4 ms·
TL;DR -- Mafiaafire redirects you to an alternative domain when the primary domain is moved or seized. So basically the DHS is trying to suppress a workaround t
by akavlie 15y ago
TL;DR -- Mafiaafire redirects you to an alternative domain when the primary domain is moved or seized. So basically the DHS is trying to suppress a workaround to their domain seizures.
I'm not sure they have much of a legal argument here though, nor do they have a due process workaround... well, unless they seize mozilla.org.
- ataggart 15y agoThe validity of the "legal argument" is whatever a fellow government employee says it is. Some septuagenarian with an arts degree isn't likely to see this "computer stuff" as anything but a means to circumvent the law. http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/MythWeb.htm http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/MythWeb.htm
- rhizome 15y agoIf the DHS had a legal leg to stand on they would have delivered their request via official channels.
- pavel_lishin 15y agoThey didn't actually mention what channels they went through. What would an "official channel" look like, in this case? Also, perhaps they didn't want to spend the $5k on a lawyer to draw up an official document, hoping that a simple request would suffice. Understandable, and laudable - as is Mozilla's refusal to comply with what is nothing more than a request.
- jarin 15y agoI would imagine DHS has their own lawyers on staff?
- cellis 15y agoWouldn't that fall to the Department of Justice?
- redthrowaway 15y agoNo, all government agencies have a legal staff. The DoJ's mandate doesn't include screening all government actions for legality.
- VladRussian 15y ago> Also, perhaps they didn't want to spend the $5k on a lawyer a government bureaucrat letting pass a chance to send more work to his lawyer friend? Nope. They just do not risk yet to attack Mozilla on such a shaky ground as declaring such an add-on as a paraphernalia of copyright infringement. Yet, it is just a matter of time. They will start with somebody less popular than Mozilla.
- rhizome 15y agoWhat would an "official channel" look like, in this case? Though nobody concerned is revealing the actual delivery method, it would look something like a process server and it wouldn't be called "asking."
- gscott 15y agoThey don't need official channels... they can just take the domain name for providing a plug-in that links to pirated content. The Mozilla domain might pull up a DHS graphic any day now! (it would be interesting if the DHS would go so far as to take down a site used by millions... but you never know as it appears DHS is above the law)
- 15y ago
- VladRussian 15y ago>If the DHS had a legal leg to stand on they would have raided the mozilla's offices and as GP mentioned seized the domain. When they can - they do.
- Natsu 15y agoThey might use MGM v. Grokster to make some kind of inducement claim, but one might think that this would be the sort of thing copyright holders would do, rather than the DHS. I don't know that they have in mind, but it's probably one of the few straws they could grasp at. And there's that other test case Grellas posted the other day, suing C|Net for distributing Limewire. It obviously hasn't been decided yet, but it could create a dangerous precedent in the future. I strongly suspect they expected everyone to just cave. As things stand, I expect that copies of the extension will get hosted outside the USA, making any further action meaningless. Even had they quietly allowed it to get taken down, someone almost certainly would have hosted a copy or created a new extension outside the US.