Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

US Grabs More Domain Names, $1.4M From Online Counterfeit Operations

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the business-as-increasingly-usual dept.

Government 69

coondoggie writes "According to court documents, investigation by federal law enforcement agents revealed that subjects whose domain names had been seized in a November 2010 operation continued to sell counterfeit goods using new domain names. In particular, the individuals, based in China, sold counterfeit professional and collegiate sports apparel, primarily counterfeit sports jerseys." So now the government has again taken over a swathe of domain names used in crime.

cancel ×

69 comments

Wait a second... (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39974585)

I didn't speak out for them because I didn't own domains and when they came for me....

Re:Wait a second... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39977153)

I didn't speak out for them because I didn't own domains and when they came for me....

What are Fat Boys Inc going to do when the world pulls the plug on the USA and cuts you off the inet (i know you think you own and control it but you would shit skyscrapers if you knew the truth) it is going to happen then you are up crap creak
 

Yawn (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39974629)

Is anyone else underwhelmed by this "accomplishment"? Sports jerseys? Really? I guess as long as the proceeds more than fund the operations I am OK with this, but it had better be a net win for the government.

Re:Yawn (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 2 years ago | (#39974697)

But now that we have achieved world peace, cured all diseases, and there is no hunger, we have nothing else to do but go after t-shirt and shoe companies.

GO TEAM!

Re:Yawn (1)

jcoy42 (412359) | more than 2 years ago | (#39975887)

Maybe we're just looking at the new cold war.

I'd say China's gonna take this one.

Re:Yawn (1)

Spy Handler (822350) | more than 2 years ago | (#39976809)

If someone stole your bicycle or broke into your car and stole your stereo, you wouldn't report it to the police because their time and money is better spent going after murderers and rapists, rather than petty crime such as yours? Is that your logic?

I used to work next door to a small 3-woman firm that licenses Warner Brothers (mostly Batman and Looney Tunes) characters and puts them on car floormats and sells them to auto supply shops. Theirs is "officially licensed product". They pay 10 to 20 grand for a logo per shipment of floormats, and they take all the risk (they pay the license fee regardless of whether the product sells or sits in a warehouse). Competing against cheaper pirated products can easily make them lose money and put them out of business.

They were nice people and one of them was very cute btw....

it's just a bit of moldy old paper (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39977471)

The constatution does not EXPRESSLY make couterfetting a crime, nor does it EXPRESSLY allow the siezure of domain name's without due process.

This is therefor by definition an illegal tax on competition.

(roman_mir, can't login for some reason)

Re:it's just a bit of moldy old paper (1)

TedHornsby (1791978) | more than 2 years ago | (#39978491)

The constatution does not EXPRESSLY make couterfetting a crime, nor does it EXPRESSLY allow the siezure of domain name's without due process.

This is therefor by definition an illegal tax on competition.

(roman_mir, can't login for some reason)

Your argument would have greater weight if you could spell "Constitution" and "counterfeiting" and "therefore" and "seizure". Also, if you understood the proper use of apostrophes. I'm not usually such a spelling and grammar nazi, but, dude, this is just painful to look at.

That's just capitalism working. (1)

tebee (1280900) | more than 2 years ago | (#39978187)

Much as I feel sympathy for your cute girls, if they are not making money from this it's probably because they are/were paying too much for the licence fee. They made a bad business decision somewhere down the line and flunked out. I have no personal knowledge of the market for Loony Tunes car floormats but would suspect it's not huge anyway.

If their themed mats are markedly more expensive than an ordinary mats then people just will not buy them. To blame pirated mats for this is just trying to find reasons to avoid taking the blame themselves.

To a large extent this is how the capitalist system works though, we need survival of the fittest businesses to ensure the market works. The companies that sell the licences will always try to get higher fees for them, it's only the fact that a number of the licensees fail that stops these fees going up any more and us the public having to pay even more for our goods.

Re:Yawn (2, Insightful)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 2 years ago | (#39978675)

If someone stole your bicycle or broke into your car and stole your stereo, you wouldn't report it to the police because their time and money is better spent going after murderers and rapists, rather than petty crime such as yours? Is that your logic?

If you want to compare using Federal agents to go after infringement of some copyright to my bike being stolen and asking my local police to look into it, we have nothing to discuss, as you are an idiot.

Re:Yawn (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 2 years ago | (#39974917)

And as a result of the squeeze, fake sports jerseys will now cost up to $0.50 more to make up for it.

I wonder how much the enforcement action is costing us?

Re:Yawn (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39975203)

The Governments purpose is to lay and enforce the framework of society.

The Government is not there to make money.

So if we ever want Government to function correctly we as a people must debate what we want the Government to accomplish for society with the understanding that we as a people are willing to pay for it. If we're not willing to pay for it then the Government shouldn't be doing it. What percentage of your income are you willing to pay for roads, school lunches, the military, the elderly? How much are you willing to pay for copyright enforcement?

What do we want these things to do for us and much should we be spending on them?

BTW if all you think is we should cut one thing and spend more on another you aren't thinking at all.

Re:Yawn (1)

davester666 (731373) | more than 2 years ago | (#39976209)

"The Government is not there to make money"

No, it's there to spend money.

And contrary to press reports, neither of the two parties in the US seem at all serious about spending less, just differ on where to spend more.

And they both know the magic words to apply to get any bill through:
a) terrorism
b) child porn

We need a new DNS fast (4, Insightful)

santax (1541065) | more than 2 years ago | (#39974675)

We really need to take the USA out of the internet-control. About everything is illegal in the USA and we should not take the risk they keep shutting more and more sites down. Yesterday it was for the children, today it's for the really rich and bad guys (riaa) and tomorrow it's because you tweeted you would go to LA and dig up Marilyn Monroe to party like there is no tomorrow. The world is in need of a new internet, a true internet without the current system of root-servers. A 100% decentralized internet, or in the event that isn't possible, an internet where the rootservers are in international waters. It's become to dangerous and we need to act. Fast.

Re:We need a new DNS fast (3, Insightful)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 2 years ago | (#39974711)

It works in both directions and isn't a 'usa thing', just wait until the UN gets bored and starts doing this to everyone they can find..

Re:We need a new DNS fast (1)

santax (1541065) | more than 2 years ago | (#39974735)

Let me rephrase then, we need to stop governments in general to be able to do this.

Re:We need a new DNS fast (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39975021)

Because corporations are so free of corruption and taint?

Re:We need a new DNS fast (1)

santax (1541065) | more than 2 years ago | (#39975053)

Don't think I mentioned corporations ;)

Re:We need a new DNS fast (3, Insightful)

J'raxis (248192) | more than 2 years ago | (#39975139)

About the only way to do this would be to create a system that is truly out of everyone's control. Otherwise, you can guarantee that someone's idea of "you can't do that!" will be imposed on the system. If it's not in the name of "IP," it'll be in the name of fighting racism and bigotry. Or terrorism. Or child pornography. Or something else.

Re:We need a new DNS fast (1)

santax (1541065) | more than 2 years ago | (#39975147)

Yes, I agree with you. It will be the only way and despite the bad guys could and would use this system too, I still feel that would be the way to go. The bad guys are going to do their things anyway. Might as well make sure we have, the good guys, have the same rights and level of protection.

Re:We need a new DNS fast (1)

J'raxis (248192) | more than 2 years ago | (#39975223)

Exactly. It's outside the purview of the domain name system to police content.

Re:We need a new DNS fast (1)

Macrat (638047) | more than 2 years ago | (#39975317)

About the only way to do this would be to create a system that is truly out of everyone's control.

Skynet?

Re:We need a new DNS fast (1)

J'raxis (248192) | more than 2 years ago | (#39975341)

More along the lines of peer-to-peer networks, Bitcoin, or Tor.

Re:We need a new DNS fast (1)

Kalriath (849904) | more than 2 years ago | (#39976147)

Put enough of them together, and literally nothing ever gets done. Basically, just put an independent committee run by a music company, a tech company, and a retailer in charge, and they'll never agree on anything.

Re:We need a new DNS fast (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39976389)

That would require having the physical infrastructure beyond government control. Good luck with that.

Re:We need a new DNS fast (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 2 years ago | (#39978685)

That, i will agree with.

Re:We need a new DNS fast (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 2 years ago | (#39975939)

UN can't do shit, it doesn't have any enforcement agencies. It can only do what the constituting member states can do, each to their own population.

Re:We need a new DNS fast (1)

ewieling (90662) | more than 2 years ago | (#39976197)

"It works in both directions and isn't a 'usa thing', just wait until the UN gets bored and starts doing this to everyone they can find.."

Burying these evil counterfeiters in UN resolutions will stop them!

Re:We need a new DNS fast (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39978129)

You mean the UN that is fully controlled by the US government (why do you think it was based in New York rather than say Geneva?)

Re:We need a new DNS fast (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39975007)

Nothing is stopping you from compiling and passing around hosts files.

Re:We need a new DNS fast (2)

muon-catalyzed (2483394) | more than 2 years ago | (#39975043)

Ok, who would you delegate the oversight/police work over to? United States still has less corruption then most of other options. If you are so offended, in the US, you can sue the agency or the government and get your mistakenly seized domain back, plus $ damages. Lawyers actually love these kind of bad-government suits. Now, would that alternative solution you are proposing have such safeguards? In some decentralized internet utopia, the real mafias would run the place, there would be no authority to call or ability to challenge the subject in a fair trial.

Re:We need a new DNS fast (1)

santax (1541065) | more than 2 years ago | (#39975091)

We don't agree. The USA even has 'sealed' cases about seizing domains... So even the lawyers don't know why their clients domain was seized in the first place. If there is one country that has proven over and over again since during it's whole history to be not trustworthy one has to say it's the USA. With all due respect to her citizens. To answer your question, best would be a true decentralized system. Next stop would be a non-profit formed under the watching eye of Richard Stallman, who as proven over and over again to be the last true hacker and freedom lover. If he doesn't want the job, let him appoint some one. At least then we know it's in good hands.

Re:We need a new DNS fast (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39975131)

100% decentralized

The issues boil down to how do you trust your DNS peers to not be issuing poisoned responses but allow personal domains.

rootservers are in international waters.

I see three possibilities
1) Bandwidth limitations imitating DoS attacks
2) Literally staying afloat in an attack, accident, or storm.
3) Someone gaining access and control (locally or remotely, via covert op or inside job)

A place to start [wikipedia.org] . I use OpenNic Server Status [opennicproject.org]

Re:We need a new DNS fast (1)

santax (1541065) | more than 2 years ago | (#39975191)

I think it should be possible to implement a system that tests multiple dns-peers. But yes, the implementation of such a system won't be easy. We can see this with TOR. It's a secret that the Dutch government has set up many tor-exit nodes. Effectively being able to snoop on lots of TOR-traffic, and while not completely compromising TOR, it's getting dangerous. But I agree with you, it's hard to come up with something that will be secure. But the current system as it is, should still be replaced. At least, that's what I think ;) Others might disagree :D

Re:We need a new DNS fast (1)

manu0601 (2221348) | more than 2 years ago | (#39975701)

an internet where the rootservers are in international waters.

Mmmmh... An Internet ruled by somalian pirates :-)

Re:We need a new DNS fast (1)

dontmakemethink (1186169) | more than 2 years ago | (#39976971)

Ok, the country with by far the most internet users is China [internetworldstats.com] , you want to give them a 22.5% interest in regulating the internet? Or instead, lets prioritize on a per capita basis, the country with the highest internet usage per capita is Greenland [nationmaster.com] . They're the most vulnerable to regulation, so let's put them in charge. India has only 10% per capita online, but they're #3 for most users. The top G8 country per capita is Canada at #4.

You figure out a way to get big countries with low per capita usage and small countries with high per capita usage to agree on anything, and I bet the Nobel committee would come a-knocking. In the meantime, the country that ranks highest in combined number of users and per capita usage is the US. At least they're predictable. Next on that list are Japan and Germany. Eerie isn't it?

And for the record, I am not American.

whack-a-mole (5, Funny)

0111 1110 (518466) | more than 2 years ago | (#39974685)

Ah. Whack-a-mole. That most American of games. Such an excellent way to spend someone else's money.

Not Right (1)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 2 years ago | (#39974703)

I don't believe that this is right of the American government to do. The Internet is not sole U.S. property and there are no court proceedings to justify it.

Re:Not Right (3, Informative)

hendridm (302246) | more than 2 years ago | (#39974885)

I don't believe that this is right of the American government to do. The Internet is not sole U.S. property and there are no court proceedings to justify it.

Then don't put it on a TLD that is within U.S. jurisdiction. You'll notice that thepiratebay.org now redirects to thepiratebay.se for this reason.

And if the U.S. asks a country to take down a ccTLD/server/whatever and the country complies, who should you be bitching at? The U.S. or your own government that is complying with another country's demands?

Re:Not Right (2)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 2 years ago | (#39974961)

The U.S. or your own government that is complying with another country's demands?

Both.

Re:Not Right (1)

houghi (78078) | more than 2 years ago | (#39977149)

And if the U.S. asks a country to take down a ccTLD/server/whatever and the country complies, who should you be bitching at? The U.S. or your own government that is complying with another country's demands?

The U.S.and the government that is complying. It does not even have to be my own.

If at first you don't succeed... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39974723)

try and try again!

Note: that's not also the definition of insanity...

Captcha: paranoia!

The futility of DNS seizures (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39974727)

This quick recovery those counterfeiters managed goes to show just how futile it is to attach the domain name infrastructure for these kinds of infringements. And for obvious reasons... nobody types an URL anymore, they just go to google/bing/whatever. And it's really a point & click matter to have your brand-new replacement domain indexed by them: you just have to fill in a form and watch googlebot crawl your site.

If they had invested all that effort in seizing bank accounts instead (and the warrants they need to do that), they'd have shut them down for real. Instead, they just inflict collateral damage without any real damage to counterfeiters.

Problem? (5, Insightful)

IonOtter (629215) | more than 2 years ago | (#39974781)

ACTUAL crime being committed? Check.
Warrant? Check.
Proper procedure followed? Check.
Crime investigated? Check.
Crime confirmed? Check.
Crime properly documented? Check.
PUBLIC DULY INFORMED???

Check and check.

I don't have a problem with this.

Re:Problem? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39974831)

Was the crime committed on U.S. soil or within U.S. jurisdiction?

Re:Problem? (4, Informative)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 2 years ago | (#39974899)

Was the crime committed on U.S. soil or within U.S. jurisdiction?

Yes. That's where they're selling the stuff.

Re:Problem? (1)

0111 1110 (518466) | more than 2 years ago | (#39975001)

So if they sell stuff to other countries do they have to abide by their laws as well? What if those laws contradict each other. If an American company were to ship a sex toy to Saudi Arabia would it be okay for the Saudis to send an agent to chop off the hands of all of those responsible for shipping it? Or how about life in prison in a Saudi jail? The US is treating US laws as though they are the laws of the world. They are not. The US government is only doing this because they can and probably due to corruption. Not because it is proper behavior.

Re:Problem? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39975047)

They'd have issues with getting the person extradited, but yes, if you're shipping something to a foreign country, it's your responsibility to know if it's legal. Remember the prince of pot? He would have been fine, but he started shipping to the US where it was illegal. Ultimately, he was extradited and tried.

This is one of the reasons why many companies don't do business internationally, because they're then having to comply with and track all sorts of export regulations that don't apply if you're shipping to domestic addresses.

If you don't want to be tried under US law, then don't commit crimes in the US. It's pretty simple, this isn't a case of a packet traveling through the US, these are cases where there is a very real presence in the US.

Re:Problem? (2)

santax (1541065) | more than 2 years ago | (#39975259)

What needs to be changed is very simple. The US does this for her own coorps and citizens btw. If you sell something, the rules apply from the country from which you are selling. If someone from another country decides to buy from you (foreign) than it's his/her responsibility to make sure the item bought is legal. Not the other way around like some countries act now.

Re:Problem? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39975597)

You are describing how it works in a normal state i.e. Sweden, U.S.A. isn't one!

Re:Problem? (2, Interesting)

Bacon Bits (926911) | more than 2 years ago | (#39975225)

So if they sell stuff to other countries do they have to abide by their laws as well?

Yes. Of course you do.

What if those laws contradict each other.

Then you probably can't do business in that country. There is no inherent right to do business, and no right to make a profit. If you can't do it within the bounds of the law, you can't do it.

If an American company were to ship a sex toy to Saudi Arabia would it be okay for the Saudis to send an agent to chop off the hands of all of those responsible for shipping it? Or how about life in prison in a Saudi jail?

They could request extradition, assuming the two nations have good relations and working treaties with extradition agreements. This type of thing can and has happened before.

The US is treating US laws as though they are the laws of the world. They are not. The US government is only doing this because they can and probably due to corruption. Not because it is proper behavior.

The US is treating properties which are located in the US as subject to US law, which is the natural right of any sovereign nation. Domain names, under the current DNS system, effectively reside in the US because they are managed by ICANN, an organization located in the US. That makes DNS digital property subject to US law.

Re:Problem? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39975549)

"The US is treating properties which are located in the US as subject to US law, which is the natural right of any sovereign nation. Domain names, under the current DNS system, effectively reside in the US because they are managed by ICANN, an organization located in the US. That makes DNS digital property subject to US law."

Agreed; which is why it would be preferable to use a way of naming and linking sites which is not under American control. Something decentralised would be best.

Re:Problem? (1)

Kalriath (849904) | more than 2 years ago | (#39976199)

The US is treating properties which are located in the US as subject to US law, which is the natural right of any sovereign nation. Domain names, under the current DNS system, effectively reside in the US because they are managed by ICANN, an organization located in the US. That makes DNS digital property subject to US law.

Not quite correct. The US does not claim jurisdiction over ccTLDs, the TLDs which are delegated down to other countries - which are in fact not managed by ICANN (e.g. Australia's ccTLDs are managed by auDA, New Zealand's by InternetNZ, USA's by NeuStar). There are various reasons for this, but mostly it's the technical near impossibility of injecting a "poisoned" DNS entry for a ccTLD by adding it to the root zone, since most DNS servers won't go all the way to the root servers to ask for a single domain.

Re:Problem? (1)

xenobyte (446878) | more than 2 years ago | (#39978971)

If an American company were to ship a sex toy to Saudi Arabia would it be okay for the Saudis to send an agent to chop off the hands of all of those responsible for shipping it? Or how about life in prison in a Saudi jail?

They could request extradition, assuming the two nations have good relations and working treaties with extradition agreements. This type of thing can and has happened before.

Actually... Until the post 9/11 era it was ab absolute requirement that the crime was indeed a crime in both countries. No problem when it comes to murder and similar, because that's illegal in most countries, but something like a sex toy might be extremely illegal in Saudi Arabia but it sure isn't in more other (civilized) countries. So the people shipping the sex toy would never be eligible to be extradited. Now, some countries have expanded extradition treaties where 'serious crimes' (terror in particular) are grounds for extradition from country A and prosecution in country B even for citizens of country A currently located in country A.

A recent example was a danish woman who was extradited from Denmark to the US (Florida) on drug charges - her former boyfriend was convicted of drug smuggling which happened while they were together, and as part of a plea-bargain he testified that she was in on it. Fortunately she was cleared (zero evidence) and is now safely back in Denmark. It was an obvious misuse of the expanded extradition treaty because even if she did it (knew about it), she obviously didn't have a connection to the smuggling itself, nor took part in the proceeds except third hand. She was nothing like a drug king pin or similar which would be a minimum for triggering the expanded treaty.

Re:Problem? (1)

xenobyte (446878) | more than 2 years ago | (#39978837)

Was the crime committed on U.S. soil or within U.S. jurisdiction?

Yes. That's where they're selling the stuff.

Wrong. They're selling the stuff on the Internet. It has no nationality and thus no laws - and thus no crime can be committed.

Some or most of their customers are in the US but that doesn't matter. If they can't touch the manufacturers (that are committing the crimes here) which are physically located in China they can go after the stuff when it hits US soil. They don't need to mess with the Internet in order to stop people from buying this stuff.

Re:Problem? (1)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 2 years ago | (#39980967)

Wrong. They're selling the stuff on the Internet

A sale involves communication with the customer (or in this case, victim, being sold counterfeit goods), involves moving money around, and involves moving goods around. They aren't "selling on the internet," as that's not even possible with physical goods. They are allowing a customer/victim to communicate order and payment info to them across the internet. And then they use the international banking system, which crosses borders and is subject to all sorts of international treaties and arrangements, to actually take the money from the customer/victim. Then they use common carriers or freight companies to move the goods across international borders to deliver the goods, through customs (subject to international agreements and laws) to the person taking deliver of the bogus, fraudulant items.

The sale is consumated when the delivery is made. In the US. The sale also happens to involve financial activity across international boundaries, using the US bankking system. Fraudulently misrepresnting the nature of the transaction is a crime. Delivering counterfeit goods is a crime. Ripping off trademarks has both civil and criminal components to it.

and thus no crime can be committed

Let me guess, you like to rip off entertainment instead of paying the people who make it what they ask for it, and so you come up with uninformed, assinine "explanations" for this sort of thing as cover for your own ripping off of things. Yup, thought so. It's on the internet so it can't be wrong! Obviously your junior high school teachers aren't serving you very well.

Re:Problem? (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 2 years ago | (#39989501)

They're selling the stuff on the Internet. It has no nationality and thus no laws - and thus no crime can be committed.

Like ScentCone said, the Internet is merely the way they receive an order. Would it be any different if the customer ordered by phone? Fax? Mail Order?

ACTUAL crime... where exactly? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39974857)

...different parts of the world have VERY different interpretations on what constitutes a crime.
define "ACTUAL crime" in a border-less environment like the internet...

- considered a crime in the offenders country of origin?
- considered a crime in the victims country of origin?
- does it need to be both? if so, who has jurisdiction?
- if there are treaties... whose take precedence?
- where was the crime committed? at the point of manufacture? at the point of sale? where is the point of sale exactly? at the point of delivery?
- does it all come down to he who has the bigger missile silos?

Its really easy for us to state that something on the internet is "wrong". Its a lot harder to state that its "illegal"

Re:ACTUAL crime... where exactly? (1)

IonOtter (629215) | more than 2 years ago | (#39975017)

Hence the conditions: "Proper procedure followed" and "Actual crime".

If you follow proper procedure, you will determine whether or not you actually have jurisdiction. And in the US, the sale of counterfeit goods-where 'counterfeit' in this case marking the items to look exactly like the genuine article, such as Reebock instead of Reebok- is illegal. So in this instance, they appear to have cleared all those conditions.

Re:Problem? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39975055)

"Check
Check
Check ..."

[citation needed]

Re:Problem? (1)

rtb61 (674572) | more than 2 years ago | (#39976937)

Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law? FAIL.

"Washington, we have a problem." as a RIAA/MPAA driven Justice Department driven by Uncle Tom Obama send justice hurtling out of control. Steal the stuff, fire the employees, threatening them with extended homosexual rape in US prisons (don't deny Americans routinely comment on it and it is publicly acknowledged http://www.hrw.org/news/2007/12/15/us-federal-statistics-show-widespread-prison-rape [hrw.org] ).

So forget justice this is all about nothing but a corrupt betrayer in the highest office in the United States a true Uncle Tom and out of control greed and corruption.

Thus demonstrating... (1)

gstrickler (920733) | more than 2 years ago | (#39974841)

...that seizing domains does absolutely no good, and that in at least a one case [arstechnica.com] , it does significant harm to people who haven't violated the law [slashdot.org] .

It's a flawed, ineffective, and destructive policy that can only cause harm and can never have any significant benefit. It needs to be stopped immediately.

and this costs how much (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39975857)

what i'd lke to know:
how much does it cost us to identify the sites?
how many legit sites are affected and lose money?
etc etc
what's the point of seizing domains when it's pretty simple to just switch to a new one

ACTA for only $1,455,438? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39976143)

So according to ACTA promoters, counterfeiting is a $100 billion a year business, and yet these websites combined, resulted in seizure of only $1.5 million??

"Under warrants issued by a U.S. District Judge, law enforcement agents seized $1,455,438.72 in proceeds that had been transferred from the money service business accounts to various bank accounts in China."

I notice they included the decimal point in the story and the fraction which makes the number longer, but it is only $1.5 million, probably far less than the budget of the department investigating it, and certainly not worth crippling the world with censorship, surveillance etc.

So can we now again have a proper assessment of the true damage counterfeiting is and stop this ACTA funny number nonsense??

How come the buyers (2)

future assassin (639396) | more than 2 years ago | (#39976677)

are not being punished? You can't tell me they couldn't get the transaction history from the payment processors.

Twisted, man (1)

Jawnn (445279) | more than 2 years ago | (#39978579)

Banksters continue to loot the savings and investments of millions of people, and our "leaders" are focused on knock-off NFL jerseys and copied mp3's.

This time! It will surely work THIS TIME! (1)

alex_guy_CA (748887) | more than 2 years ago | (#39992149)

Also, we are going to finally win the drug war any day now.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...