Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Judge Orders Hundreds of Websites Delisted From Search Engines, Social Networks

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the what-on-earth dept.

Google 308

An anonymous reader writes "A federal judge has ruled that a number of a websites trafficking in counterfeit Chanel goods can have their domains seized and transferred to a new registrar. Astonishingly, the judge also ordered that the sites must be de-indexed from all search engines and all social media websites. Quoting the article: 'Missing from the ruling is any discussion of the Internet's global nature; the judge shows no awareness that the domains in question might not even be registered in this country, for instance, and his ban on search engine and social media indexing apparently extends to the entire world. (And, when applied to U.S.-based companies like Twitter, apparently compels them to censor the links globally rather than only when accessed by people in the U.S.) Indeed, a cursory search through the list of offending domains turns up poshmoda.ws, a site registered in Germany. The German registrar has not yet complied with the U.S. court order, though most other domain names on the list are .com or .net names and have been seized.'"

cancel ×

308 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

For non US-filtered search results (5, Informative)

CmdrPony (2505686) | more than 2 years ago | (#38208224)

If you don't want your search results filtered by US, use Yandex [yandex.ru] or alternatively Baidu [baidu.com] .

There is also European StartPage / Ixquick [startpage.com] , but it's more for privacy. It aggregates results from Google and other search engines, so US censors still apply. Yandex and Baidu are completely independant search engines.

Sadly, this is what US has become.

all your bases are belong to us (5, Funny)

hguorbray (967940) | more than 2 years ago | (#38208244)

but, but...we own the world...Jesus said so... and we have the debts and the enemies to prove it!

I'm just sayin

Re:all your bases are belong to us (5, Insightful)

CmdrPony (2505686) | more than 2 years ago | (#38208954)

Yes, and at least US still has freedom of speech!

Disclaimer: Free Speech valid only in participating areas and Free Speech Zones. May be revoked at will for reasons of fear, political power, religious, ethnic or economic sensibilities. Not valid in airports or theaters. Subject to taxation and regulation. Can be exercised only with permission of media owners when applicable. Not for use afte 9:00 PM local time in town squares, plazas or Wall Street. Identification required. May not be used in the face of law enforcement. May not be used to express politically embarrassing information in wiki form in front of the world at large. Penalties will be incurred if anyone considers said free speech to be promoting of terrorism, or is considered annoying to monied interests, or is enacted by too many people in a public place. Does not apply in the context of an employer/employee relationship. Free speech may not be encrypted in certain areas; check your local laws. Subject to revocation at will by government and corporate interests. Additional fees may apply.

Re:all your bases are belong to us (3, Insightful)

jd2112 (1535857) | more than 2 years ago | (#38208992)

Free speech with the purchase of any congressman.

Re:For non US-filtered search results (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38208260)

You are a very naughty boy.

Re:For non US-filtered search results (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38208284)

They're banning illegal counterfeit goods to protect consumers. I think that all you whiners need to DRINK YO PRUNE JUICE.

Re:For non US-filtered search results (5, Insightful)

cslax (1215816) | more than 2 years ago | (#38208376)

That's irrelevant to the general problem. Yes, they are counterfeit goods in this case, but this country LOVES precedent. But where does it stop? Can I bring down a website because it is opposite to the views of Congress? If this is going to be continued, there needs to be strict legal guidelines to prevent abuse of power from ANY power. This is what is worrisome.

Re:For non US-filtered search results (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38208624)

Can I bring down a website because it is opposite to the views of Congress?

No no, don't be ridiculous - we already have a solution for such things - if a PERSON makes a website counter to the views of congress the logical course of action is to take down their COUNTRY.

Re:For non US-filtered search results (2)

fusiongyro (55524) | more than 2 years ago | (#38208764)

Can I bring down a website because it is opposite to the views of Congress?

I realize you're just trying to make a point, but this makes no sense whatsoever. How would this work, exactly?

Re:For non US-filtered search results (2)

Paracelcus (151056) | more than 2 years ago | (#38209176)

"there needs to be strict legal guidelines to prevent abuse of power from ANY power"
The government has shown time & time again that they are above the law!

Re:For non US-filtered search results (2)

masternerdguy (2468142) | more than 2 years ago | (#38208420)

How does censoring the internet help consumers? A smart consumer will recognize that "rollex-official-site-buy".cn isn't the official website for rollexes.

Re:For non US-filtered search results (3, Insightful)

tautog (46259) | more than 2 years ago | (#38208832)

But, apparently, enough of the other 97% still click the link.

Re:For non US-filtered search results (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38208946)

You mean 99.9%.

Re:For non US-filtered search results (1)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 2 years ago | (#38209096)

But, apparently, enough of the other 97% still click the link.

And... what? Will the link explode? Or will the cheap Rolex replica strangle the owner?

Just who is actually in danger and need protection?

Re:For non US-filtered search results (3, Informative)

CmdrPony (2505686) | more than 2 years ago | (#38209202)

Just who is actually in danger and need protection?

US companies, of course. Frankly, people who travel overseas will buy them at will, fully knowing they are cheap replicas. And usually they also get a good product, only without the huge profit margin to company that made it.

Re:For non US-filtered search results (4, Insightful)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 2 years ago | (#38209064)

They're banning illegal counterfeit goods to protect consumers

Protect consumer from what? What is so dangerous in a cheap counterfeit Coco Channel purse or a Rolex replica?

Re:For non US-filtered search results (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38209136)

No consumers are being protected by this court order. The site mentioned in the blurb has a title reading "Designer Replica Handbags, Replica Handbags, Imposter Designer Handbags," all the product overviews prominently label their stuff as "replica". If anyone claims to have bought those believing they were genuine, they are probably Impostors.

Re:For non US-filtered search results (5, Informative)

Baloroth (2370816) | more than 2 years ago | (#38208296)

Oh, the irony! [wikipedia.org] (for those who don't wanna click even on a Wikipedia link: Baidu is a Chinese search engine and is one, and probably the, worst at censorship of all search engines.)

Re:For non US-filtered search results (5, Funny)

brusk (135896) | more than 2 years ago | (#38208332)

On the contrary, they're GREAT at censorship.

Re:For non US-filtered search results (3, Insightful)

CmdrPony (2505686) | more than 2 years ago | (#38208348)

The largest irony is in people saying how Google or US doesn't censor search results, but like this court order and the various "x number of search results have been removed from the page after complaints from copyright owners" text in search results. Different issues, but just as much censoring.

Re:For non US-filtered search results (2)

Entrope (68843) | more than 2 years ago | (#38208608)

There is definitely less -- and less harmful -- censorship in Google's results. Chinese search engines block results by words and phrases (what kind of results do you think you'd get for "Tiananmen Square"?). Google blocks results by URL (which is easier to change without changing the message).

Re:For non US-filtered search results (2, Informative)

CmdrPony (2505686) | more than 2 years ago | (#38208770)

Less harmful is defined by your culture and population. Remember that most Chinese believe that it's for the country's good that government tries to keep some control. You probably wouldn't want your home, place of work and everything you've worked for your whole life pillaged by rioters. Just think about it from the eyes of Chinese.

On the other hand, what China censors on their search engine (ie., riots, Tienanmen square, etc to keep peace) is much less harmful than what US does with some mere cheap goods. But yeah, maybe it's a cultural thing and material stuff is important to you than your life.

Re:For non US-filtered search results (4, Insightful)

DarkOx (621550) | more than 2 years ago | (#38208826)

There is no such thing as "less harmful" where censorship is concerned. We know for the experience every society has had with it going back to the start of the written word, that once you start censoring it never stops. Today its websites that might be violating copyright, tomorrow its anything a senator does not like said about him, the day after its whatever some corporation does not want you be able to publish.

All public censorship is harmful, and it should always be opposed vehemently.

Re:For non US-filtered search results (2)

rtaylor (70602) | more than 2 years ago | (#38209114)

There is no such thing as "less harmful" where censorship is concerned.

So there is no type of content that you would make illegal to distribute or possess?

Re:For non US-filtered search results (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38209058)

Remember that most Chinese believe that it's for the country's good that government tries to keep some control.

I'm Chinese and I despise sinophile apologist fucks like you. You have no right to speak for anyone.

Re:For non US-filtered search results (1, Insightful)

Entrope (68843) | more than 2 years ago | (#38209068)

On the off chance that you're not trolling in a phenomenally stupid manner: Take your cultural relativism and your totalitarian apologetics and shove them where the sun doesn't shine.

My "less harmful" was meant primarily in the sense that a posteriori censorship of known content is more specific (less likely to result in an unintended match) than a priori censorship based on keywords or similar patterns. But if you want to look at it from a moral perspective, then yes, Google's censorship of sites selling illegal wares is still less harmful than China's censorship of peaceful dissent.

Re:For non US-filtered search results (2)

mr1911 (1942298) | more than 2 years ago | (#38208740)

censor

censoring

People keep using these words but do not seem to understand what they mean.

A judge ruling in favor of a company seeking to protect their trademarks is not government censorship.

A judge ruling that search engines must de-index sites offering counterfeit wares is stupid and practically unenforceable, but not censorship.

Re:For non US-filtered search results (2)

CmdrPony (2505686) | more than 2 years ago | (#38208932)

Judge works for government. A judge ruling that domains should be taken down (especially so with other countries TLD's!) and search results censored from the search results is a government-sanctioned filtering.

Just because you think "oh well, at least we can still say (almost) anything (almost) anywhere", doesn't make it any less censoring.

Re:For non US-filtered search results (4, Insightful)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 2 years ago | (#38208964)

A judge ruling in favor of a company seeking to protect their trademarks is not government censorship.

That depends entirely on how the judge implements enforcement of his ruling.

A judge ruling that search engines must de-index sites offering counterfeit wares is stupid and practically unenforceable, but not censorship.

I disagree.

The search engines are publishing the existence of the counterfeit wares sites upon the request of the people using the search engines. The judge is telling the SEs that they are not allowed to report facts (that is, the existence and location of those sites).

This is censorship any way you slice it, even if you agree with the motivation of the judge.

Re:For non US-filtered search results (1)

msauve (701917) | more than 2 years ago | (#38208978)

What makes your examples not-censorship? At the core, common definitions of censorship [pbs.org] agree that it is the restriction of speech (communications). When (if) you avoid using "Fsck" in polite conversation, you're censoring yourself.

Re:For non US-filtered search results (5, Insightful)

number17 (952777) | more than 2 years ago | (#38209078)

People keep using these words but do not seem to understand what they mean.

A judge ruling in favor of a company seeking to protect their trademarks is not government censorship.

A judge ruling that search engines must de-index sites offering counterfeit wares is stupid and practically unenforceable, but not censorship.

From Mirriam-Webster
Judge: a public official authorized to decide questions brought before a court
Censor: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable
Law: a rule of conduct or action prescribed or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority

If the judge isn't applying the rules made by the government then whose rules are they? Seems pretty clear cut to me.

Re:For non US-filtered search results (1)

TFAFalcon (1839122) | more than 2 years ago | (#38209094)

The problem is that the internet is not limited to just one country. So what gives a US judge the right to block a site hosted and registered in another country?

And what chance do the owners have to object if the complaint is unfounded? Do they have to spend thousands of dollars getting a lawyer in a country they don't even live in?

Re:For non US-filtered search results (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 2 years ago | (#38209208)

A judge ruling in favor of a company seeking to protect their trademarks is not government censorship.

Since when does "government" have anything to do with it?

to suppress or delete as objectionable
Merriam-Webster [merriam-webster.com]

This is textbook suppression. It doesn't matter who does it, or even the particular mechanism, but if the delisting from all (or even just some) web search engines doesn't qualify as an attempt to suppress, I don't know what does.

Re:For non US-filtered search results (2)

igreaterthanu (1942456) | more than 2 years ago | (#38208522)

Ah, but they aren't going to all censor the same things. What Google censors will likely show up on Baidu and vica versa.

Re:For non US-filtered search results (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38208530)

But do they censor the same things? If not, then do one search on Google, and another on Baidu. Between the two of them you've got the 'Net covered. Or is it not that simple?

Re:For non US-filtered search results (1, Insightful)

masternerdguy (2468142) | more than 2 years ago | (#38208302)

So they're saying that businesses can sue their competition out of search engines. This can't end well.

Re:For non US-filtered search results (2)

Tanktalus (794810) | more than 2 years ago | (#38208584)

You're reading the courts too broadly. They're saying that sites that traffic counterfit goods can be sued out of search engines. That's a fairly big difference. Pepsi can't sue Coke to get them out of search results.

Re:For non US-filtered search results (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38208972)

They're saying that sites that traffic counterfit goods can be sued out of search engines. That's a fairly big difference. Pepsi can't sue Coke to get them out of search results.

As usual, people aren't thinking the security through. If we are going to create a new mechanism whereby judges have the capacity to censor out counterfeit traffickers, then all this work that we're going to do to, will also create a mechanism for censoring out Coke. You can say that would be an illegal use of the mechanism, but nevertheless it will exist, and therefore the Internet will need to protect against it.

BTW, another weird thing about blanket censorship like this, is that "all search engines and all social media sites" were not party to the lawsuit. At least 99% of them (probably closer to 100%) weren't served, were not represented in court, etc. Yet somehow they have a judicial order forcing them to alter their own data. Not that any of those parties (at least the big ones who got named) would really give a damn about the counterfeiter, but it's slimy (and possibly not binding) to impose on them.

Re:For non US-filtered search results (1)

Tanktalus (794810) | more than 2 years ago | (#38209154)

For the record, I didn't say I agreed with the courts. Merely trying to keep our collective disgust at the snubbing of reality based on fact rather than overblown emotion.

Re:For non US-filtered search results (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38208476)

If you don't want your search results filtered by US, use Yandex or alternatively Baidu.

Barring misguided censorship in the name of big media, the United States is still relatively free. We can and seriously should have a frank talk about the nature and extent of filtering in the United States. To suggest that Russia and China are serious alternatives, however, doesn't advance this discourse in any meaningful way.

Re:For non US-filtered search results (3, Funny)

WaffleMonster (969671) | more than 2 years ago | (#38208842)

Barring misguided censorship in the name of big media, the United States is still relatively free. We can and seriously should have a frank talk about the nature and extent of filtering in the United States. To suggest that Russia and China are serious alternatives, however, doesn't advance this discourse in any meaningful way.

Baidu might suck for researching the perils of tank student interactions yet you won't find a better resource for your faux holday shopping needs.

Re:For non US-filtered search results (1)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | more than 2 years ago | (#38208626)

While Free as in Freedom is a huge reason why this is problematic, are we free to counterfeit goods?

Re:For non US-filtered search results (3, Interesting)

Jibekn (1975348) | more than 2 years ago | (#38208816)

In a truly capitalistic society, there is no such thing as counterfeit goods, just goods for sale.

Re:For non US-filtered search results (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38208890)

While Free as in Freedom is a huge reason why this is problematic, are we free to counterfeit goods?

No but we should be free to buy them if we want goddamit!!

Re:For non US-filtered search results (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38209120)

yes im sure russia and china won't filter you at all....

This just in! (2)

MachDelta (704883) | more than 2 years ago | (#38208234)

Average person doesn't understand internet. Shocking details and film at 11.

Re:This just in! (5, Insightful)

LateArthurDent (1403947) | more than 2 years ago | (#38208280)

Average person doesn't understand internet. Shocking details and film at 11.

It's a little more complicated than that. Average person doesn't understand internet, but makes decisions which require such understanding and have wide reach and consequences.

The average person doesn't understand the human body, but only surgeons get to operate on them.

Re:This just in! (4, Interesting)

thisnamestoolong (1584383) | more than 2 years ago | (#38208634)

This is the fundamental problem -- people ought not be allowed to make wide reaching decisions about things that they don't understand. We need to figure out some sort of system by which decision-makers (judges, legislators, etc) must have a working knowledge of what they are talking about. If they can't show that they know what they are talking about, their decision doesn't count. I don't go to my doctor when my transmission is acting up, nor do I ask my mechanic about health issues. It is even more critical that politicians know what they are talking about, as they get to decide what EVERYONE is and is not allowed to do.

Re:This just in! (2)

Calydor (739835) | more than 2 years ago | (#38208850)

I'm reminded of a site I saw a few years ago with a bunch of puzzles, where you had to figure out the URL for the next puzzle by doing things like checking the page source and such. That could actually serve as an interesting basis for a series of tests to see if they understand the internet.

Re:This just in! (1)

Sique (173459) | more than 2 years ago | (#38208906)

You know how a system is called, who only the ones considered worthy and able on their respective field of knowledge are allowed to make decisions? It's called "rule of the worthy" or in greek: aristokratia.

Re:people ought not be allowed (1)

randy of the redwood (1565519) | more than 2 years ago | (#38209200)

We need to figure out some sort of system by which decision-makers (judges, legislators, etc) must have a working knowledge of what they are talking about.

That system is already in place. Legislators rely on experts to bring them up to speed on the specific issues at hand.

We call them lobbyists.

System sucks, don't it.

Re:This just in! (1)

ISoldat53 (977164) | more than 2 years ago | (#38209140)

I once had a Federal judge prohibit me from saying "entered", as in "I entered the name into the database." This was in the early '80s. One would think judges would be a little more computer literate now.

Re:This just in! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38208298)

A judge is NOT an average person.

Re:This just in! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38208380)

I agree, that would be an insult to average people.

Re:This just in! (5, Funny)

bigredradio (631970) | more than 2 years ago | (#38208310)

I can see the headline now. Judge orders defendant to pay fine of one Internet.

Re:This just in! (1)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 2 years ago | (#38208836)

I can see the headline now. Judge orders defendant to pay fine of one Bitcoin.

FTFY

Re:This just in! (1)

Beardo the Bearded (321478) | more than 2 years ago | (#38209050)

My friend runs a tube company, so we can only hope so.

Re:This just in! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38208336)

Or average people don't understand the law. The order is a tool for the complainant to use. Jurisdiction is secondary, the primary function is served by being broadly applicable.

The sad thing is the number of people who won't realize that these sites are criminal regardless.

Re:This just in! (2)

Hoi Polloi (522990) | more than 2 years ago | (#38208382)

The judge has simply ordered that the pipes be flushed.

Re:This just in! (2)

tkrotchko (124118) | more than 2 years ago | (#38208454)

Do you consider a judge an average person?

I agree the average person has no idea how the internet works. But wouldn't you expect a judge to ask for advice from an expert before issuing a ruling that on the face of it, is impossible to meet.

Re:This just in! (2)

Fluffeh (1273756) | more than 2 years ago | (#38208974)

On that note, unless I am mistaken, the "Remove links from all social media sites" actually pointless?

As the domains have been seized, I am assuming that the next time that google (or any other search engine) trawls them, the main content will be gone and they will be reindexed. Give it a month or so and the site will drop off anything relating to the fake rolexes (or whatever it sold) that it was indexed to when it was taken to court?

Re:This just in! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38209198)

You are correct, it is pointless to remove the websites and order everyone to stop talking about them!

It would be better to leave the sites up with all the fake stuff "for sale", but then when anyone clicks "Add To Cart" it would switch to a "BUSTED BY I.C.E." page and start blaring a siren and have animated SWAT guys with machine guns yelling at you "You dun goofed!"

Re:This just in! (1)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 2 years ago | (#38208984)

Actually, I do consider a judge to be "average person", just one who's expertise is in LAW, and not necessarily anything else, especially technology.

That is the problem we have with revering people in black robes over everyday citizens, is they end up being full of themselves and thinking they are better and smarter than "average", when the truth is, they are "average". They should take the time to learn about the consequences of their "legal" opinions before they make their rulings. The consequences of ignorance is too grotesque otherwise.

Re:This just in! (2)

DanielRavenNest (107550) | more than 2 years ago | (#38208470)

Maybe that's true, but a judge should understand "due process of law" and "right to face your accuser" and "the court's jurisdiction stops at the US border".

By all means, confiscate counterfeit goods if they are found, and stop them from trademark infringement if they are doing that, but you cannot just forget about our hard-won liberties enshrined in the Constitution if you are a judge. Especially if you are a judge.

Dont do it man! (1)

Kenja (541830) | more than 2 years ago | (#38208250)

Thats the History Eraser Button!

which is the only thing that can remove stuff form the internet.

GoDaddy? (2)

cultiv8 (1660093) | more than 2 years ago | (#38208252)

That was good enough for Judge Kent Dawson to order the names seized and transferred to GoDaddy

Danica Patrick should be so happy.

FTFA (1)

bigredradio (631970) | more than 2 years ago | (#38208264)

In addition, a total ban on search engine indexing was ordered, one which neither Bing nor Google appears to have complied with yet.

Yeah, good luck with that one judge.

USA! USA! USA! (1, Flamebait)

HangingChad (677530) | more than 2 years ago | (#38208308)

We still have the biggest army so we rewl the internets machine!

Re:USA! USA! USA! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38208390)

even though china has a larger standing army then the US....

China (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38208892)

even though china has a larger standing army then the US....

That's nice. According to [1], the Buffalo Bills offence has the highest average mass per player of any team in the AFC, and are getting their arses kicked. Most battles aren't won or lost by the Zapp Brannigan "wave after wave of men" strategy.

More to the point, China's navy is all but useless. Granted it is gaining power in leaps, but any competent strategic assessment will conclude that it can't hold its own in any deep water engagement with... well, anyone major really. Even Russia's navy (at least the part that managed to bob to the surface) outclasses China's in any meaningful metric. China's force projection ability is really limited to annoying its neighbors.

[1] http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=merron/041124_rankings [go.com]

This is a harbinger of SOPA (5, Interesting)

rsborg (111459) | more than 2 years ago | (#38208338)

See what Venkat Balasubramani says about this [1], in detail

An injunction requiring Google to "de-list" sites is one remedy which SOPA expressly makes available, and ordering the registry to transfer domain names to GoDaddy and ordering GoDaddy to update the DNS records is in effect achieving another remedy which SOPA creates. The fight against SOPA may be a red herring in some ways, since IP plaintiffs are fashioning very similar remedies in court irrespective of the legislation. Thus, even if SOPA is defeated, it may turn out to be a Pyrrhic victory--opponents may win the battle but may not have gained much as a result.

[1]: http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2011/11/court_oks_priva.htm [ericgoldman.org]

Re:This is a harbinger of SOPA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38208756)

And then a court order is issued blocking his site.

Re:This is a harbinger of SOPA (1)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 2 years ago | (#38208866)

Obviously we need to create a giant P2P/anonymously indexed search engine with this type of shit going on. I honestly expect that various EU countries will be the next to push for SOPA type legislation to keep the commoners in check as the entire EU disintegrates, and the powers that be at the top try to grab more, and bring everyone more fully under their control like greece and italy.

Ah the good ol days (4, Funny)

hellkyng (1920978) | more than 2 years ago | (#38208364)

I liked the days when people were afraid if they touched the computer too much it would explode, now they run crazy touching and deleting and legislating like coked out cats.

A Guinness world record... (1)

tryptogryphic (1985608) | more than 2 years ago | (#38208384)

...for legal ruling in the midst of ignorant and intellectual squalor on the matter, on behalf of the moronic judge at hand.

Dear god somebody kill off or at least properly educate these senile corpses before they ruin things more than they already are with all this blatant stupid.

domains seized and transferred to a new registrar (4, Insightful)

wisnoskij (1206448) | more than 2 years ago | (#38208392)

So they are taking the domains and blacklisting them.
Good luck for the next guy who buys these domains, what a way to ruin a business, buy a domain that is court ordered not to appear in any social networking or search.

Re:domains seized and transferred to a new registr (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38208980)

It would be an interesting place to run a tor node or torrent site.

It can't be infringing...my site is court ordered not to appear anywhere!

Re:domains seized and transferred to a new registr (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38209040)

If your business is in the purchasing of expired domains, you have a shitty business and ought to be run out of town on a rail anyway.

Meatspace equivalent? (5, Insightful)

brusk (135896) | more than 2 years ago | (#38208402)

Often, when a court does something like this it's because the real world analogy makes sense, but doesn't translate well into electronic contexts. Here it seems to be the opposite: the meatspace equivalent would be to not only shut down a business that is selling counterfeit goods, but also to order that the business be delisted from the Yellow Pages, at the expense of the phone book publisher. I'm confident that this judge would not have done that, but probably imagined that the company is responsible for its presence in search engine results the way it would be responsible for buying advertising space.

US Immigration & Customs Enforcement (4, Insightful)

cosm (1072588) | more than 2 years ago | (#38208426)

Overreach much? Here we have ICE, Immigration & Customs Enforcement, with their own squads dedicated to protecting intellectual property. I quote this straight from the horses mouth:

WASHINGTON — To mark the official beginning of the online holiday shopping season, known as Cyber Monday, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), the National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center (IPR Center), the Department of Justice and the FBI Washington Field Office have seized 150 website domain names that were illegally selling and distributing counterfeit merchandise.

source [ice.gov]

Not only are there multiple alphabet soups working in collaboration on this, but taxpayer dollars, to use a talking point, tax payer dollars are being used to protect the profits of companies that a) people buying cheap counterfeits don't usually have money to buy the high dollar stuff or choose not to and b) many companies hide their profits overseas to avoid all the tax's imposed on them while simultaneously lobby congress to make import/export easier with the slave friggin labor used to make these fucking pointless articles of consumer whoredom. National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center, ie, America production and creation capacity has been reduced to rubbish so we'll sue/block/censor anything that threatens the bank accounts. I'm not a 99%'er and all that jazz; this is a problem between stupid electorate continually rel-electing politicians who do not represent the people and are easily bought out. There are of course many more problems than this, but to boil it down this story is just icing on the turd-cake that will be served to future historians who write about the downfall of America.

Boggles the mind on one hand, on the other hand, well, nothing new under the sun, eh?

Re:US Immigration & Customs Enforcement (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38208734)

"this is a problem between stupid electorate continually rel-electing politicians who do not represent the people and are easily bought out"

You are a 99%er, you just don't know it.

Re:US Immigration & Customs Enforcement (4, Interesting)

Obfuscant (592200) | more than 2 years ago | (#38209080)

tax payer dollars are being used to protect the profits of companies

They are also being used to protect the people who don't realize that the "Guchi" handbag they are buying isn't a real Gucci. While I would agree that someone who buys a "Guchi" bag probably ought to know better, I'd say that someone who buys a counterfeit "Gucci" has no reason to expect it to be a counterfeit and thus an expectation that they are not being ripped off. Someone who is selling counterfeit goods is banking on the name of the product and not the quality, so while the victim does get something with a "Gucci" label, the quality is not what they paid extra for.

this is a problem between stupid electorate continually rel-electing politicians who do not represent the people and are easily bought out.

I think your view is the one that isn't quite representative of the people. People who don't want to buy, e.g., Gucci, are still free to do so, and nobody is stopping them. Nobody is stopping someone from selling handbags that are quite nice but don't pretend to be Gucci. This is not an issue of stopping someone from selling a bag that looks like a Gucci but is clearly identified as not being one ("counterfeit" is not the same as "knock off".) I think most people are quite happy that someone in charge is trying to get rid of places and people that are selling counterfeit goods, and not just because those counterfeit goods harm the authentic manufacturer. They also harm the consumer, who has spent good money on a poor product, which means they aren't spending that money on anything else.

but to boil it down this story is just icing on the turd-cake that will be served to future historians who write about the downfall of America.

You have it backwards. To do nothing about counterfeit goods is antithetical to what the US is based on. To do nothing is what would help the downfall. "Property rights" is firmly established in US law and history, and is why we prospered as a nation to start with. "Here's a plot of land, homesteader, work hard and it is yours." Contrast that with "here's a community plot of land, occupant. Show up occasionally and you'll get a share of the food it produces."

"Pretend your product is made by someone else who has built a reputation for quality and profit at the expense of them and the consumer" is more like the latter than the former. I have no problem with the legal system going after counterfeiters. None at all. They have no right to use the trademarks and names of reputable companies. When I go into a restaurant and buy a "Coke", I expect that it will BE a product of the Coca Cola company, not "Bob's Coke" or even "Coak". That position doesn't have anything to do with IP or patents or copyrights, just with fraud.

Perfect (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38208434)

Another judge without an f-ing clue.

Lawyers always think they're the smartest guys in the room, and as it turns out, they're very often the dumbest.

/News flash... (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 2 years ago | (#38208450)

Judge lets the world know he is a complete and utter idiot.

sad part is that he will throw a hissy fit that everyone n the planet does not obey him, and he will not bother to get an education to make sure he does not sound like a complete tool again in the future.

It's just a series of tubes (2)

fragfoo (2018548) | more than 2 years ago | (#38208490)

Someone should introduce the Internet to this judge.

Judge Smith, this is the Internet.

Internet, this is Judge Smith.

Now f*ck off.

Bringing down /. (2)

Hentes (2461350) | more than 2 years ago | (#38208538)

Indeed, a cursory search through the list of offending domains turns up poshmoda.ws, a site registered in Germany.

You dirty criminal pirate, how dare you link to the Site Which Shall Not Be Named?! Now they are going to sue /. too!

Hahahaha !! Do it !! Keep filtering/deindexing !!! (0)

unity100 (970058) | more than 2 years ago | (#38208554)

Hand over the top spot for search engines to yandex or baidu. morons.

it was better when.... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38208586)

The internet was better before the legal system was aware of it. No politicians, no lawyers, no judges. It was run by engineers, for engineers, and everything *seemed to be fine*.

Now....? It's becoming a clusterfuck, because people who don't understand it seem to think they should be able to control it anyway.

Huh? (5, Insightful)

mr_lizard13 (882373) | more than 2 years ago | (#38208638)

An American, thinking that the US = The World?

What a surprise.

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38208876)

Al Gore invented the internets you insensitive clod, its ours!

Hey, hey you, yeah you, Judge! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38208640)

Fuck you!

- The rest of the world.

Can't wait for the 2nd decentralized age to happen.
Fuck ICANN too.

Since when is 3/228 a good sample size? (5, Interesting)

forkfail (228161) | more than 2 years ago | (#38208672)

Here's the bit that gets to me:

(A recent November 14 order went after an additional 228 sites; none had a chance to contest the request until after it was approved and the names had been seized.)

How were the sites investigated? For the most recent batch of names, Chanel hired a Nevada investigator to order from three of the 228 sites in question. When the orders arrived, they were reviewed by a Chanel official and declared counterfeit. The other 225 sites were seized based on a Chanel anti-counterfeiting specialist browsing the Web.

Re:Since when is 3/228 a good sample size? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38208766)

What part of "anti-counterfeiting specialist" don't you get? Paid by Chanel he/she (gender withheld; classified) browsed the Web! One + one still equals two in this Great Country! And if we help Chanel, one of the French Pillars of Society like Vivendi is too, the French will help us with their HADOPI three-strike laws. That's how the big boys play the game.

Re:Since when is 3/228 a good sample size? (2)

Fluffeh (1273756) | more than 2 years ago | (#38209150)

What part of "anti-counterfeiting specialist" don't you get?

It's not like the courts care anymore. Someone said that such-and-such website was infringing, so it had to be taken down, then it was. It doesn't even matter if the one doing the complaining admits to lying and not doing any research [slashdot.org] on the matter. The stuff still gets taken down.

Irony? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38208840)

This is just freakin' great. I mean...

Fucking. *Brilliant*. Like putting a fire out by trying to stomp it out with explosives brilliant. I wonder if the irony of implementation has even occurred to them.

So...uh...since I wrote an experimental search engine about 6 years ago--can someone provide me with a list of the censored sites? Either the judge or Chanel? I wouldn't want to crawl and index anything inappropriately.

In fact, since this will undoubtedly be difficult to maintain, they'd better host it as an RSS feed for me. I'll even accept other RESTful services like well defined JSON.

Just to be helpful, I'm willing cache and redistribute it for them so everyone knows what to censor...

Implications are great... fraudulent goods will want decently descriptive domain names. And anybody can just run their finger down the list and go to 'chanelknockoffs.ch' to get their fix...

Of course, such a listing would also have to contain the last known IP address to make it easy for me to avoid routing to them in ipv6 tunnels...

So this guy's prevented what exactly... a bit of content inspection? On some domains? In some countries? Let's see you enforce that at badu "your honor"

kdawson (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38208844)

Did anybody actually read the Ars article? The judge's name is Kent Dawson...

Write. (1)

Pahroza (24427) | more than 2 years ago | (#38208864)

Perhaps Slashdot readers/posters could assist with educating the judge on the finer technical details that make such a ruling impossible to comply with.

If writing letters and mailing them sounds too daunting, some enterprising /,er might enlighten the judge by sending the letter to the HP printer he undoubtedly has in his office.

Does the court have the authority to do this? (2)

Adrian Lopez (2615) | more than 2 years ago | (#38208930)

Does the court really have the authority to force "all Internet search engines" and "all social media websites" to remove these domain names from their respective websites? It seems like too broad a target for an injunction, but perhaps I'm mistaken?

http://ChanelFakes.com (1)

sanzibar (2043920) | more than 2 years ago | (#38209028)

Take that!





The Fine Print: The following link is owned by whoever owns it. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>