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.'"
This is a harbinger of SOPA (Score:5, Interesting)
See what Venkat Balasubramani says about this [1], in detail
An injunction requiring Google to "de-list" sites is one remedy which SOPA expressly makes available, and ordering the registry to transfer domain names to GoDaddy and ordering GoDaddy to update the DNS records is in effect achieving another remedy which SOPA creates. The fight against SOPA may be a red herring in some ways, since IP plaintiffs are fashioning very similar remedies in court irrespective of the legislation. Thus, even if SOPA is defeated, it may turn out to be a Pyrrhic victory--opponents may win the battle but may not have gained much as a result.
[1]: http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2011/11/court_oks_priva.htm [ericgoldman.org]
Re:This just in! (Score:5, Interesting)
Since when is 3/228 a good sample size? (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's the bit that gets to me:
(A recent November 14 order went after an additional 228 sites; none had a chance to contest the request until after it was approved and the names had been seized.)
How were the sites investigated? For the most recent batch of names, Chanel hired a Nevada investigator to order from three of the 228 sites in question. When the orders arrived, they were reviewed by a Chanel official and declared counterfeit. The other 225 sites were seized based on a Chanel anti-counterfeiting specialist browsing the Web.
Re:For non US-filtered search results (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:domains seized and transferred to a new registr (Score:3, Interesting)
It would be an interesting place to run a tor node or torrent site.
It can't be infringing...my site is court ordered not to appear anywhere!
Re:US Immigration & Customs Enforcement (Score:5, Interesting)
tax payer dollars are being used to protect the profits of companies
They are also being used to protect the people who don't realize that the "Guchi" handbag they are buying isn't a real Gucci. While I would agree that someone who buys a "Guchi" bag probably ought to know better, I'd say that someone who buys a counterfeit "Gucci" has no reason to expect it to be a counterfeit and thus an expectation that they are not being ripped off. Someone who is selling counterfeit goods is banking on the name of the product and not the quality, so while the victim does get something with a "Gucci" label, the quality is not what they paid extra for.
this is a problem between stupid electorate continually rel-electing politicians who do not represent the people and are easily bought out.
I think your view is the one that isn't quite representative of the people. People who don't want to buy, e.g., Gucci, are still free to do so, and nobody is stopping them. Nobody is stopping someone from selling handbags that are quite nice but don't pretend to be Gucci. This is not an issue of stopping someone from selling a bag that looks like a Gucci but is clearly identified as not being one ("counterfeit" is not the same as "knock off".) I think most people are quite happy that someone in charge is trying to get rid of places and people that are selling counterfeit goods, and not just because those counterfeit goods harm the authentic manufacturer. They also harm the consumer, who has spent good money on a poor product, which means they aren't spending that money on anything else.
but to boil it down this story is just icing on the turd-cake that will be served to future historians who write about the downfall of America.
You have it backwards. To do nothing about counterfeit goods is antithetical to what the US is based on. To do nothing is what would help the downfall. "Property rights" is firmly established in US law and history, and is why we prospered as a nation to start with. "Here's a plot of land, homesteader, work hard and it is yours." Contrast that with "here's a community plot of land, occupant. Show up occasionally and you'll get a share of the food it produces."
"Pretend your product is made by someone else who has built a reputation for quality and profit at the expense of them and the consumer" is more like the latter than the former. I have no problem with the legal system going after counterfeiters. None at all. They have no right to use the trademarks and names of reputable companies. When I go into a restaurant and buy a "Coke", I expect that it will BE a product of the Coca Cola company, not "Bob's Coke" or even "Coak". That position doesn't have anything to do with IP or patents or copyrights, just with fraud.
Re:For non US-filtered search results (Score:3, Interesting)
Patently false. We should continue to be vigilant, but your position suggests that there was leas censorship in the fifties than there is now. Obviously that isn't true. The truth is there has always been censorship and most likely always will be. The question we needare to continyou ask istoday when is it appropriate to for the larger good. Right now scientists are debating releasing information on a strain of the flu because of the potential downside of sharing the information with the world. And scientists are generally very averse to censorship. My point being it can be a complicated issue. Simplifying the issue to a level of absurdity only muddies the water of a very important social conversation.
Re:For non US-filtered search results (Score:5, Interesting)
It is illegal to engage in trademark infringement. It is illegal to sell goods known to be infringing. Goods engaging in trademark infringement can be seized, and often are without the merchant being compensated.
It is not illegal however to publish a directory of where one can find infringing goods. That's the analogy to the listing.