8 ms·

US Government Censors 70 Websites

139 points by iuguy 16y ago

hsmyers 16y ago
While it no longer makes economic sense to manufacture buggy whips, perhaps there is a Renaissance in the construction and sale of jack boots?
- jrd79 16y ago
  I don't understand why so many people on this site defend intellectual property theft. I own a small software company that suffers from piracy every day. I worked day and night without pay for more than a year to write the software that I now make my living from. And after all that hard work the thugs and criminals at The Pirate Bay and elsewhere just steal it and make money off the ads or subscriptions. IP is a central and essential part of the world order and no single thinker in the piracy movement has advanced any serious alternative - and yes, I include Lessig in this. Maybe the loud voices in this forum just enjoy stealing other peoples work without having their own work stolen, but bogus free speech arguments and hysterics about jack boots do not justify what is at it's core an immoral act.
  - Andrew_Quentin 16y ago
    I do not think the debate is about theft. The important matter is who decides that it was theft. We have an independent judiciary and that is there for a reason. Whether terrorism or copyright infringement, the government has no right whatever to decide on individual cases and facts. That is the job of the judges. Take the matters to court!
    - jrd79 16y ago
      I hear you on this point and should have been clear that I do not approve of actions taken without due process. But I also wish the rest of the posters here would state their opposition to piracy while they defend the pirates on procedural grounds. It's like when skin heads march. All sensible people defend their right to hold a peaceful demonstration but it is good taste to also point out ones disapproval of the ideas those skinheads espouse. The lack of voices making such clarifications has been notable. And it sounds like typical apologist arguments. To those lamenting this action: do you pirate music, movies, or software?
      - chopsueyar 16y ago
        Personally, I only pirate your software. Seriously though, you could be making the same case for slavery prior to the 13th amendment.
  - notahacker 16y ago
    You don't need to think what TorrentFinder is doing is justifiable or constitutionally protected to think that government shouldn't have the power to interfere with DNS systems without due process.
    - jrd79 16y ago
      I agree completely that due process is essential and that this action doesn't pass the sniff test in that department. But while Voltaire was willing to defend the speech (and presumably the due process rights) of those with whom he strongly disagreed, he did take the time to point out his disagreement while doing so. I would just like to hear more voices in this forum express their distaste for IP theft when they are forced by the foolish actions of the government to speak out in defense of pirates. I just get the sense that some people here might have pirated material and defend the pirates and second guess the business decisions of IP holders as a sort of sub-conscious defense mechanism. No one wants to think of oneself as a bad person but surely software piracy is wrong.
  - araneae 16y ago
    I think it's because we believe that once we pay for something, it's our right to do whatever we want with it... and that includes giving it to friends. The problem with the Internet is that it makes it possible to bypass original sales in an unprecedented way because the cost of giving it to strangers comes at no cost to us. Any solutions necessarily involves infringing on free speech (this) or infringing on an individual's right to do what they want with their purchases (DRM), so yes, I do support torrenting.
    - jrd79 16y ago
      Most software is not sold but licensed and those licenses restrict the kind of sharing you are talking about. If what you suggested were allowed then one book publisher would only have to buy a single copy of a competing publisher's most popular book and then reproduce and sell it themselves but without paying royalties to the author. Are you really suggesting that creators of IP should not be able to profit from their work? Where do you work such that such a world would not directly impoverish you? Not to mention destroy the entire US economy. While I understand that there are serious due process questions raised by this story, the tone in this forum seems to go beyond that to outright support of intellectual property theft. That is worrisome to me.
    - anigbrowl 16y ago
      I think it's because we believe that once we pay for something, it's our right to do whatever we want with it... So, if you rent a car, does that mean its OK to drive it around the corner and sell it to someone else? you paid to get hold of the car, so it's yours, yes? Oh, wait, no it isn't. You paid to rent it for a finite period under certain conditions, and signed a contract to that effect. the same is usually the case where software is concerned, but since you don't like the terms of the software contract too much, you feel free to ignore it, and redefine your licensing of the software as a purchase, granting yourself all kinds of new rights which the original creator never intended to give to end users. Now, you're welcome to say that software is way overpriced or those terms are so onerous you refuse to comply with them, a point of view I have some sympathy with. But at least be honest about the fact that you're choosing to ignore the contractual terms offered by the licensor and agreed to by the licensee. edit: I don't mind being downvoted, but at least point out why you think the argument is flawed. Otherwise you're just blaming the weatherman for telling you that its raining.
  - ScottBurson 16y ago
    I haven't seen anyone in this thread defending intellectual property theft (though there are certainly people out there who do so) or the activities of these particular sites. Rather, what disturbs many of us, myself included, is government censorship without due process of law. We are concerned that once the precedent is laid, its use will inevitably expand to cover sites whose activities make the government uncomfortable for different reasons (WikiLeaks being a good example). As a software author myself, I sympathize with your situation, but the risks here are much bigger than the loss of income to piracy.
  - tomjen3 16y ago
    Economically it does not matter how hard you worked, only what value others put on it. And secondly, but far more importantly, I for one am not willing to give up my freedom of speech and right of due process to protect your monopoly on a few specific bit patterns. We give murderers, rapists, even child molesters their day in court and the right to question the evidence brought against them, to question and examine witnesses, to be judge by a jury of their peers and to petition the government for redress of grievencess but if they help others find places where they can search for specific bit patterns and make a copy of those, we give them none of these rights? At this point all that is left is realize that I have been trolled.
  - mambodog 16y ago
    I'm sad to hear that you've been on the wrong end of software piracy. I guess it's easy to feel that the whole continuum of torrent sites and copyright infringement can be boiled down to one group, motive and morality, but unfortunately reality is a little more complex than that.
  - Detrus 16y ago
    Lots of people here sell software through subscription, or get revenue from ads. Others are satisfied with profits from various mobile app stores. Although there is piracy there, there are enough buyers because prices are cheap. So the definite culprits of piracy are not "thieves" but bad pricing and inconvenient installation. The absence of "thieves" would not translate into more sales.
    - jrd79 16y ago
      Subscriptions are great and we offer one as one of our products. Obviously we have no piracy problems there. But our software is arguably more sensibly delivered as desktop software due to it's cpu and file size considerations. So while we started with an online offering, users demanded a desktop version and we delivered. It is easy to assume that because your business is not a victim that those business that have suffered are just not as good at delivery, but I think you are wrong and I would argue that even businesses that make bad decisions deserve to have their IP protected by government action.
      - Detrus 16y ago
        Maybe they do deserve protection, but that's not how the real world works. Right and wrong are decided by groups of people, not moral absolutes. Here more people seem to care about freeing knowledge than profiting from it. They see large entities like old IBM, current Microsoft as impediments to progress, overcharging for software, making large profits from business customers and not spreading the benefits of that software or making software poorly suited to the less well off. That's a vague description of the sentiment. Eventually these groups face off in arenas where arguments don't count and someone comes out ahead. It's impossible to stop piracy technologically, lawyers can only threaten or fight little skirmishes for publicity to discourage the general populace from it. Ultimately struggling businesses need to put up more than arguments. It took music companies a long time to get around to that, could have been much smoother with less lawyers and more service.
      - chopsueyar 16y ago
        If I buy a licensed copy of your software, how many years do I have to wait before I can make copies of it and distribute it freely to others? 10 years? 50 years? 100 years?
  - steveklabnik 16y ago
    It seems to me like you're unwilling to listen to others' opinions on this topic, because it's too emotional of a topic for you. You can't say "I'm disregarding all of these arguments" and then claim there aren't any proper arguments against intellectual property.
jdp23 16y ago
a couple of questions to those who are complaining about too many political stories here -- and i'm not being disingenuous , i really want to to know. - do you see this as a political story? why or why not? - some people here may be considering starting businesses where some of user-provided content they host might fall afoul of this policy. do you think this story meets the bar of being interest to the HN community?
- Andrew_Quentin 16y ago
  Political is a vague term. I do not think anyone really knows or can define it without some decade long argument and a final consensus. That the government can decide who is guilty however is not a matter of politics, but, fundamental principles. As to your second question, this is something which effects some of the HN community, whether genuine original content producers or otherwise. Thus, I do think it is news related to technology of a relatively new nature, thus, I would say, yes it is or has the potential to be of interest to the HN community.
DanielBMarkham 16y ago
Governments have always used their power to try to further special interests. Indeed, the only reason for political parties is to have places where various special interests can line up against each other. In the past there has always been enough time to create a narrative so that the parties can "make sense" to the voters. One party doesn't say it's supporting trial lawyers: instead it's "looking out for the little people". Another party doesn't support the military-industrial complex, instead it's providing for the defense of the nation. In other words, its possible to spin these special interests in such a fashion as to appeal to the little guy. This makes people buy into what the government is doing -- the consent of the governed. But the wheels seem to be coming off the trolley -- it's becoming apparent that technology is changing so fast that the political parties can't catch their narratives up with reality. When you had communists threatening to conquer the world for thirty years, there was plenty of time to make a strong case for a defense industry. When you had super-huge corporations threatening the citizenry with pollution and such, it was easy to make a case for environmental laws and enormous lawsuits. But file-sharing? Photo-realistic-capable naked body scans? Imposing total data visibility into the world's financial systems? Declaring that Americans still owe taxes even if they leave the country for tax reasons? There may be very valid and reasonable arguments to be made for each of these things, but in my opinion nobody has made them yet. Instead, we just have a fear of one thing trotted out -- terrorism, big corporations, whatever -- and then we're told that these things we have lost were for a good reason. Making matters worse is that some special interests, such as the movie, music, and software guys, (and the security guys) have effectively bought off both parties. So it doesn't matter who you vote for, you're stuck with doing whatever these interests want. And its becoming more and more apparent that these interests will use the full force of law to go after anybody they see as an enemy to their cause. Even though I'm emotional about this, I see no reason to rant and rave. It's not going to change anything, and getting emotional just gives other people something to make fun of. In my opinion this current trajectory cannot continue for many decades longer. That's just the way it is, no matter what each individual's opinion on each of these issues may be. I'm reminded of Ronald Reagan, when asked why he left the Democrat party, said, "I didn't leave the party. The party left me." I certainly hope the same thing doesn't happen to the consent of the governed in most of the world's major democracies. EDIT: If you'd like a startup/technology angle to this, then my advice is not to go into business in any area that one of these interests might be involved -- unless you have strong political connections (or are willing to develop them). If you're able to develop those connections, however, it should be like shooting fish in a barrel.
srbloom 16y ago
Is this only a DNS block? Can you still get to these websites by pointing your browser directly to an IP address?
jrockway 16y ago
Weird political rant at the end there. Nobody at ICE has even said that they are responsible for this; it could be a rogue employee at ICANN for all we know. Eventually someone will have to answer for this, and the answer might result in trouble for ICE. The body scanners and patdowns are similar; while they are in use right now, it's far from certain that they will exist forever. There is just too much backlash. So I wouldn't say that we are a police state yet. Some renegades have made decisions, and the wheels of justice turn slowly. Sometimes it looks like nothing is being done, but that's just because the machinery of the government is slow. Hell, 19 prominent senators couldn't even get their "censor the Internet" bill through Congress, even though they really wanted it. The system works!
- patrickaljord 16y ago
  > Nobody at ICE has even said that they are responsible for this Yes they have: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1944190 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1944190
  - jrockway 16y ago
    Now it's time to wait to see what the legal response is. I am sure the EFF and ACLU are more than a little upset about officially-sanctioned censorship. I am sure the courts are interested in determining whether or not domain names are property that can be seized by Customs. (It would be especially interesting to see what would happen if the DNS server would only service requests from areas in the US that are more than 200 miles away from the border; territory that ICE admits they have no jurisdiction over.)
- zabraxias 16y ago
  The body scanners are supported 81% by one poll and 65% by another. For what it's worth it seems fear mongering has worked wonders. Want to disagree with me? I'll call you unpatriotic.
  - Beanblabber 16y ago
    ter·ror·ism Noun: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion
wladimir 16y ago
Pretty shocking. Then again, people get the government they vote for and the USA has clearly been decline to being a banana republic for a long time. But I don't agree that this is a case of forcing anything on the world, com/org/net are US domain extensions, so I guess they have the right to control those. We're free to not use US domain names. On the other hand, with ACTA the USA will force its view on the world.
- JabavuAdams 16y ago
  > Then again, people get the government they vote for and the USA has clearly been decline to being a banana republic for a long time. This is an unintentionally funny sentence, because the US essentially created banana republics. See United Fruits Company. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_republic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_republic
  - wladimir 16y ago
    Yes, the US created banana republics. Can't argue with that.. But the banana republics are going forward, while the US seems to be going the other way. Just look at the poor/rich divide, for example.
ig1 16y ago
Wikileaks did have their name seized in the US, it happened as part of the "Bank Julius Baer vs. Wikileaks lawsuit" - but it was overturned with the judge citing First Amendment concerns (ACLU and EFF filed motions in Wikileaks defence).
- Andrew_Quentin 16y ago
  sources?
  - ig1 16y ago
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_Julius_Baer_vs._Wikileaks_lawsuit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_Julius_Baer_vs._Wikileaks_...
hebejebelus 16y ago
Some observations: * I checked one of the sites they blocked at random, and they're using Google Analytics to track views. GA can be used to track a hell of a lot of things, as I'm sure every reader of this site knows, including location of views. They're also using Pikwik analytics. <speculation>Pikwik is OSS, so they could have modified the code to do some thing GA doesn't.</speculation> * Torrent-Finder.com had about 1.7million page views a day[0], so I suppose it seemed like a good target. However, many of the other sites blocked don't even register. In fact, they all seem like those extremely shady sites that very few people would ever actually visit. Torrent-Finder.com seems to have been the only properly popular site on the list (onsmash.com has rather high pageviews also, ~610,000 pv/d) <speculation>My question is why the hell did they hit torrent-finder.com when virtually every other site on the list probably couldn't have kicked up a media storm?</speculation> * Every site is now hosted in Charlotte, North Carolina. DHS ICE seem to have some sort of facility there, but I've not been able to find much info on it at all. <speculation>Torrent-finder.com seems to have been hosted in Egypt beforehand. Does this affect the legality at all?</speculation> * The two (as far I as i saw) most popular sites, onsmash.com and torrent-finder.com, had their traffic peaks during the second half of 2009[1]. Furthermore, the majority of traffic for Torrent-Finder.com was well outside the USA - eastern Europe, mostly[2]. * The sites that have been seized seem to mostly have been sites to buy knockoffs of designer clothing/accessories/what have you. Not as many seemed to be file-sharing websites. [0] http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=torrent-finder.com http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=torrent-finder.com [1] http://www.google.com/trends?q=torrent-finder.com%2C+onsmash.com&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all http://www.google.com/trends?q=torrent-finder.com%2C+onsmash... [2] http://www.google.com/trends?q=torrent-finder.com&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all&sort=0 http://www.google.com/trends?q=torrent-finder.com&ctab=0... <hyperbole><opinion>To me, it seems the only real answer is to use alternate DNS roots. This one's been compromised.</opinion></hyperbole>
- smokeyj 16y ago
  The government is censoring our means of communications, end of story. If they see it as their role to control my information, it doesn't matter if we find a new DNS system, their agenda is set. My DNS server is not broke, the government is. Lets fix the problem, not the internet.
wyck 16y ago
Regardless of the current conundrum, this is akin to testing the waters, without using the normal legal process. A global registrar that controls address's with very little "real" insight by any citizens or international community? Sounds like a problem that has been waiting to happen for a long time now, this decision was no mistake. At first I was angered, but then I realized this is a good thing, they are shooting themselves in the foot. We don't need ICANN at all, there are already alternative DNS systems out there waiting for an opportunity for a mass exodus.. They do not control the internet and they will find that out very fast if they feel like making this common place. ps. I wrote this after reading another post about a godaddy site that was "supposedly" on this and blamed on ICAAN. I had not read the about the homeland security warrant.
- Andrew_Quentin 16y ago
  what are the alternative DNS systems?
  - kgo 16y ago
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_DNS_root http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_DNS_root
grantheaslip 16y ago
I hate to say it, but looking at the list of sites that were blocked, good riddance: http://torrentfreak.com/u-s-government-seizes-bittorrent-search-engine-domain-and-more-101126/ http://torrentfreak.com/u-s-government-seizes-bittorrent-sea... Sites like these are the scum of the internet, run by the scum of the earth. I'm not familiar with every site personally, but I have little doubt that they were all involved in flagrant copyright infringement. And looking at torrent-finder.info, I have no doubt that 99.99% of the people going to that site were going there for the purpose of stealing stuff, not finding linux distros. The cheeky incredulity with which fans of these sites say "it's not their fault that everyone that uses their site is using it to traffic stolen goods!" is laughably transparent. The western world is moving away from manufacturing physical goods, and these idiots using file sharing are making damn sure that nobody produces content either. What's going to be left? Finance? There's a totally legitimate slippery slope argument to made for not blocking websites, and this story does smell bad in terms of legal due process, but I have a really hard time feeling sorry for the degenerates who ran theses sites.
- gojomo 16y ago
  these idiots using file sharing are making damn sure that nobody produces content either We've had widespread unauthorized sharing of audio for over 10 years now. Is less new music being produced today? Or is more? We've had widespread unauthorized sharing of video and movies for nearly as long. Are fewer TV series being created, fewer channels being launched, fewer movies made today? Or more? There may be issues that arise if most people receive their entertainment via no-fee digital copying -- but underproduction of content does not, from the evidence so far, seem to be one of them. good riddance... Sites like these are the scum of the internet, run by the scum of the earth. First they came for the domains of the scum of the earth, and I said 'good riddance', because I'm not scum. Then... Put aside for a moment the allegations or apparent uses of these domains. Is it a good idea to enable punitive seizure of property without any legal hearing?
  - grantheaslip 16y ago
    Are you saying that if we stop paying for content, more is going to be produced? For music, it's possible that it could be true (though I don't completely buy it) because of concerts and the fact that music is pretty low-budget, but if nobody pays for TV shows and films, they're not going to be made, at least those that require huge budgets and crews. And either way, it's not our place to break the law because we're convinced we know better than the people we're stealing from. If musicians decide to give away their music and make money from concerts, fine, but for the most part they haven't, at least not yet. And yes, I agree that this incident is problematic, but I think that they've probably done the right thing for the wrong reasons. The law is slowly evolving to meet these 21st century problems, but things take time. I personally don't see a huge difference between a website selling counterfeit goods and a physical store selling counterfeit goods, and I wouldn't have much of a problem with a store being shut down the moment it was caught openly selling counterfeit goods rather than after the trial. I'm sure I'm missing a lot of details here, and I'm not at all well-versed on this stuff, but I think people tend to be way to quick to defend individual scumbags who are openly and knowingly distributing stolen and counterfeit goods whenever the internet is involved.
timurlenk 16y ago
Could it be that the DNS system needs to be decentralized and deregulated? How difficult is it to implement a P2P based name lookup system?
- cosmicray 16y ago
  The DNS root servers are already decentralized. The issue here is that the domains in question are registered with registrars (and/or utilizing name servers) that are under US legal jurisdiction. If you want to do something that you don't want US authorities having control over, then move it to a jurisdiction that does not care what the US says (and good luck finding such a place, unless it was Iran or DPRK).
  - dedward 16y ago
    At a basic level - a court order from the US (whatever level of court) issued directly to, say, a registrar in the UK would have absolutely no legal standing as far as the registrar was concerned. The US may have a heck of a lot of swing when it comes to overall global policy, but that doesn't mean foreign entities just, like, obey their court orders - that would be absurd.
    - kgo 16y ago
      Right on. Notice thepiratebay.org is still up and running. the registrar: Key-Systems GmbH (R51-LROR). I tried running whois's on some of the banned names to see what registrars were cooperating, if it was all (for example) GoDaddy, but any pertinent info has been stripped out from the entries. Anyone know how I can get the original registration info?
joe_the_user 16y ago
If the US government becomes the agent of whoever has money and claims intellectual property, there really is no limit to how far this can go. All any company-with-influence has to do is patent some things, put a claim against a competitor and shut them down long to put them out of business. It's not just that it lets companies dominate industries. It is that it makes such domination more profitable than anything else - thereby sucking up all available investment funds. What would you invest once the state start "picking winners". It's really the same old story - corruption destroys enterprise.
adammichaelc 16y ago
Due process & a trial by jury, anyone?
risotto 16y ago
I'll play a bit of a contrarian and say that I'm not the least concerned about this. The Internet is a grossly complicated system, and the ability to have nfljerseysupply.com resolve to your website is far from a given right. ISPs, web hosts, search engines, ICANN, governments, browser vendors, OS vendors, and more all have to cooperate for a domain to work. Each player has to cooperate to make your website reachable, therefore each player has the ability to make your website hard or impossible to reach. It's scary if the US government has powerful legal tools to take down any website (see: China), but the US govt. has a track record of going after only a few criminals, not performing political censorship. So do all the players. Also, COICA, which would make this act easier, got gummed up in the Senate. I don't know any details, but would you expect counterfeit websites to remain humming along while DHS raids warehouses involved with illegal manufacturing, importing or exporting of counterfeit goods? The torrent search engine is a different beast, and by following legal precedent I'd expect the owner to be cleared of wrongdoing if and when it goes to trial. I also suspect the owner is being disingenuous, and was operating the site under a shell, making it difficult to find him and serve him warnings or legal papers. I also interpret this as a sign that the media corporations are fucked. This is the best they can do with their global power, influence and money? Take out some counterfeiters and one lowly search engine? Yes, we must be diligent against the government and corporations, but if this is all they have then it's nothing I'm going to get worked up over.
- smokeyj 16y ago
  > ISPs, web hosts, search engines, ICANN, governments, browser vendors, OS vendors, and more all have to cooperate for a domain to work. One of these things is not required for my browser to work. Hint: it starts with "govern"
  - risotto 16y ago
    ICANN, world governments and the entire TLD system are incestuously intertwined. ICANN is a US corporation mandated by Clinton and George W. Bush. The Internet is ARPANET.
    - 16y ago
NginUS 16y ago
I'm shocked, and awed.
cies 16y ago
in the ny times: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/27/technology/27torrent.html?_r=1 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/27/technology/27torrent.html?... link to the official announcement on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqGziXOPO2A http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqGziXOPO2A what i find most disturbing is not the action against IP infringement on US territory. what i find disturbing is: 1) the announcement that "suspected criminals would be pursued anywhere in the world." They say "American business is under assault from counterfeiters and pirates", sure this is true, but why should the US care that this happens outside of their country? 2) the freedom of a modern democracy is completely underminded by this measure. one should be innocent until proven guitly (by a court case -- in this case there was no trial), and secondly one has the right to free speach. both of these rights have been compromised by the measure. this --in my opinion-- voids the moral supriority of a modern democracy, and puts the US on a list of countries that cannot guarantee basic freedom for its citizens (like China).
makmanalp 16y ago
I wonder what the EFF's position on this will be.
trotsky 16y ago
End to end DNSSEC deployment would prevent an attack like this once clients are rejecting any unsigned records. At least in addition to the root name servers the seizing party would need to convince the TLD maintainer and the customer's registrar to sign the new zone files. All the more reason for you to sign your current zones (including .org, .info, .us and .eu) or pressure your registrar and TLD maintainers to implement DNSSEC yesterday.
sukuriant 16y ago
My question is: "What do we do now?"
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
ck2 16y ago
It's just big government rubbing the back of big industry, nothing new, just the format has changed. It's all about money and who has the biggest lobbyists. Also remember that making lots of laws and then enforcement is a big income generator for government on all levels.
patrickgzill 16y ago
Camel's nose is now under the tent...
Rabidgremlin 16y ago
As a bit of a though exercise, I just invented the 4LW 'protocol' for remembering the IP addresses of seized sites: http://blog.rabidgremlin.com.nyud.net/2010/11/28/4-little-words/ http://blog.rabidgremlin.com.nyud.net/2010/11/28/4-little-wo... :)
jaekwon 16y ago
how about a website that tracks these censorship activities
aik 16y ago
I imagine part of the reason for them choosing these sites was simply to test the public reaction. I'm sure there are thousands of other "shady" sites out there that they could've chosen in addition to these.

139 points by iuguy 16y ago

While it no longer makes economic sense to manufacture buggy whips, perhaps there is a Renaissance in the construction and sale of jack boots?

jrd79 16y ago
I don't understand why so many people on this site defend intellectual property theft. I own a small software company that suffers from piracy every day. I worked day and night without pay for more than a year to write the software that I now make my living from. And after all that hard work the thugs and criminals at The Pirate Bay and elsewhere just steal it and make money off the ads or subscriptions. IP is a central and essential part of the world order and no single thinker in the piracy movement has advanced any serious alternative - and yes, I include Lessig in this. Maybe the loud voices in this forum just enjoy stealing other peoples work without having their own work stolen, but bogus free speech arguments and hysterics about jack boots do not justify what is at it's core an immoral act.
- Andrew_Quentin 16y ago
  I do not think the debate is about theft. The important matter is who decides that it was theft. We have an independent judiciary and that is there for a reason. Whether terrorism or copyright infringement, the government has no right whatever to decide on individual cases and facts. That is the job of the judges. Take the matters to court!
  - jrd79 16y ago
    I hear you on this point and should have been clear that I do not approve of actions taken without due process. But I also wish the rest of the posters here would state their opposition to piracy while they defend the pirates on procedural grounds. It's like when skin heads march. All sensible people defend their right to hold a peaceful demonstration but it is good taste to also point out ones disapproval of the ideas those skinheads espouse. The lack of voices making such clarifications has been notable. And it sounds like typical apologist arguments. To those lamenting this action: do you pirate music, movies, or software?
    - chopsueyar 16y ago
      Personally, I only pirate your software. Seriously though, you could be making the same case for slavery prior to the 13th amendment.
- notahacker 16y ago
  You don't need to think what TorrentFinder is doing is justifiable or constitutionally protected to think that government shouldn't have the power to interfere with DNS systems without due process.
  - jrd79 16y ago
    I agree completely that due process is essential and that this action doesn't pass the sniff test in that department. But while Voltaire was willing to defend the speech (and presumably the due process rights) of those with whom he strongly disagreed, he did take the time to point out his disagreement while doing so. I would just like to hear more voices in this forum express their distaste for IP theft when they are forced by the foolish actions of the government to speak out in defense of pirates. I just get the sense that some people here might have pirated material and defend the pirates and second guess the business decisions of IP holders as a sort of sub-conscious defense mechanism. No one wants to think of oneself as a bad person but surely software piracy is wrong.
- araneae 16y ago
  I think it's because we believe that once we pay for something, it's our right to do whatever we want with it... and that includes giving it to friends. The problem with the Internet is that it makes it possible to bypass original sales in an unprecedented way because the cost of giving it to strangers comes at no cost to us. Any solutions necessarily involves infringing on free speech (this) or infringing on an individual's right to do what they want with their purchases (DRM), so yes, I do support torrenting.
  - jrd79 16y ago
    Most software is not sold but licensed and those licenses restrict the kind of sharing you are talking about. If what you suggested were allowed then one book publisher would only have to buy a single copy of a competing publisher's most popular book and then reproduce and sell it themselves but without paying royalties to the author. Are you really suggesting that creators of IP should not be able to profit from their work? Where do you work such that such a world would not directly impoverish you? Not to mention destroy the entire US economy. While I understand that there are serious due process questions raised by this story, the tone in this forum seems to go beyond that to outright support of intellectual property theft. That is worrisome to me.
  - anigbrowl 16y ago
    I think it's because we believe that once we pay for something, it's our right to do whatever we want with it... So, if you rent a car, does that mean its OK to drive it around the corner and sell it to someone else? you paid to get hold of the car, so it's yours, yes? Oh, wait, no it isn't. You paid to rent it for a finite period under certain conditions, and signed a contract to that effect. the same is usually the case where software is concerned, but since you don't like the terms of the software contract too much, you feel free to ignore it, and redefine your licensing of the software as a purchase, granting yourself all kinds of new rights which the original creator never intended to give to end users. Now, you're welcome to say that software is way overpriced or those terms are so onerous you refuse to comply with them, a point of view I have some sympathy with. But at least be honest about the fact that you're choosing to ignore the contractual terms offered by the licensor and agreed to by the licensee. edit: I don't mind being downvoted, but at least point out why you think the argument is flawed. Otherwise you're just blaming the weatherman for telling you that its raining.
- ScottBurson 16y ago
  I haven't seen anyone in this thread defending intellectual property theft (though there are certainly people out there who do so) or the activities of these particular sites. Rather, what disturbs many of us, myself included, is government censorship without due process of law. We are concerned that once the precedent is laid, its use will inevitably expand to cover sites whose activities make the government uncomfortable for different reasons (WikiLeaks being a good example). As a software author myself, I sympathize with your situation, but the risks here are much bigger than the loss of income to piracy.
- tomjen3 16y ago
  Economically it does not matter how hard you worked, only what value others put on it. And secondly, but far more importantly, I for one am not willing to give up my freedom of speech and right of due process to protect your monopoly on a few specific bit patterns. We give murderers, rapists, even child molesters their day in court and the right to question the evidence brought against them, to question and examine witnesses, to be judge by a jury of their peers and to petition the government for redress of grievencess but if they help others find places where they can search for specific bit patterns and make a copy of those, we give them none of these rights? At this point all that is left is realize that I have been trolled.
- mambodog 16y ago
  I'm sad to hear that you've been on the wrong end of software piracy. I guess it's easy to feel that the whole continuum of torrent sites and copyright infringement can be boiled down to one group, motive and morality, but unfortunately reality is a little more complex than that.
- Detrus 16y ago
  Lots of people here sell software through subscription, or get revenue from ads. Others are satisfied with profits from various mobile app stores. Although there is piracy there, there are enough buyers because prices are cheap. So the definite culprits of piracy are not "thieves" but bad pricing and inconvenient installation. The absence of "thieves" would not translate into more sales.
  - jrd79 16y ago
    Subscriptions are great and we offer one as one of our products. Obviously we have no piracy problems there. But our software is arguably more sensibly delivered as desktop software due to it's cpu and file size considerations. So while we started with an online offering, users demanded a desktop version and we delivered. It is easy to assume that because your business is not a victim that those business that have suffered are just not as good at delivery, but I think you are wrong and I would argue that even businesses that make bad decisions deserve to have their IP protected by government action.
    - Detrus 16y ago
      Maybe they do deserve protection, but that's not how the real world works. Right and wrong are decided by groups of people, not moral absolutes. Here more people seem to care about freeing knowledge than profiting from it. They see large entities like old IBM, current Microsoft as impediments to progress, overcharging for software, making large profits from business customers and not spreading the benefits of that software or making software poorly suited to the less well off. That's a vague description of the sentiment. Eventually these groups face off in arenas where arguments don't count and someone comes out ahead. It's impossible to stop piracy technologically, lawyers can only threaten or fight little skirmishes for publicity to discourage the general populace from it. Ultimately struggling businesses need to put up more than arguments. It took music companies a long time to get around to that, could have been much smoother with less lawyers and more service.
    - chopsueyar 16y ago
      If I buy a licensed copy of your software, how many years do I have to wait before I can make copies of it and distribute it freely to others? 10 years? 50 years? 100 years?
- steveklabnik 16y ago
  It seems to me like you're unwilling to listen to others' opinions on this topic, because it's too emotional of a topic for you. You can't say "I'm disregarding all of these arguments" and then claim there aren't any proper arguments against intellectual property.

jdp23 16y ago

a couple of questions to those who are complaining about too many political stories here -- and i'm not being disingenuous , i really want to to know. - do you see this as a political story? why or why not? - some people here may be considering starting businesses where some of user-provided content they host might fall afoul of this policy. do you think this story meets the bar of being interest to the HN community?

Andrew_Quentin 16y ago
Political is a vague term. I do not think anyone really knows or can define it without some decade long argument and a final consensus. That the government can decide who is guilty however is not a matter of politics, but, fundamental principles. As to your second question, this is something which effects some of the HN community, whether genuine original content producers or otherwise. Thus, I do think it is news related to technology of a relatively new nature, thus, I would say, yes it is or has the potential to be of interest to the HN community.

DanielBMarkham 16y ago

Governments have always used their power to try to further special interests. Indeed, the only reason for political parties is to have places where various special interests can line up against each other. In the past there has always been enough time to create a narrative so that the parties can "make sense" to the voters. One party doesn't say it's supporting trial lawyers: instead it's "looking out for the little people". Another party doesn't support the military-industrial complex, instead it's providing for the defense of the nation. In other words, its possible to spin these special interests in such a fashion as to appeal to the little guy. This makes people buy into what the government is doing -- the consent of the governed. But the wheels seem to be coming off the trolley -- it's becoming apparent that technology is changing so fast that the political parties can't catch their narratives up with reality. When you had communists threatening to conquer the world for thirty years, there was plenty of time to make a strong case for a defense industry. When you had super-huge corporations threatening the citizenry with pollution and such, it was easy to make a case for environmental laws and enormous lawsuits. But file-sharing? Photo-realistic-capable naked body scans? Imposing total data visibility into the world's financial systems? Declaring that Americans still owe taxes even if they leave the country for tax reasons? There may be very valid and reasonable arguments to be made for each of these things, but in my opinion nobody has made them yet. Instead, we just have a fear of one thing trotted out -- terrorism, big corporations, whatever -- and then we're told that these things we have lost were for a good reason. Making matters worse is that some special interests, such as the movie, music, and software guys, (and the security guys) have effectively bought off both parties. So it doesn't matter who you vote for, you're stuck with doing whatever these interests want. And its becoming more and more apparent that these interests will use the full force of law to go after anybody they see as an enemy to their cause. Even though I'm emotional about this, I see no reason to rant and rave. It's not going to change anything, and getting emotional just gives other people something to make fun of. In my opinion this current trajectory cannot continue for many decades longer. That's just the way it is, no matter what each individual's opinion on each of these issues may be. I'm reminded of Ronald Reagan, when asked why he left the Democrat party, said, "I didn't leave the party. The party left me." I certainly hope the same thing doesn't happen to the consent of the governed in most of the world's major democracies. EDIT: If you'd like a startup/technology angle to this, then my advice is not to go into business in any area that one of these interests might be involved -- unless you have strong political connections (or are willing to develop them). If you're able to develop those connections, however, it should be like shooting fish in a barrel.

srbloom 16y ago

Is this only a DNS block? Can you still get to these websites by pointing your browser directly to an IP address?

jrockway 16y ago

Weird political rant at the end there. Nobody at ICE has even said that they are responsible for this; it could be a rogue employee at ICANN for all we know. Eventually someone will have to answer for this, and the answer might result in trouble for ICE. The body scanners and patdowns are similar; while they are in use right now, it's far from certain that they will exist forever. There is just too much backlash. So I wouldn't say that we are a police state yet. Some renegades have made decisions, and the wheels of justice turn slowly. Sometimes it looks like nothing is being done, but that's just because the machinery of the government is slow. Hell, 19 prominent senators couldn't even get their "censor the Internet" bill through Congress, even though they really wanted it. The system works!

patrickaljord 16y ago
> Nobody at ICE has even said that they are responsible for this Yes they have: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1944190 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1944190
- jrockway 16y ago
  Now it's time to wait to see what the legal response is. I am sure the EFF and ACLU are more than a little upset about officially-sanctioned censorship. I am sure the courts are interested in determining whether or not domain names are property that can be seized by Customs. (It would be especially interesting to see what would happen if the DNS server would only service requests from areas in the US that are more than 200 miles away from the border; territory that ICE admits they have no jurisdiction over.)
zabraxias 16y ago
The body scanners are supported 81% by one poll and 65% by another. For what it's worth it seems fear mongering has worked wonders. Want to disagree with me? I'll call you unpatriotic.
- Beanblabber 16y ago
  ter·ror·ism Noun: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

wladimir 16y ago

Pretty shocking. Then again, people get the government they vote for and the USA has clearly been decline to being a banana republic for a long time. But I don't agree that this is a case of forcing anything on the world, com/org/net are US domain extensions, so I guess they have the right to control those. We're free to not use US domain names. On the other hand, with ACTA the USA will force its view on the world.

JabavuAdams 16y ago
> Then again, people get the government they vote for and the USA has clearly been decline to being a banana republic for a long time. This is an unintentionally funny sentence, because the US essentially created banana republics. See United Fruits Company. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_republic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_republic
- wladimir 16y ago
  Yes, the US created banana republics. Can't argue with that.. But the banana republics are going forward, while the US seems to be going the other way. Just look at the poor/rich divide, for example.

ig1 16y ago

Wikileaks did have their name seized in the US, it happened as part of the "Bank Julius Baer vs. Wikileaks lawsuit" - but it was overturned with the judge citing First Amendment concerns (ACLU and EFF filed motions in Wikileaks defence).

Andrew_Quentin 16y ago
sources?
- ig1 16y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_Julius_Baer_vs._Wikileaks_lawsuit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_Julius_Baer_vs._Wikileaks_...

hebejebelus 16y ago

Some observations: * I checked one of the sites they blocked at random, and they're using Google Analytics to track views. GA can be used to track a hell of a lot of things, as I'm sure every reader of this site knows, including location of views. They're also using Pikwik analytics. <speculation>Pikwik is OSS, so they could have modified the code to do some thing GA doesn't.</speculation> * Torrent-Finder.com had about 1.7million page views a day[0], so I suppose it seemed like a good target. However, many of the other sites blocked don't even register. In fact, they all seem like those extremely shady sites that very few people would ever actually visit. Torrent-Finder.com seems to have been the only properly popular site on the list (onsmash.com has rather high pageviews also, ~610,000 pv/d) <speculation>My question is why the hell did they hit torrent-finder.com when virtually every other site on the list probably couldn't have kicked up a media storm?</speculation> * Every site is now hosted in Charlotte, North Carolina. DHS ICE seem to have some sort of facility there, but I've not been able to find much info on it at all. <speculation>Torrent-finder.com seems to have been hosted in Egypt beforehand. Does this affect the legality at all?</speculation> * The two (as far I as i saw) most popular sites, onsmash.com and torrent-finder.com, had their traffic peaks during the second half of 2009[1]. Furthermore, the majority of traffic for Torrent-Finder.com was well outside the USA - eastern Europe, mostly[2]. * The sites that have been seized seem to mostly have been sites to buy knockoffs of designer clothing/accessories/what have you. Not as many seemed to be file-sharing websites. [0] http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=torrent-finder.com http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=torrent-finder.com [1] http://www.google.com/trends?q=torrent-finder.com%2C+onsmash.com&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all http://www.google.com/trends?q=torrent-finder.com%2C+onsmash... [2] http://www.google.com/trends?q=torrent-finder.com&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all&sort=0 http://www.google.com/trends?q=torrent-finder.com&ctab=0... <hyperbole><opinion>To me, it seems the only real answer is to use alternate DNS roots. This one's been compromised.</opinion></hyperbole>

smokeyj 16y ago
The government is censoring our means of communications, end of story. If they see it as their role to control my information, it doesn't matter if we find a new DNS system, their agenda is set. My DNS server is not broke, the government is. Lets fix the problem, not the internet.

wyck 16y ago

Regardless of the current conundrum, this is akin to testing the waters, without using the normal legal process. A global registrar that controls address's with very little "real" insight by any citizens or international community? Sounds like a problem that has been waiting to happen for a long time now, this decision was no mistake. At first I was angered, but then I realized this is a good thing, they are shooting themselves in the foot. We don't need ICANN at all, there are already alternative DNS systems out there waiting for an opportunity for a mass exodus.. They do not control the internet and they will find that out very fast if they feel like making this common place. ps. I wrote this after reading another post about a godaddy site that was "supposedly" on this and blamed on ICAAN. I had not read the about the homeland security warrant.

Andrew_Quentin 16y ago
what are the alternative DNS systems?
- kgo 16y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_DNS_root http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_DNS_root

grantheaslip 16y ago

I hate to say it, but looking at the list of sites that were blocked, good riddance: http://torrentfreak.com/u-s-government-seizes-bittorrent-search-engine-domain-and-more-101126/ http://torrentfreak.com/u-s-government-seizes-bittorrent-sea... Sites like these are the scum of the internet, run by the scum of the earth. I'm not familiar with every site personally, but I have little doubt that they were all involved in flagrant copyright infringement. And looking at torrent-finder.info, I have no doubt that 99.99% of the people going to that site were going there for the purpose of stealing stuff, not finding linux distros. The cheeky incredulity with which fans of these sites say "it's not their fault that everyone that uses their site is using it to traffic stolen goods!" is laughably transparent. The western world is moving away from manufacturing physical goods, and these idiots using file sharing are making damn sure that nobody produces content either. What's going to be left? Finance? There's a totally legitimate slippery slope argument to made for not blocking websites, and this story does smell bad in terms of legal due process, but I have a really hard time feeling sorry for the degenerates who ran theses sites.

gojomo 16y ago
these idiots using file sharing are making damn sure that nobody produces content either We've had widespread unauthorized sharing of audio for over 10 years now. Is less new music being produced today? Or is more? We've had widespread unauthorized sharing of video and movies for nearly as long. Are fewer TV series being created, fewer channels being launched, fewer movies made today? Or more? There may be issues that arise if most people receive their entertainment via no-fee digital copying -- but underproduction of content does not, from the evidence so far, seem to be one of them. good riddance... Sites like these are the scum of the internet, run by the scum of the earth. First they came for the domains of the scum of the earth, and I said 'good riddance', because I'm not scum. Then... Put aside for a moment the allegations or apparent uses of these domains. Is it a good idea to enable punitive seizure of property without any legal hearing?
- grantheaslip 16y ago
  Are you saying that if we stop paying for content, more is going to be produced? For music, it's possible that it could be true (though I don't completely buy it) because of concerts and the fact that music is pretty low-budget, but if nobody pays for TV shows and films, they're not going to be made, at least those that require huge budgets and crews. And either way, it's not our place to break the law because we're convinced we know better than the people we're stealing from. If musicians decide to give away their music and make money from concerts, fine, but for the most part they haven't, at least not yet. And yes, I agree that this incident is problematic, but I think that they've probably done the right thing for the wrong reasons. The law is slowly evolving to meet these 21st century problems, but things take time. I personally don't see a huge difference between a website selling counterfeit goods and a physical store selling counterfeit goods, and I wouldn't have much of a problem with a store being shut down the moment it was caught openly selling counterfeit goods rather than after the trial. I'm sure I'm missing a lot of details here, and I'm not at all well-versed on this stuff, but I think people tend to be way to quick to defend individual scumbags who are openly and knowingly distributing stolen and counterfeit goods whenever the internet is involved.

timurlenk 16y ago

Could it be that the DNS system needs to be decentralized and deregulated? How difficult is it to implement a P2P based name lookup system?

cosmicray 16y ago
The DNS root servers are already decentralized. The issue here is that the domains in question are registered with registrars (and/or utilizing name servers) that are under US legal jurisdiction. If you want to do something that you don't want US authorities having control over, then move it to a jurisdiction that does not care what the US says (and good luck finding such a place, unless it was Iran or DPRK).
- dedward 16y ago
  At a basic level - a court order from the US (whatever level of court) issued directly to, say, a registrar in the UK would have absolutely no legal standing as far as the registrar was concerned. The US may have a heck of a lot of swing when it comes to overall global policy, but that doesn't mean foreign entities just, like, obey their court orders - that would be absurd.
  - kgo 16y ago
    Right on. Notice thepiratebay.org is still up and running. the registrar: Key-Systems GmbH (R51-LROR). I tried running whois's on some of the banned names to see what registrars were cooperating, if it was all (for example) GoDaddy, but any pertinent info has been stripped out from the entries. Anyone know how I can get the original registration info?

joe_the_user 16y ago

If the US government becomes the agent of whoever has money and claims intellectual property, there really is no limit to how far this can go. All any company-with-influence has to do is patent some things, put a claim against a competitor and shut them down long to put them out of business. It's not just that it lets companies dominate industries. It is that it makes such domination more profitable than anything else - thereby sucking up all available investment funds. What would you invest once the state start "picking winners". It's really the same old story - corruption destroys enterprise.

adammichaelc 16y ago

Due process & a trial by jury, anyone?

risotto 16y ago

I'll play a bit of a contrarian and say that I'm not the least concerned about this. The Internet is a grossly complicated system, and the ability to have nfljerseysupply.com resolve to your website is far from a given right. ISPs, web hosts, search engines, ICANN, governments, browser vendors, OS vendors, and more all have to cooperate for a domain to work. Each player has to cooperate to make your website reachable, therefore each player has the ability to make your website hard or impossible to reach. It's scary if the US government has powerful legal tools to take down any website (see: China), but the US govt. has a track record of going after only a few criminals, not performing political censorship. So do all the players. Also, COICA, which would make this act easier, got gummed up in the Senate. I don't know any details, but would you expect counterfeit websites to remain humming along while DHS raids warehouses involved with illegal manufacturing, importing or exporting of counterfeit goods? The torrent search engine is a different beast, and by following legal precedent I'd expect the owner to be cleared of wrongdoing if and when it goes to trial. I also suspect the owner is being disingenuous, and was operating the site under a shell, making it difficult to find him and serve him warnings or legal papers. I also interpret this as a sign that the media corporations are fucked. This is the best they can do with their global power, influence and money? Take out some counterfeiters and one lowly search engine? Yes, we must be diligent against the government and corporations, but if this is all they have then it's nothing I'm going to get worked up over.

smokeyj 16y ago
> ISPs, web hosts, search engines, ICANN, governments, browser vendors, OS vendors, and more all have to cooperate for a domain to work. One of these things is not required for my browser to work. Hint: it starts with "govern"
- risotto 16y ago
  ICANN, world governments and the entire TLD system are incestuously intertwined. ICANN is a US corporation mandated by Clinton and George W. Bush. The Internet is ARPANET.
  - 16y ago

NginUS 16y ago

I'm shocked, and awed.

cies 16y ago

in the ny times: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/27/technology/27torrent.html?_r=1 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/27/technology/27torrent.html?... link to the official announcement on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqGziXOPO2A http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqGziXOPO2A what i find most disturbing is not the action against IP infringement on US territory. what i find disturbing is: 1) the announcement that "suspected criminals would be pursued anywhere in the world." They say "American business is under assault from counterfeiters and pirates", sure this is true, but why should the US care that this happens outside of their country? 2) the freedom of a modern democracy is completely underminded by this measure. one should be innocent until proven guitly (by a court case -- in this case there was no trial), and secondly one has the right to free speach. both of these rights have been compromised by the measure. this --in my opinion-- voids the moral supriority of a modern democracy, and puts the US on a list of countries that cannot guarantee basic freedom for its citizens (like China).

makmanalp 16y ago

I wonder what the EFF's position on this will be.

trotsky 16y ago

End to end DNSSEC deployment would prevent an attack like this once clients are rejecting any unsigned records. At least in addition to the root name servers the seizing party would need to convince the TLD maintainer and the customer's registrar to sign the new zone files. All the more reason for you to sign your current zones (including .org, .info, .us and .eu) or pressure your registrar and TLD maintainers to implement DNSSEC yesterday.

sukuriant 16y ago

My question is: "What do we do now?"

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

ck2 16y ago

It's just big government rubbing the back of big industry, nothing new, just the format has changed. It's all about money and who has the biggest lobbyists. Also remember that making lots of laws and then enforcement is a big income generator for government on all levels.

patrickgzill 16y ago

Camel's nose is now under the tent...

Rabidgremlin 16y ago

As a bit of a though exercise, I just invented the 4LW 'protocol' for remembering the IP addresses of seized sites: http://blog.rabidgremlin.com.nyud.net/2010/11/28/4-little-words/ http://blog.rabidgremlin.com.nyud.net/2010/11/28/4-little-wo... :)

jaekwon 16y ago

how about a website that tracks these censorship activities

aik 16y ago

I imagine part of the reason for them choosing these sites was simply to test the public reaction. I'm sure there are thousands of other "shady" sites out there that they could've chosen in addition to these.