Feds Seize Several TV/Movie Sites

[Odin]

According to the Wall Street Journal, federal authorities seized 9 domain names of sites that were offering pirated movies.

The nine domain names were registered using U.S.-based registrars, allowing authorities to take control of their site addresses.

Some of the sites themselves were run on computers based in the U.S, in Colorado, Florida and Illinois, but others used computers based in Germany, the Netherlands, the U.K. and the Czech Republic.

The domain names seized according to the report were:

TVSHACK.NET, MOVIES-LINKS.TV, FILESPUMP.COM, NOW-MOVIES.COM, PLANETMOVIEZ.COM, THEPIRATECITY.ORG, and ZML.COM, NinjaVideo.net and NinjaThis.net.

These sites allegedly allowed visitors to stream or download popular television shows and movies.

The report did not cite under what law the domain names were seized.

As far as I know there is no federal law that allows the seizure of domain names.

That of course is the troubling part.

http://www.thedomains.com/2010/07/01...d-on-what-law/

Thoughts? Concerning that the Government itself has taken control of the domains without any hearing or court case? Or fair game?

[Quentin]

It's complicated.

The actions taken by the feds here were carried out under a warrant obtained on the basis of what appears to be clearly illegal action on the part of these sites. The sites were not UCG sites, so they could not claim exemption under the DMCA safe harbor as ISPs/OSPs by asserting that end users had uploaded the content in question. (Plus, the sites made no claim of adhering to DMCA anyway, so that argument was never available to them).

Seizure of property and assets prior to making an arrest is not that unusual in criminal cases, particularly criminal cases involving suspects located outside the U.S., but who have assets inside the U.S. You see this sort of thing all the time with organized crime cases, counter-terrorism measures, even sites/services that violate UIGEA. As part of the investigation, the feds seize assets, in part to force the accused party to respond to subpoenas and summons (as responding and defending themselves in court is the only way they are going to get their assets back), thereby making themselves available and known to law enforcement.

The WSJ article doesn't provide enough detail to say what law(s) this action was carried out under, but from the details they did provide, it seems pretty clear that this is a copyright infringement case at its core.

[DaddyHalbucks]

I think this will be more common in the future.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by DaddyHalbucks

I think this will be more common in the future.

you really believe the "pirates" won't learn from these mistakes, and simply put up UGC submission system, and a process that pays lip service the DMCA instead.

[Odin]

Originally Posted by Quentin

It's complicated.

The actions taken by the feds here were carried out under a warrant obtained on the basis of what appears to be clearly illegal action on the part of these sites. The sites were not UCG sites, so they could not claim exemption under the DMCA safe harbor as ISPs/OSPs by asserting that end users had uploaded the content in question. (Plus, the sites made no claim of adhering to DMCA anyway, so that argument was never available to them).

Seizure of property and assets prior to making an arrest is not that unusual in criminal cases, particularly criminal cases involving suspects located outside the U.S., but who have assets inside the U.S. You see this sort of thing all the time with organized crime cases, counter-terrorism measures, even sites/services that violate UIGEA. As part of the investigation, the feds seize assets, in part to force the accused party to respond to subpoenas and summons (as responding and defending themselves in court is the only way they are going to get their assets back), thereby making themselves available and known to law enforcement.

The WSJ article doesn't provide enough detail to say what law(s) this action was carried out under, but from the details they did provide, it seems pretty clear that this is a copyright infringement case at its core.

Interesting explanation. The question I have, is how did they determine it was a US asset? Because the controlling registrar was US based? Or are they trying to exert authority over the domain system in general?

Also at least one of the sites was UGC no? I had never heard of it before but zml.com was accused of allowing users to post content I believe. Even thought it was not hosting the content itself. Seems to be a bit of a development there.

[Quentin]

Originally Posted by Chief

Interesting explanation. The question I have, is how did they determine it was a US asset? Because the controlling registrar was US based? Or are they trying to exert authority over the domain system in general?

Also at least one of the sites was UGC no? I had never heard of it before but zml.com was accused of allowing users to post content I believe. Even thought it was not hosting the content itself. Seems to be a bit of a development there.

Ah -- I was going by the info in the article, which is somewhat lacking; some of them might well have been UCG sites. If they were, *and* had the proper disclaimers, *and* registered a DMCA compliance officer with the U.S. Copyright Office, then they may have a DMCA-based defense available to them after all.

As for how/why they are assets in the U.S., it sounds like they used U.S. registrars, and that at least some of the servers were in the U.S. as well. Presumably those facts form the 'U.S. nexus' that the U.S. authorities are using to claim jurisdiction here.

I should have clarified my previous post by saying that it *sounded like* they weren't UCG sites from the descriptions I've read, and that I'm speculating (hopefully reasonably) as to the other details, as well. I'm not personally familiar with the sites in question, and at this point the sites aren't available to look at, so until more information is made available by the U.S. authorities (or if there's a more detailed article about it already lurking around out there), we're all sort of guessing as to what went down here.

[notime]

I recall ZML.COM from a few years ago. You could download the latest movies there against payment, even in local payment ways like SMS and it was even translated in Dutch too.

[kristin]

Damn, NinjaVideo.net was pretty big.

[VGeorgie]

DMCA includes a red flag test, in addition to takedown notices, where liability still applies if that host is assumed to be reasonably "aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent."

They can have a copyright agent, DMCA policy, and user upload links. They can still be liable if it's judged that the site operators are reasonably likely to know of the infringement. The sharing of full-length Hollywood movies on a Web site, where titles and even screen shots are made available, is a good argument that the site operators reasonably had knowledge that infringing activity was going on.

So far this has been a lesser known provision of the DMCA, but it'll be more heavily enforced as time goes on.

[Odin]

Originally Posted by VGeorgie

DMCA includes a red flag test, in addition to takedown notices, where liability still applies if that host is assumed to be reasonably "aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent."

They can have a copyright agent, DMCA policy, and user upload links. They can still be liable if it's judged that the site operators are reasonably likely to know of the infringement. The sharing of full-length Hollywood movies on a Web site, where titles and even screen shots are made available, is a good argument that the site operators reasonably had knowledge that infringing activity was going on.

So far this has been a lesser known provision of the DMCA, but it'll be more heavily enforced as time goes on.

Youtube knew it went on too, they admitted to knowing it went on. However they still beat their case?

Your ISP knows downloading goes on as well. I understand that there will be a line drawn in court as to whether copyright infringement was encouraged, or not, but I wouldn't figure it to be as straightforward as you say.

[PenisFace]

Whew, it's a good thing they didn't go after my favourite sites.

Seriously, go after the porn tubes as well, you dick monkeys

edit: The porn tubes make full porn movies available to minors! This is an outrage! The other sites just let your kid watch horrible movies like "road trip" and "disaster movie". The porn tubes let your kid watch "John fucks wayne in the ass for thirty eight minutes and then comes all over a horny pencil".

[fatfoo]

There should not be piracy of movies.
Real piracy on the seas is even worse.

[greg80]

ZML.com was huge. They had affiliate program that paid 30% on sales and rebills. Membership was $39.99 or similar per month and you could download unlimited movies direct from them. I believe they operated under Russian laws and actually paid something for rights to movies in Russia.

[VGeorgie]

Originally Posted by Chief

Youtube knew it went on too, they admitted to knowing it went on. However they still beat their case?

Your ISP knows downloading goes on as well. I understand that there will be a line drawn in court as to whether copyright infringement was encouraged, or not, but I wouldn't figure it to be as straightforward as you say.

Your ISP doesn't know what specific files or traffic is infringing, and simply knowing some traffic is infringing isn't enough. DMCA spells this out.

YouTube's case turned on a different point; specifically Viacom was "officially" uploading videos and then tried tried to say those as well as clips uploaded by users were infringing.

YouTube has a number of mechanisms in place to avoid the red flag; namely, they adhere to a strict length limit, they rely on COMPENSATED reviewers in the community to help police content, and their own internal review catches most illegal content, including CP and obvious copyright infringement - they KNOW the latest Iron Man shouldn't be there. They don't need to wait for Paramount to tell them.

These and other policies saved YouTube in the end, even despite itself and some stupid comments made in private emails. They were lucky. I doubt these other sites have anything near these protections.

[TeenCat]

warez is dying ...

[RogerV]

I think its great.. fuck pirates

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

you really believe the "pirates" won't learn from these mistakes, and simply put up UGC submission system, and a process that pays lip service the DMCA instead.

tick tock gideongallery tick tock

Your time is running out.

[2MuchMark]

Originally Posted by RogerV

I think its great.. fuck pirates

Fucking - A. Congrats to the movie industry for kicking some ass. Tube sites next.

[milambur]

Kinda strange that they can seize domains not owned by citizens. But they had it coming I guess, now I hope they go after the tube sites.

[VGeorgie]

Originally Posted by milambur

Kinda strange that they can seize domains not owned by citizens. But they had it coming I guess, now I hope they go after the tube sites.

The US ultimately controls the Internet, via IANA, which is operated by ICANN on behalf of the US Commerce Department.


The .COM TLD is operated by VeriSign, a US company. That ultimately puts all .COM domains under the jurisdiction of the US government.

[HomerSimpson]

Originally Posted by VGeorgie

The US ultimately controls the Internet, via IANA, which is operated by ICANN on behalf of the US Commerce Department.


The .COM TLD is operated by VeriSign, a US company. That ultimately puts all .COM domains under the jurisdiction of the US government.

this can be both good and bad...
but let's hope it they will use it for good things like stopping the piracy...

[Coup]

MOVIES-LINKS.TV

lol this site's already been through atleast six domains

and it's already back with a new one.

[mikesinner]

Originally Posted by Coup

MOVIES-LINKS.TV

lol this site's already been through atleast six domains

and it's already back with a new one.

Good, shows they haven't learned anything and the people behind such sites that continue to pirate content will end up in jail.

[Angry Jew Cat - Banned for Life]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! Not NinjaVideo, that was my fave. Fuckers.

[Coup]

Originally Posted by mikesinner

end up in jail.

i doubt it.

[CYF]

Originally Posted by Chief

The nine domain names were registered using U.S.-based registrars, allowing authorities to take control of their site addresses.

ZML.COM

Domain Name: ZML.COM
Registrar: BIZCN.COM, INC.


Domain name: bizcn.com

Registrant Contact:
Xiamen Longtop Online Technology Co,.ltd
Bizcn Bizcn [email protected]
+86.5922577888 fax: 86-592-2577111
1F - 4F, Software Technology Service Builing, Xiamen Software Park
xiamen Fujian 361004
cn

[Odin]

Originally Posted by VGeorgie

The US ultimately controls the Internet, via IANA, which is operated by ICANN on behalf of the US Commerce Department.


The .COM TLD is operated by VeriSign, a US company. That ultimately puts all .COM domains under the jurisdiction of the US government.

Well this is what I was wondering. I can't imagine very many countries would be happy with the US exerting that kind of control over the domain name system?

[Loch]

Nooo way reaaalllyy ?

[Odin]

I just had a look. It seems as though it was done through verisign. At least two of the domains were held by registrars abroad. One in Canada and one in China. Seems like quite the development if the US is now exerting that type of control over the tld system.

[VGeorgie]

Originally Posted by Chief

I just had a look. It seems as though it was done through verisign. At least two of the domains were held by registrars abroad. One in Canada and one in China. Seems like quite the development if the US is now exerting that type of control over the tld system.

It doesn't matter who the registrar is, though it's easier to take control of a domain if the registrar is US-based. The registrant's location is irrelevant.

.COM, .NET, and many other TLDs are controlled by the US government, and if they want to exert pressure for this kind of thing they will. Looks like they are.

VeriSign administers the .COM TLD. That's why when they raise prices, registrars like GoDaddy send out all those emails to get you to renew for years in advance.

[VGeorgie]

Originally Posted by Chief

Well this is what I was wondering. I can't imagine very many countries would be happy with the US exerting that kind of control over the domain name system?

Since it was the US that built the domain name and assigned numbers systems I don't know if they have a choice. They can always come up with something of their own. If they have the communications infrastructure they can create their own version of the interwebs.

The US has so far been pretty hands-off on most things related to Internet trade, so you have to give them the benefit of the doubt. But it's silly to think that, in this economy, if US-based businesses are being affected by some widespread activity they deem illegal that they'll just sit by and do nothing.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by VGeorgie

Since it was the US that built the domain name and assigned numbers systems I don't know if they have a choice. They can always come up with something of their own. If they have the communications infrastructure they can create their own version of the interwebs.

The US has so far been pretty hands-off on most things related to Internet trade, so you have to give them the benefit of the doubt. But it's silly to think that, in this economy, if US-based businesses are being affected by some widespread activity they deem illegal that they'll just sit by and do nothing.

one word
GATT

[Dirty Dane]

This is coordinated by Interpol. US is only one jurisdiction

I'm sure they can have their domains back if the authorities were unreasonable.

[JFK]

Originally Posted by **********

Fucking - A. Congrats to the movie industry for kicking some ass. Tube sites next.

Right On

[Antonio]

this will be as successful as the prohibition law

[Vjo]

Wow what if those were the top 10 tubes. Things would change overnight big time. Copywrite is copyright and movies are movies.

Debbie Does Dallas is entitled to the same legal protection as Sex In The City 2.

So who knows, full length tubes may be next. I would think that whole user submitted bs protecting tubes wont amount to JACK SQUAT* if they decide the big copywrite infringing tubes are next.

No hate. Just saying.

* Little Chris Farley for ya.

[Don Pueblo]

gideon fucks rabbits

[VGeorgie]

Originally Posted by gideongallery

one word
GATT

GATT is gone. It's now the WTO, and every member country reserves the right to protect its self interests. A common claim is the non-reciprocity clause in instances of IP theft. The US does this all the time against China and other countries that try to import knock-offs.

[Vjo]

Lets face it, from the time someone decided to steal everyone's movies and throw them on this cool new script he was the first to buy, he was breaking the law.

Only a matter of time.

It would take only one gathering of congress to pass some new laws to clean up loose ends. As well as pass a law making it illegal to support copyright violators and in essence shut them down worldwide.

Still no hate. Just stating the obvious.

oops that's copyright not copywrite

[VGeorgie]

Originally Posted by Dirty Dane

This is coordinated by Interpol. US is only one jurisdiction

The *jurisdiction* is the United States. Like it or not, .com and many other TLDs belong to the US government. On top of that, the US government ultimately controls the assigned numbers system to all other TLDs. Like it or not, that's the way it currently is.

Originally Posted by Dirty Dane

I'm sure they can have their domains back if the authorities were unreasonable.

They'd have to appeal to ICANN, which is - wait for it! - a US corporation!

Yeah, sure. There's this Green Paper thingie and other agreements that supposedly even the playing field, but when it comes down to it, the US government holds a hand with five aces.

So whatever the US is going to do to protect revenue-generating industries it's going to do. Not that they'll do squat for adult - this is for the movie and music industries.

[Dirty Dane]

Originally Posted by VGeorgie

The *jurisdiction* is the United States. Like it or not, .com and many other TLDs belong to the US government. On top of that, the US government ultimately controls the assigned numbers system to all other TLDs. Like it or not, that's the way it currently is.

A domain is a resolve/gateway, nothing more. US government have no jurisdiction if the computer and/or peers are located elsewhere in the world. Interpol have to coordinate and delegate to each jurisdiction. That way US is only one jurisdiction. Cooperation and extradiction is possible though if serious enough.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by VGeorgie

The *jurisdiction* is the United States. Like it or not, .com and many other TLDs belong to the US government. On top of that, the US government ultimately controls the assigned numbers system to all other TLDs. Like it or not, that's the way it currently is.


They'd have to appeal to ICANN, which is - wait for it! - a US corporation!

Yeah, sure. There's this Green Paper thingie and other agreements that supposedly even the playing field, but when it comes down to it, the US government holds a hand with five aces.

So whatever the US is going to do to protect revenue-generating industries it's going to do. Not that they'll do squat for adult - this is for the movie and music industries.

if this were the way it works it would go against the icann agreement with the US government

http://www.domainnamenews.com/icann-...mmitments/6208

since that agreement was only made to avoid having the UN claim ownership of icann and create a country independent ruling body i doubt very much the US government would make such an arguement

especially when the basis for access shifting as a fair use has been established under some foreign jurisdictions.

[ASW]

Originally Posted by DaddyHalbucks

I think this will be more common in the future.

i agree 110%

[Phoenix]

cool beans...but interesting how it went down