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!

Feds Seized Website For a Year Without Piracy Proof

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the your-tax-dollars-at-work dept.

Piracy 172

bonch writes "U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement seized a hip-hop website based on RIAA claims of copyright infringement for prerelease music tracks. They held it for a year before giving it back due to lack of evidence. Unsealed court records (PDF) show that the government was repeatedly given time extensions to build a case against Dajaz1.com, but the RIAA's evidence never came. The RIAA has declined to comment."

cancel ×

172 comments

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

No surprise (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39896195)

My favorite part is that one of the extensions was granted one week after the previous extension had expired.

Re:No surprise (5, Funny)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 2 years ago | (#39896521)

My favorite part is that one of the extensions was granted one week after the previous extension had expired.

"My master is always right. If my master is wrong... my master is always right. I must please my master. My master never lies. My master only wants what's best for me...." -- FBI, while handcuffed to RIAA's bed. :(

Re:No surprise (1)

lightknight (213164) | more than 2 years ago | (#39896573)

Hmm. So the FBI is into bondage...interesting. Wonder if they keep the fuzzy handcuffs in the dashboard compartment.

Re:No surprise (1)

Tarlus (1000874) | more than 2 years ago | (#39896709)

Way better than the sadomasochistic paraphernalia that the IRS keeps within reach...

Re:No surprise (3, Funny)

lightknight (213164) | more than 2 years ago | (#39897189)

And to think that some people argue that the IRS doesn't give as much as it takes...

Re:No surprise (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39896625)

Wrong direction of control. The metaphorical handcuffs are a government tool. The RIAA is just a bunch of cranky old white guys. Think of this situation more as the local mob being paid off by a preferred shop owner to hassle the rest of the neighborhood. That shop keep may benefit, but don't forget who is responsible and in charge.

Re:No surprise (5, Insightful)

Genda (560240) | more than 2 years ago | (#39897117)

Sadly, its become so hard to tell the who the master and the lapdog is these days. Is it a true Fascism and the Corporations are in control, in which case you just have political sock-puppets and the Government and Corporations are one and the same? Or is it still a Republic with one foot in the grave and another on a banana peel going to the highest bidder? Like I said, to close a race to tell at this point, and will probably require better minds than mine to distinguish.

In either case, any semblance of civil rights, personal freedom, decency, dignity or real due process seem to have been tossed out the window along with anything that might once have resembled true democracy or representation.

Re:No surprise (5, Interesting)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | more than 2 years ago | (#39897017)

Aren't people who make false claims supposed to go to jail?

Aren't people in government who seize things without cause, or who deny timely prosecution supposed to go to jail?

Re:No surprise (2)

Genda (560240) | more than 2 years ago | (#39897135)

Only when the real people in power don't own the government and own the jails.

Re:No surprise (4, Insightful)

Dishevel (1105119) | more than 2 years ago | (#39897397)

One was on time. The next was two days late. The third was 6 days late.
They gave back the site almost a month after the third extension expired.

The FBI is a wholy owned subsidiary of The **AAs.
Fuck them.

Re:No surprise (2)

ethan0 (746390) | more than 2 years ago | (#39897907)

my favorite part is that slashdot (and wired) picks this up five months after it was news. much more thorough (and timely) article at techdirt: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111208/08225217010/breaking-news-feds-falsely-censor-popular-blog-over-year-deny-all-due-process-hide-all-details.shtml [techdirt.com]

Okay. (5, Insightful)

BootysnapChristAlive (2629837) | more than 2 years ago | (#39896231)

Why are we seizing websites for copyright-related matters? This is petty, a waste of manpower, a waste of time, a waste of taxpayer dollars, and despite all of this, there is no gain from doing so.

Re:Okay. (5, Insightful)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#39896337)

there is no gain from doing so.

Except, of course, the tactical gain for the copyright lobbyists, who can use such seizures as examples of why we need even stronger restrictions on the Internet. They can point to these seizures and say, "See, when we try to enforce our copyrights, the awful common folk just step around the ban! Therefore, we must be allowed to turn the Internet into a fancy cable TV system!"

Re:Okay. (3, Insightful)

zerodl (817292) | more than 2 years ago | (#39896461)

a waste of taxpayer dollars

One thing good about working in the government is that for anything you want to do, you dont have to foot the bill.

Re:Okay. (0)

geekoid (135745) | more than 2 years ago | (#39897039)

That is false.

Re:Okay. (2, Insightful)

Ambassador Kosh (18352) | more than 2 years ago | (#39897831)

Having worked with large private companies and governments I have not seen any real difference. I know it is popular to say that capitalism encourages efficiency and the government always wastes money but I just don't see it. Capitalism and government are about equally efficient, which is to say not at all.

Companies burn your money just as happily as the government does, especially large ones.

Re:Okay. (2)

zr (19885) | more than 2 years ago | (#39897985)

corporatism isnt same as capitalism. companies that forget to keep competitive and efficient go out of existence. happens every day.

unless the government bails them out that is...

Why not? (1, Insightful)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 2 years ago | (#39896603)

For the same reason the federal government decided seizing legal medical marijuana pharmacies in California and Colorado makes perfect sense.

We can't have businesses earning money and generating tax revenue.

You misrepresent the problem. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39896955)

Of course we want businesses earning money and generating tax revenue. Specifically, those businesses which have already earned quite a lot of money, and use that money to benefit those who make laws.

Remember that every wealthy corporation has an army of investors who stand to benefit from that corporation's increase in wealth. Policies that encourage new businesses to compete threaten that gain, so people who invest in blue chip stocks all start becoming protectionists whether they realize it or not.

Re:You misrepresent the problem. (4, Insightful)

Genda (560240) | more than 2 years ago | (#39897237)

Here, here!!! Pot is not illegal because its a drug... Our nation is drowning in drugs. Its because the Pharmaceutical business can't monopolize it and make a hundred billion dollars. No chance cheap effective solutions like l-tryptophan for insomnia, or pot for nausea are going to be made available when they can sell you expensive drugs with terrible side effects that require more terrible drugs to cure the side effects with even more terrible side effects, etc., etc., etc.

Adam Smith warned of the key things to beware of with any Capitalistic Economy. 1. Avoid concentration of wealth and 2. Maintain a large and healthy middle class. Simple things. Vital to the operation of the game. We just let it go to hell, that's all.

Re:You misrepresent the problem. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39897531)

Adam Smith warned of the key things to beware of with any Capitalistic Economy. 1. Avoid concentration of wealth and 2. Maintain a large and healthy middle class. Simple things. Vital to the operation of the game. We just let it go to hell, that's all.

We gave up Smith for Friedman, I guess because we were tired of being healthy, wealthy and wise.

Income tax and Milton Friedman ruined our system.

Asset taxes and Adam Smith could bring it back, but it's probably already too late.

Same with Megaupload (5, Insightful)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39896247)

Well somewhat similar. They seized that website and caused millions of people to lose their files, but now the judge is saying the case cannot proceed, because the FBI never had authority to cease the site's servers.

Of course they don't have to win the case..... WMG tried to use a takedown notice via youtube, and that failed, so they called their politicians in D.C. and used a full seizure action instead. The FBI/politicians have driven the company out of business, just as their boss WMG desired. Yay?

Not too bad. (5, Informative)

wcrowe (94389) | more than 2 years ago | (#39896251)

They only violated four amendments in the Bill of Rights. No big deal.

Re:Not too bad. (1)

lightknight (213164) | more than 2 years ago | (#39896579)

Call me when they get up to 10.

Re:Not too bad. (4, Funny)

ediron2 (246908) | more than 2 years ago | (#39896645)

Yeah, it's gonna be pretty hard to 'quarter troops' in a website, webfarm, hard drive... maybe in a colo cage!?

Re:Not too bad. (1)

gpmanrpi (548447) | more than 2 years ago | (#39896679)

Ah the dormant 3rd. We will find some fun use for that amendment yet.

Re:Not too bad. (4, Interesting)

lightknight (213164) | more than 2 years ago | (#39897147)

Nonsense. I prefer the interpretation of storing an electronic agent on someone's machine (typically located inside their house) as quartering a soldier (or in this case, his equipment) as a supreme violation of the 3rd Amendment. It lends to reasoning that in the days when that Amendment was first written, the allowing of soldiers (or other government members) to usurp the rights of a homeowner as well as the (often) tremendous cost of resources for feeding and caring for said soldier (and associated equipment, they certainly didn't leave their firearms outside in the rain) was a source of immense displeasure among the colonists; so much so that they went to the trouble of making it #3 of the list of Governmental Don'ts. As electronic agents do consume resources, often as parasites (consuming processor cycles, disk space, and bandwidth), to the owners of said machines, and as they are acting on behalf of the government, it could be easily argued that they fall under a violation of the 3rd Amendment.

"No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law." -> Now, some people will argue that it's in a manner prescribed by law, but the reality is that they are constantly switching attacks and methods to achieve their ends, with no care for the cost or the sanctity of the homeowner. A manner prescribed in law as 'whatever it takes' would fail most judicial smell tests. Again, as such, with no third-party oversight into clandestine home-spying operations, we have a huge violation here. However, in so far as the judicial branch is a little...behind the times, I fear that the entirety of our freedoms will be obliterated by appending "online" to the end of various security legislations, which would not pass otherwise.

I imagine someone more nuanced in the various legalities, and writings thereof, could make a good argument based off of this.

Re:Not too bad. (2)

muridae (966931) | more than 2 years ago | (#39897781)

That would be a beautiful reading of the 3rd. Police have been using the arguement that taping a gps tracker to cars is no different than having an officer follow the suspect, but you make a good point that if the gps tracker is an 'agent' then it could become subject to the 3rd amendment. The argument would probably fall apart since the 3rd specifies 'soldiers' and not 'agents of the government', and the originalists would hate diluting the meaning of 'soldier' while progressive judges would, frankly, probably have the same problem. But, the 3rd was cited for Griswold v. Connecticut [wikipedia.org] as a ground for government and laws staying out of people's bedrooms. And used said case as grounds in Roe v. Wade.

I'd actually love to see a case like that brought up. Even if the arguement failed, it would make some interesting case law.

Re:Not too bad. (2)

lightknight (213164) | more than 2 years ago | (#39898067)

Well, the security people have already done the spade work for us by declaring it a "War on Cyber-Terrorists." What more, the DoD has received funding for their 'cyber-warriors,' so again, making the case that this is, by the same parties that want this kind of power, a war, should not be terribly difficult to make.

Re:Not too bad. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39896713)

Hmm... tricky. Maybe you could bend the rules with something related to "cyberwarfare" or one of wars on common nouns?

Re:Not too bad. (1)

ZeroSumHappiness (1710320) | more than 2 years ago | (#39896989)

You know, that recent server replacement... If the Feds left malware that allowed FBI agents to break into the server at will I think that there could be an argument for cyber-quartering of cyber-troops since the hosting company is being forced to provide power, cpu cycles, HDD space and rack space to support the FBI cyber activities..

Re:Not too bad. (4, Funny)

Tarlus (1000874) | more than 2 years ago | (#39896733)

Actually, it goes all the way up to 11.

Year of lost revenue (3, Funny)

dragisha (788) | more than 2 years ago | (#39896253)

They will probably make more money from that, than from active site :).

And RIAA will get wrist/checkbook slap.

Re:Year of lost revenue (4, Interesting)

JobyOne (1578377) | more than 2 years ago | (#39896313)

Maybe the RIAA should have its assets seized and business halted for a year. See how they like it.

Re:Year of lost revenue (-1, Flamebait)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39896335)

Shoot the CEO in the head, and you'll get a similar effect.

Re:Year of lost revenue (0)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39896471)

Awww c'mon. Like any of us would hestitate to shoot Saddam Hussein or Osama Bin Laden if given the opportunity. All tyrants that trample upon the people & mistreat them with prison, threats, or extortion deserve death. (I don't think RIAA's CEO has reached that point yet, but he's darn close.)

Re:Year of lost revenue (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39897347)

Like any of us would hesitate to shoot Saddam Hussein or Osama Bin Laden if given the opportunity.

Well, I for one would. In the former case, I'd have to dig up his corpse, something generally frowned-upon in civilized countries, and in the latter, I'd need scuba gear.

Re:Year of lost revenue (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39897883)

I'd rather prefer both living LONG LONG lives in jail, going more senile every year. Quick death was much too merciful for either of them.

Anyway, killing is wrong, if you have any other alternative.

Re:Year of lost revenue (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39897009)

No, I think that's for zombies. You'll be wanting a stake to the heart.

Re:Year of lost revenue (1)

loonycyborg (1262242) | more than 2 years ago | (#39897725)

You're overestimating the importance of CEOs.

Re:Year of lost revenue (2)

Lisias (447563) | more than 2 years ago | (#39897917)

Shoot the CEO in the head, and you'll get a similar effect.

Nope. The CEO is just another puppet. They're plenty of replacements.

Re:Year of lost revenue (3, Informative)

houghi (78078) | more than 2 years ago | (#39896395)

Please don't make it hard on them. They already loose money on every movie they make.

Re:Year of lost revenue (2)

sconeu (64226) | more than 2 years ago | (#39896417)

I can believe that, since the RIAA doesn't make movies... They're the music business. The MPAA is the movie studios.

Re:Year of lost revenue (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39896719)

And they don't make any movies or music either.

IMMINENT DANGER !! (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39896257)

Proof ?? If you look like a terroist, act like a terrorist, and shout like a terrorist, we don't need no stinkin warrants !!

Re:IMMINENT DANGER !! (0)

spire3661 (1038968) | more than 2 years ago | (#39896309)

+1 rawtruth

Re:IMMINENT DANGER !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39896757)

Sweet! Immediately arrest all employees of the TSA, Congress and the Senate. While you're at it, all members of the RIAA/MPAA and Disney!
Disney is the worst of the bunch stealing our Mickey Mouse from Public Domain where it should have been over 50 years ago.

Sounds like... (3, Funny)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 2 years ago | (#39896283)

...Dajaz1.com's lawyers are about to make some easy money off the RIAA.

Re:Sounds like... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39896365)

Pretty sure they can't sue the RIAA for ICE's actions.

Re:Sounds like... (1)

Imrik (148191) | more than 2 years ago | (#39896413)

How about for bearing false witness?

Re:Sounds like... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39896517)

How about for bearing false witness?

That's one of the 10 Commandments, so I'm sure it has nothing to do with what is or is not "Legal".

Re:Sounds like... (3, Insightful)

Fallen Kell (165468) | more than 2 years ago | (#39896735)

Unless they did it to a federal agent, because lying to them is against the law.

Re:Sounds like... (2)

gpmanrpi (548447) | more than 2 years ago | (#39896729)

Well it depends. If they were sworn under oath before speaking with the relevant ICE agents, then they very well may have committed perjury, or obstruction of justice. Filing a false affidavit or report is still a crime in many jurisdictions. If RIAA wrote it or said it, there could also be a defamation angle to it since we are speaking of a civil suit.

Re:Sounds like... (1)

Genda (560240) | more than 2 years ago | (#39897339)

Let's get real for just a moment... The XXIA will tie this up in court with mountains of legal toilet paper until hell freezes over and the devils go ice skating. The owners/operators of Dajaz1, will have been moldering in their graves for most of a millennium and by that time, the one remaining surviving descendent will probably have to take in winnings in cold pressed Latinum or some silly assed equivalent.

Re:Sounds like... (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 2 years ago | (#39896567)

I doubt it.

They might get something from the government if they are *real* lucky but i doubt that too.

Re:Sounds like... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39897091)

Vengence is just as good as money. Sue them for theft and put them in jail?
The judge already said they didn't have the authority to seize, so it's theft.

Someone please... (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39896295)

remove U$A from the World...

bought and paid for (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39896297)

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Now we know who they really work for.

RIAA math (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39896299)

Let's do RIAA math:

The site had the bandwidth potential if they weren't down for users to download an average of 10 songs per second at $1.00 per song..

So $1.00 * 10 songs * 60 seconds * 60 minutes * 24 hours * 365 days = $315,360,000

oops.. I meant $250,000 per song..

So $250,000 * 10 * 60 seconds * 60 minutes * 24 hours * 365 days = $78,840,000,000,000

seems reasonable.. This math came out of the same place as all other RIAA math.

Re:RIAA math (3, Insightful)

mrstrano (1381875) | more than 2 years ago | (#39898063)

Yep. The math checks out, I am a RIAA mathematician.

No recourse (5, Interesting)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#39896305)

The real troubling fact is that we have no recourse against this sort of criminal behavior by government thugs.

Re:No recourse (4, Insightful)

Jeng (926980) | more than 2 years ago | (#39896465)

Well, when you have no recourse then shooting the motherfuckers starts sounding better and better.

Re:No recourse (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 2 years ago | (#39897051)

Except we do have recourse. Not that the jack holes on /. would know thta.

Re:No recourse (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39897271)

Except we don't. What recourse do we have? Go ahead, tell me.

Re:No recourse (3, Insightful)

Genda (560240) | more than 2 years ago | (#39897463)

Oh yeah, that worked so well for the Native Americans and AIM when the FBI came shooting to the reservation [google.com] . Don't get me wrong, despots deserve an ass-kicking, you just have to remember that your government has been busy preparing for your upset now for about the last 15 years and they just about have you dialed in now "Ya big-ol-nasty terrorist you"!

Re:No recourse (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39896611)

and yet people want to grow the gubmint with socialized health care and the like? the gubmint only cares about more power over it's citizens, and to think otherwise is foolish.

this is why the framers of the constitution specifically stated "LIMITED GOVERNMENT".

people will never learn that their "benevolent" masters are only bending them over more and more....

Re:No recourse (4, Insightful)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 2 years ago | (#39896681)

Socialised healthcare actually benefits the majority of people...
Heavy handed copyright enforcement only benefits a very select few, often to the detriment of the majority...

Surely the government should be there to provide useful benefits to the majority of its people, not just a select few.

Re:No recourse (2, Informative)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 2 years ago | (#39896637)

The real troubling fact is that we have no recourse against this sort of criminal behavior by government thugs.

You have recourse. Vote the bastards out!

Re:No recourse (3, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#39896909)

You assume we still have a functioning democracy, and not a sham. This is a bad assumption. There's less variation between Democrats and Republicans than there was internally in the Communist Party in the USSR. The electoral system is locked down to ensure that no third party ever arises. We have no voice whatsoever.

Re:No recourse (1)

ZeroSumHappiness (1710320) | more than 2 years ago | (#39897007)

Vote Ron Pau... yeah, no, that doesn't quite work in this situation since he's still at least a (R) by choice.

Vote Americans Elect!

Re:No recourse (2)

Genda (560240) | more than 2 years ago | (#39897507)

To paraphrase George Carlin "Americans live a sham, a lie, you think you have choice, you have no choice, you are given the freedom to make meaningless choices like Paper or Plastic, with or without fries, scrambled or sunny side up, all so you don't notice that where it matters your say has been gone a long time now."

Re:No recourse (1)

rmstar (114746) | more than 2 years ago | (#39897275)

We have no voice whatsoever.

Wrong. I mean - no voice whatsoever? Aren't you making it too easy for yourself?

You can enter the parties and change things from within, at least locally. That is a possible way to start effecting changes.

Indirect recourse (1)

davidwr (791652) | more than 2 years ago | (#39897195)

We have no direct legal* recourse, but in theory we can vote out our elected officials and replace them with ones that will make sure this never happens again.

I did say "in theory."

* neither I nor /. nor its affiliates recommend or endorse seeking extra-legal or illegal recourse against the government employees directly involved in the seizing of this domain.

Let's Explain This Using FBI Logic (5, Insightful)

IonOtter (629215) | more than 2 years ago | (#39896533)

1. Your Master is angry at a website, and they are telling you to break the law and take that website down.

2. They pay your salary. They make sure the bosses who give you all your toys and paychecks get elected. They have so much money, they could not spend all of it if they spent 10 million dollars a day, for the next 20 years.

3. If you do not obey, you will not have a job. And you might even wind up in jail on some trumped up charge, much like the trumped up charges you arranged for others you didn't like very much. Oh, and your Master knows about those trumped up charges against an innocent person, so maybe the charges against YOU won't be so trumped up after all.

And the final kicker...

4. You are the US government. YOU get to decide if someone can sue you for something. [wikipedia.org]

So. You have...

100% immunity
100% profit.
100% job satisfaction.
100% power.

See? Math is easy.

Re:Let's Explain This Using FBI Logic (2)

elbonia (2452474) | more than 2 years ago | (#39897077)

The US government does not have full immunity and you can sue it since 1948, see the The Federal Tort Claims Act. The site's best bet is to see if the RIAA provided false or inaccurate information and sue them directly, ie say for liable. http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/suing-government-negligence-FTCA-29705.html [nolo.com]

Re:Let's Explain This Using FBI Logic (1)

IonOtter (629215) | more than 2 years ago | (#39897277)

1. Only federal employees can be sued under the FTCA, not independent contractors hired by the federal government (unless they are treated like employees).

2. The negligent or wrongful conduct must have been done within the scope of the defendant's employment.

3. In general, only claims of negligence -- as opposed to intentional misconduct -- are allowed (though some claims for intentional misconduct can be brought against certain federal law enforcement officers).

4. The claim must be based on -- and permitted by -- the law of the state in which the misconduct occurred.

1. The FBI can't say "Contractors did this", however, they could point the finger back at the RIAA and say, "They gave us bad info!"

2. Yeah, that meets the criteria. Of course, the FBI can also say that they were "acting in good faith" on the information they were provided by the RIAA. End of lawsuit.

3. That's kinda ambiguous. Does the FBI qualify as "certain federal law enforcement officers"??

4. That's the killer. Where exactly did this happen? Los Angeles? (This is where the servers were.) New York? (The address of the site owner.) Who has jurisdiction, and does that state allow such a lawsuit to proceed? If they both allow it, which one will actually permit it to go ahead? Remember, "allow to go forward" does not mean "will go forward". They can still say no.

Re:Let's Explain This Using FBI Logic (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39897545)

Don't waste time on the Fed. Sue the RIAA. They made the claim on which the Feds acted.
It would be no different than your neighbor falsely reporting to the police that you were committing some crime, and the police destroying your property in raid, or your reputation by arresting you. The police were only acting in good faith (wait a second, sorry, I had laugh) and doing so, on what your neighbor said (which was false) so they neighbor is the root cause and is where the lawsuit should point to.

Re:Let's Explain This Using FBI Logic (1)

muridae (966931) | more than 2 years ago | (#39897835)

1. Only federal employees can be sued under the FTCA, not independent contractors hired by the federal government (unless they are treated like employees).

2. The negligent or wrongful conduct must have been done within the scope of the defendant's employment.

3. In general, only claims of negligence -- as opposed to intentional misconduct -- are allowed (though some claims for intentional misconduct can be brought against certain federal law enforcement officers).

4. The claim must be based on -- and permitted by -- the law of the state in which the misconduct occurred.

1. The FBI can't say "Contractors did this", however, they could point the finger back at the RIAA and say, "They gave us bad info!"

File for discovery, get buried in paperwork, find evidence that FBI knew better, file to block dismissal.

2. Yeah, that meets the criteria. Of course, the FBI can also say that they were "acting in good faith" on the information they were provided by the RIAA. End of lawsuit.

File for discovery, get buried in paperwork, find evidence that FBI knew better, file to block dismissal.

3. That's kinda ambiguous. Does the FBI qualify as "certain federal law enforcement officers"??

I believe they are practically the definition of "certain federal law enforcement officers".

4. That's the killer. Where exactly did this happen? Los Angeles? (This is where the servers were.) New York? (The address of the site owner.) Who has jurisdiction, and does that state allow such a lawsuit to proceed? If they both allow it, which one will actually permit it to go ahead? Remember, "allow to go forward" does not mean "will go forward". They can still say no.

File the suit as a violation of federal rights. That has jurisdiction in all the states, and any state law that blocks them is another violation to tack on to the paperwork when you file it a second time. Or if they dismiss with prejudice, just sue the state for violating federal rights by denying rights by blocking the suit. Get enough paperwork going around, and someone will have to stop and answer you, or default by not showing up.

Re:Let's Explain This Using FBI Logic (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39897315)

WOOOO! That link you provided explicitly indicates that the US has waived their Sovereign Immunity if a federal agent commits a 'tortious act' and clicking on the link at wikipedia that explains what a 'tort' is...I'd suggest that this is EXACTLY the type of thing that the US government can be sued over. They have committed a harm (not necessarilly illegal)...of course the act that allows the US government to be sued may not apply to something like this...but at least the US government has waived Sovereign Immunity to some extent...but as others have pointed out if the federal agents acted on information from the RIAA that was knowingly false or misleading than the RIAA employees responsible could very well be charged with illegal behaviour and the RIAA sued...

So, I can't believe that a good lawyer could not get something out of this for the harmed party...at the very least I'd think that a good young lawyer looking to make a name for himself might not want to take a run at it just for fun...

Fines? (3, Insightful)

h4x0t (1245872) | more than 2 years ago | (#39896565)

Why are they no fines for fraudulent "claims of copyright infringement?" Heavy fines for repeat offenders.

Re:Fines? (1)

AZURERAZOR (472031) | more than 2 years ago | (#39896685)

If only....

Actually I think we would all prefer to see a real dismantling of the whole legal framework of what comprises copyright infringement... But fines for false accusations in this realm would definitely dissuade the accusers from painting the world with a WIDE brush.

Re:Fines? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39897167)

because we would be fining ourselves... to fine the government is to have the government take taxpayer dollars it allotted to a organization and give them to someone else, the end result: they would assign more funds to the original organization to keep it operational...

The RIAA is Scum (3, Insightful)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 2 years ago | (#39896623)

The RIAA is scum, and the Obama administration (who has appointed too many of their minions to the Justice Department) are their toadies. So who is surprised that this kind of crap is happening? It's all about fat contributions to the incumbent's election and reelection campaigns and screw over the rest of us.

Or should I tell you what I really think about all of this?

Re:The RIAA is Scum (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39896867)

And just to provide some sort of balance to an idiotic comment, bear in mind that the 'other option' is no different. Placing blame solely on a single president or party is just asking for the same thing to happen, at the hands of the other.

Re:The RIAA is Scum (1)

Genda (560240) | more than 2 years ago | (#39897549)

Welcome to the Republicrat. Some are left handed and some are right, but any suggestion for more than a nanosecond that they in any significant way different beasts is clearly a comment made by someone who takes the window dressing seriously. For those of you with pet representatives, let me ask before you even say a word... are they the exception that proves the rule?

Re:The RIAA is Scum (0)

geekoid (135745) | more than 2 years ago | (#39897087)

"Or should I tell you what I really think about all of this?"
only if you can actually get some facts right.

But..no, you can't because that would disturb your preconceived bias you have had shoved down your throat, you unthinking twit.

Re:The RIAA is Scum (1)

hey! (33014) | more than 2 years ago | (#39897965)

Well, he did try to put somebody in charge of an agency who wasn't a tool of the crony capitalists: Elizabeth Warren. Didn't work out that well, did it? Because we bitch and moan about corporate tools being in bed with the government but we still sit up and bark when the plutocrats tell us too, because the whole corporate puppet thing goes way beyond Washington. We're the biggest bunch of sheep on the planet, and we let the wolves herd us.

Read the PDF and things get a bit clearer... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39896721)

Declaration by the agent at the end. #4 1st sentence... "locating [...] material, purported to be infringing and removed due to its rights-holders request"
So the whole thing is based on MegaUpload-style "when they get a DMCA takedow they only disable the link but don't delete the data" from the RIAAFIA...

Re:Read the PDF and things get a bit clearer... (2)

ZeroSumHappiness (1710320) | more than 2 years ago | (#39896869)

Isn't it required that the site only remove the link until the whole take down procedure has cleared one way or the other?

Re:Read the PDF and things get a bit clearer... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39897539)

Yeah, iirc they have to wait 10 days for a counter-notice.
As far as I can tell the RIAA argues "But the data was kept beyond that", and MU is saying "that's because someone else uploaded a exact duplicate and we didn't get a notice for that one".
So the question becomes... should file/video sharing sites be required to do that?
I'd say... no.
Consider the following scenario (which actually does happen):
1. User A uploads a video he created (and owns all copyrights to) to a video sharing site, sets up ad-revenue sharing.
2. User B grabs it and uploads the exact same video without permission from A (obvious violation of copyright, also deprives A of ad revenue).
3. A finds that video and sends the site a DMCA takedown notice.
4. B's video has to get blocked, notice sent, 10 days for counter notice before final removal, etc, etc...
Works as intended.

Now it seems the RIAA wants to reinterpret the DMCA to add
5. After said 10 days or whatever without a counter-notice, A's video also gets removed (hey, it's the same content, right?). Any further attempt to upload a video with identical content has also to be blocked.
Err, what?

Make a political statement with your website! (1)

MarkvW (1037596) | more than 2 years ago | (#39896765)

Why not clearly and explicitly implicate the First Amendment?

Sue the RIAA for everything, move biz out of US (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39896917)

Its just that simple.

There has not been a single FBI investigation of congress since the Carter administration.

Why? Because Reagan signed a law banning such investigations.

Why are congress members afraid of being investigated and audited unless they're taking bribes?

Privately maintained filter lists are bad (3, Informative)

PhantomHarlock (189617) | more than 2 years ago | (#39897061)

It IS censorship, because invariably the list of sites to block includes many that have nothing to do with porn, including fine art nudes, nude paintings. Will Deviantart be on that list?

One only has to look at the leaked proposed Australian list to see how bad it is in real life.

The only way that you could begin to do this is to have an open list that's published, with a redress mechanism for people who's sites have been wrongly blocked. The censors hate this because then it gives people a phone directory for all the naughty sites.

Re:Privately maintained filter lists are bad (1)

PhantomHarlock (189617) | more than 2 years ago | (#39897111)

Of course, you don't have to publish the list if you have a redirect that states that it has been blocked by so and so, then you know that it is specifically blocked rather than just turning up a 404.

You wanna solve these problems? (1)

The Shootist (324679) | more than 2 years ago | (#39897381)

Re-elect No One, ever.

Re:You wanna solve these problems? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39897671)

Re-elect No One, ever.

That's it. I'm changing my name to Nunov T. Heabove.
See you in November

Fear and Intimidation (1)

iridium213 (2029192) | more than 2 years ago | (#39897385)

On the behalf of the copyright holder (or one claiming to be), and the .Gov arm of the Intellectual Property Industrial Complex will happily play its part without any proof in hand it seems..

Brave, brave new world..

Or, perhaps I just need to loosen my tinfoil hat a bit..

An opportunity to nail the RIAA to the barn door (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39897519)

Let me understand the RIAA **PUBLICLY** accused the owner/company of this web-site of criminal wrong doing. But after a year, no charges were brought. And the company suffered damages and loss of its website.
Sounds like a pretty good lawsuit (against the RIAA) to me. I hope the EFF tears them a new one.

shouldn't have had it anyway (3, Insightful)

Shavano (2541114) | more than 2 years ago | (#39897577)

This is a great illustration of why copyright should be dealt with only in civil courts. That way they'd have to prove their case first and tale action later.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?