot Com is wondering the same.
Re:Careful with the opposition here (Score:2, Insightful)
Alas, actually they do.
In the USA today, pointing to a black man (or Native American (by which I mean, early immigrant, since there are no "native americans")) and saying "he did bad things" will invariably produce an outcry of "RACIST!!!".
Not that it matters in the end. A white man accusing a favoured minority of misconduct will be assumed to be racist automatically.
I'm torn on this. (Score:4, Insightful)
But i know the money is just going to come out of our pockets while the DOJ members sit happily sipping their overly expensive tea.
Government officials have no consequences, and that really needs to end.
Re:No even a "we're sorry?" (Score:5, Insightful)
courts rule that foreign companies do not have standing to sue
Standing seems to get in the way of justice quite often. We need to strongly consider removing these loopholes in our justice system that allow the government to commit crimes with impunity.
Re:No even a "we're sorry?" (Score:3, Insightful)
Best of luck getting any real opposition into Congress that will do it. Nothing's gonna change while the voters have their heads up their ass and keep reelecting these buttheads
Re:No even a "we're sorry?" (Score:4, Insightful)
It doesn't matter that it's unconstitutional unless you can demonstrate how it directly harms someone protected by the constitution. I, as a citizen, have no standing to object to the lawless practices of my government unless I am a direct victim of those practicse.
What I am suggesting is that a justice system where lawlessness is tolerated directly affects everyone subject to that justice system. Every citizen should have a right to a government that obeys the law. That is not the case in America today.
Re:No even a "we're sorry?" (Score:4, Insightful)
It's difficult to blame the voters when every candidate on the ballot is a butthead.
Varying definitions of "freedom" (Score:4, Insightful)
Muslim countries think they are the freest in the world. You are completely free to live your life according to Sharia. They actually don't see punishing speech "insulting" to Islam as an infringement on freedom of speech. They don't see putting apostates to death as an infringement on their religous freedom. But copies of copyrighted works are freely available for sale everywhere, with no compensation to the rights holder.
In the US you can say anything you want about any religion and can't be legally prosecuted (although the leftist "hate speech" trend is getting us there). You can flip between religions as you like, no punishment whatsoever. But put some movies up at a web site and the FBI may come down on you worse than if you'd murdered someone.
And, of course, release US secrets to the world, and the US will want to prosecute while its enemies cheer freedom and openness. Release the secrets of those enemies, suddenly they're not so hot on freedom and openness.