Judge Orders Hundreds of Websites Delisted From Search Engines, Social Networks 308
An anonymous reader writes "A federal judge has ruled that a number of a websites trafficking in counterfeit Chanel goods can have their domains seized and transferred to a new registrar. Astonishingly, the judge also ordered that the sites must be de-indexed from all search engines and all social media websites. Quoting the article: 'Missing from the ruling is any discussion of the Internet's global nature; the judge shows no awareness that the domains in question might not even be registered in this country, for instance, and his ban on search engine and social media indexing apparently extends to the entire world. (And, when applied to U.S.-based companies like Twitter, apparently compels them to censor the links globally rather than only when accessed by people in the U.S.) Indeed, a cursory search through the list of offending domains turns up poshmoda.ws, a site registered in Germany. The German registrar has not yet complied with the U.S. court order, though most other domain names on the list are .com or .net names and have been seized.'"
For non US-filtered search results (Score:5, Informative)
There is also European StartPage / Ixquick [startpage.com], but it's more for privacy. It aggregates results from Google and other search engines, so US censors still apply. Yandex and Baidu are completely independant search engines.
Sadly, this is what US has become.
Re:For non US-filtered search results (Score:5, Informative)
Oh, the irony! [wikipedia.org] (for those who don't wanna click even on a Wikipedia link: Baidu is a Chinese search engine and is one, and probably the, worst at censorship of all search engines.)
Re:For non US-filtered search results (Score:3, Informative)
On the other hand, what China censors on their search engine (ie., riots, Tienanmen square, etc to keep peace) is much less harmful than what US does with some mere cheap goods. But yeah, maybe it's a cultural thing and material stuff is important to you than your life.
Re:For non US-filtered search results (Score:4, Informative)
Just who is actually in danger and need protection?
US companies, of course. Frankly, people who travel overseas will buy them at will, fully knowing they are cheap replicas. And usually they also get a good product, only without the huge profit margin to company that made it.
Re:For non US-filtered search results (Score:5, Informative)
In all likelihood, the judge just signed off on a proposed injunction order drafted by the plaintiffs (the trademark holders). I'm assuming the defendants (the trademark infringers) didn't appear, thus allowing the court to enter an injunction against them by default. Usually, the courts have the winning side draft the terms of the proposed injunction, and the judge reviews and modifies it as necessary. Here, the "deleting" the websites from "all search engines" was probably some stupid language the plaintiff put in and the judge either didn't notice it or didn't think about how stupid that language is. Ultimately, it doesn't matter-- the injunction binds only those people who are parties to the case (the trademark infringers) or who work in "active concert" with them -- something that no court would deem a search engine to be.
Re:For non US-filtered search results (Score:5, Informative)
Remember that most Chinese believe that it's for the country's good that government tries to keep some control.
I'm Chinese and I despise sinophile apologist fucks like you. You have no right to speak for anyone.
I'm also Chinese and I have to say GP is unfortunately correct. Poll after poll of people actually living in Communist China shows the vast, vast majority think that the government should play a role in "protecting the people from dangerous ideas" and the like. They're fools, and they're wrong, but they're out there, just like the lunatic Fox News fringe exists here in the US (which unfortunately makes up a large enough voting bloc to win a majority of Congress in 2010).
You can be as indignant as you want, but don't ignore reality just because it disgusts you; that's kind of what those other people that you'd rather ignore are doing.
Re:For non US-filtered search results (Score:5, Informative)
your position suggests that there was leas censorship in the fifties than there is now. Obviously that isn't true
Is that obvious? True, pornography and communist literature has been legalize, but we have since made the following things illegal or have otherwise engaged in censorship:
Re:For non US-filtered search results (Score:1, Informative)
I'm almost in complete agreement. But child porn is a strong counterexample in my mind. Some content should be very illegal to distribute or possess. And extremely illegal to produce.
Re:For non US-filtered search results (Score:4, Informative)
Historically, the US attitude towards knockoffs has been to embrace them with open arms.
In the song Yankee Doodle, Macaroni does not refer to pasta, but to an expensive Italian hat with a signature feather on it. Hence the line "...stuck a feather in his hat and called it Macaroni"
It's interesting to watch a societies laws change as the country goes from a nation that thrives on innovation and change to one vested in the status quo that any change, no matter how much good it will be done in the long term faces huge opposition For example copyright has gone from 16 years for books and maps (newspapers, magazines, posters, paintings, fliers, and prints had no copyright protection.) to 75 plus life of the author for anything with slightest amount of creativity involved in its making.