5 ms·

Judge says domain name loss is not a "substantial hardship"

87 points by canistr 15y ago

pavel_lishin 15y ago
> Rojadirecta can use its "large Internet presence" Isn't its large internet presence largely rojadirecta.com ? I wonder how this judge would feel if the US government suddenly "seized" his home address and telephone number; it's the nearest personal equivalent I can think of.
- corin_ 15y ago
  Not a good enough equivilent to be worth making. The US Government would have to seize his address and number, but he'd still have his house and phone, just in a different location. And in that (very odd) scenario, I suspect it wouldn't be too hard to let people know about it. After all, we've all moved house and changed our telephone numbers now and then.
- uptown 15y ago
  The Supreme Court already has laws on the books allowing that very thing to occur. While its unlikely to happen to this judge, it has happened. One of the more recent judgements determined that property could be seized even when it's not being converted to public property. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminent_domain http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminent_domain
  - a-priori 15y ago
    The difference is that with eminent domain you must be compensated at a fair market rate. In this case, the property is simply seized.
- canistr 15y ago
  I would compare this to atdhe.net. They were a fairly large site that linked to streamed sports and TV shows until their domain was seized by ICE because it was a .Net domain. But they managed to stay alive, change their domain name, and get back in business as some other website (I believe it's now atdhenet.tv). The point is that they were still able to get back their audience after losing their primary domain name.
  - pavel_lishin 15y ago
    Sure, it's possible, but I'd still consider it a hardship. One success story doesn't demonstrate that it's easy.
    - jcc80 15y ago
      I know a guy who lost one of his legs in a boating accident. After a few years he was able to run again with a prosthetic. No big deal there...
- rwmj 15y ago
  It's more like, the judge runs 1-800-FLOWERS on the side. This 800 number is seized. The "incoming links" are all the advertising and phone books and rapid dial and people's brains and everywhere else this number is stored. Of course he could set up 1-800-FLORIST instead, but it's going to take a very long time to get back to the same level of business.
btilly 15y ago
And this is what happens when a judge who does not understand the internet or business has the power to destroy someone's life. Yes, they may be able to get the word out to some of their customer base. But a substantial fraction of the customer base that they had won't find them again. And there is likely to be real value in having the dot com.
- mtogo 15y ago
  It's really shocking and depressing to me how many court cases are being settled and laws are being passed by judges and congresspeople that know nothing about the subject matter.
- smokeyj 15y ago
  > And this is what happens when a judge who does not understand You're assuming the judge is ignorant and not malevolent.
  - splat 15y ago
    Once you start assuming malevolence for an action that can just as easily be explained by incompetence, you very quickly start to step into tin-foil-hat territory.
burgerbrain 15y ago
My legalize is poor, is this judge suggesting this is the case in this particular case, or in the general case?
vaksel 15y ago
which is bs, since losing a domain also makes you lose all the thousands of links going to it...would he expect the same of Google? After all, they also own Google.org, so they can just let everyone know to go there instead. why am I not surprised that the judge is 70 years old: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_A._Crotty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_A._Crotty
- eli 15y ago
  No reason to go ad hominem on the judge. Seems like it's more a disagreement on the legal definition of "substantial"
  - mikeryan 15y ago
    ad hominem is not always a logical fallacy, the judge's age may very well be relevant.
  - vaksel 15y ago
    a more web savvy judge would have never made such a comment.
    - tptacek 15y ago
      The only evidence you have to assert that the judge isn't "web-savvy" is his age. Creepy! A comment this dumb is evidence for how toxic the whole thread is, so let's all stop debating what is and isn't "ad hominem" and move on.
  - jemfinch 15y ago
    Ad Hominem is a logical fallacy. Unless the OP was saying "The judge is wrong because he's seventy years old" he was not committing ad hominem, just commenting on a (possibly irrelevant) quality of the judge.
    - catshirt 15y ago
      that's exactly what he was saying.
jneal 15y ago
I know I can't be the only one that worries for the future of the internet? I know the internet will be around for a long time to come, but the question is, will it ever be the same?
- fleitz 15y ago
  If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever.
  - glimcat 15y ago
    And the past smells like roses? There is some messed up stuff going on and the potential for more, but that's something to fix and not an excuse for fatalism. Protecting individual freedom and human rights is an ongoing process.
gst 15y ago
"Under federal law, the owner of seized property can seek its return if the government's continuing to hold it would cause a "substantial hardship" to its owner." So the US can seize my laptop or large quantities of my monetary savings and I have no legal right to get those things back?
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- eli 15y ago
  Google "civil forfeiture" -- scary stuff. You can get it back, but the onus is on you to stake a valid claim.
  - code_duck 15y ago
    Sometimes they'll strike a deal with the rightful owner outside of court - essentially holding the property for ransom.
lotharbot 15y ago
Ignoring the various free speech issues and focusing on the headline: remember, "substantial hardship" is a technical term. It means "a demonstrated economic, technological, legal, or other type of hardship to the person requesting the variance or waiver." [0] Of particular note, it only seems to come up in the case of requesting a waiver or other sort of legal exception. An example usage might be a homeless person getting a waiver for a court filing fee, because coming up with the money would be a hurdle he probably couldn't clear. In this particular case, the company in question is requesting the expedited return of a seized domain, while legal proceedings are still going on. In order to secure such a ruling, they would need to show that not having the domain for the duration of the trial would actually be crippling, not merely inconvenient. (Having not been in the courtroom, I don't know how well they argued this point, but apparently the judge didn't buy it.) [0] http://www.kleinfeldlaw.com/Publications/Articles/Variances%20from%20Permitting%20StandardsUnreasonable%20Unfair%20and%20Unintended%20Results.aspx http://www.kleinfeldlaw.com/Publications/Articles/Variances%... and in other places; the usage seems to be fairly consistent
cabalamat 15y ago
The purpose of the domain seizures was to disrupt -- ideally, to shut down -- websites that the US copyright industries didn't like. Causing them substantial hardship was the entire purpose of the seizure, and to argue that the seizure didn't cause that is purely dishonest.
- nextparadigms 15y ago
  Exactly. If he's saying it shouldn't be a big deal to get back up at another address, then why is he allowing ICE to seize it in the first place, and what's the point of his ruling?
nirvana 15y ago
If the seizure of the domains didn't cause substantial hardship, why were they seized in the first place? Seems this judge thinks the government can play both sides of the fence depending on what is convenient in a given context.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
dromidas 15y ago
I suspect that if it was an american website it would be considered more substantial.
bhewes 15y ago
In the future I will make sure that I register domains that are not under the control of the U.S. government.
- Astrohacker 15y ago
  I would like to do the same. Do you have any suggestions about which TLD to use and which registrar to use?
lukeschlather 15y ago
Are they redirecting MX records? What would happen, for example, to a Google Apps user in this situation? My understanding is that the entire online infrastructure would disappear for a Google Apps user without some intervention by Google. It seems that there are are a variety of situations where having your domain cut off would result in significant data loss. This might even be a blessing in disguise for people facing charges in court. "No your honor, I can't give law enforcement access to my email - they were deleted by Google when you seized my domain, since I was no longer the verified owner."
- MiguelHudnandez 15y ago
  I have moved away from Google Apps for Domains without canceling, and I could still manage the account from https://www.google.com/a/domain-name.example/ https://www.google.com/a/domain-name.example/ So if this is still true, a user could set up for the new domain name and carry on. Of course if there is a warrant to seize the name, there may also be a warrant to seize control of associated services.
ltamake 15y ago
Stupid judge. He has no idea what happens when you lose a domain: you need to pay money for a new one, alert your customers, pay for new ads, and possibly modify your site with the new code.

87 points by canistr 15y ago

> Rojadirecta can use its "large Internet presence" Isn't its large internet presence largely rojadirecta.com ? I wonder how this judge would feel if the US government suddenly "seized" his home address and telephone number; it's the nearest personal equivalent I can think of.

corin_ 15y ago
Not a good enough equivilent to be worth making. The US Government would have to seize his address and number, but he'd still have his house and phone, just in a different location. And in that (very odd) scenario, I suspect it wouldn't be too hard to let people know about it. After all, we've all moved house and changed our telephone numbers now and then.
uptown 15y ago
The Supreme Court already has laws on the books allowing that very thing to occur. While its unlikely to happen to this judge, it has happened. One of the more recent judgements determined that property could be seized even when it's not being converted to public property. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminent_domain http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminent_domain
- a-priori 15y ago
  The difference is that with eminent domain you must be compensated at a fair market rate. In this case, the property is simply seized.
canistr 15y ago
I would compare this to atdhe.net. They were a fairly large site that linked to streamed sports and TV shows until their domain was seized by ICE because it was a .Net domain. But they managed to stay alive, change their domain name, and get back in business as some other website (I believe it's now atdhenet.tv). The point is that they were still able to get back their audience after losing their primary domain name.
- pavel_lishin 15y ago
  Sure, it's possible, but I'd still consider it a hardship. One success story doesn't demonstrate that it's easy.
  - jcc80 15y ago
    I know a guy who lost one of his legs in a boating accident. After a few years he was able to run again with a prosthetic. No big deal there...
rwmj 15y ago
It's more like, the judge runs 1-800-FLOWERS on the side. This 800 number is seized. The "incoming links" are all the advertising and phone books and rapid dial and people's brains and everywhere else this number is stored. Of course he could set up 1-800-FLORIST instead, but it's going to take a very long time to get back to the same level of business.

btilly 15y ago

And this is what happens when a judge who does not understand the internet or business has the power to destroy someone's life. Yes, they may be able to get the word out to some of their customer base. But a substantial fraction of the customer base that they had won't find them again. And there is likely to be real value in having the dot com.

mtogo 15y ago
It's really shocking and depressing to me how many court cases are being settled and laws are being passed by judges and congresspeople that know nothing about the subject matter.
smokeyj 15y ago
> And this is what happens when a judge who does not understand You're assuming the judge is ignorant and not malevolent.
- splat 15y ago
  Once you start assuming malevolence for an action that can just as easily be explained by incompetence, you very quickly start to step into tin-foil-hat territory.

burgerbrain 15y ago

My legalize is poor, is this judge suggesting this is the case in this particular case, or in the general case?

vaksel 15y ago

which is bs, since losing a domain also makes you lose all the thousands of links going to it...would he expect the same of Google? After all, they also own Google.org, so they can just let everyone know to go there instead. why am I not surprised that the judge is 70 years old: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_A._Crotty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_A._Crotty

eli 15y ago
No reason to go ad hominem on the judge. Seems like it's more a disagreement on the legal definition of "substantial"
- mikeryan 15y ago
  ad hominem is not always a logical fallacy, the judge's age may very well be relevant.
- vaksel 15y ago
  a more web savvy judge would have never made such a comment.
  - tptacek 15y ago
    The only evidence you have to assert that the judge isn't "web-savvy" is his age. Creepy! A comment this dumb is evidence for how toxic the whole thread is, so let's all stop debating what is and isn't "ad hominem" and move on.
- jemfinch 15y ago
  Ad Hominem is a logical fallacy. Unless the OP was saying "The judge is wrong because he's seventy years old" he was not committing ad hominem, just commenting on a (possibly irrelevant) quality of the judge.
  - catshirt 15y ago
    that's exactly what he was saying.

jneal 15y ago

I know I can't be the only one that worries for the future of the internet? I know the internet will be around for a long time to come, but the question is, will it ever be the same?

fleitz 15y ago
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever.
- glimcat 15y ago
  And the past smells like roses? There is some messed up stuff going on and the potential for more, but that's something to fix and not an excuse for fatalism. Protecting individual freedom and human rights is an ongoing process.

gst 15y ago

"Under federal law, the owner of seized property can seek its return if the government's continuing to hold it would cause a "substantial hardship" to its owner." So the US can seize my laptop or large quantities of my monetary savings and I have no legal right to get those things back?

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
eli 15y ago
Google "civil forfeiture" -- scary stuff. You can get it back, but the onus is on you to stake a valid claim.
- code_duck 15y ago
  Sometimes they'll strike a deal with the rightful owner outside of court - essentially holding the property for ransom.

lotharbot 15y ago

Ignoring the various free speech issues and focusing on the headline: remember, "substantial hardship" is a technical term. It means "a demonstrated economic, technological, legal, or other type of hardship to the person requesting the variance or waiver." [0] Of particular note, it only seems to come up in the case of requesting a waiver or other sort of legal exception. An example usage might be a homeless person getting a waiver for a court filing fee, because coming up with the money would be a hurdle he probably couldn't clear. In this particular case, the company in question is requesting the expedited return of a seized domain, while legal proceedings are still going on. In order to secure such a ruling, they would need to show that not having the domain for the duration of the trial would actually be crippling, not merely inconvenient. (Having not been in the courtroom, I don't know how well they argued this point, but apparently the judge didn't buy it.) [0] http://www.kleinfeldlaw.com/Publications/Articles/Variances%20from%20Permitting%20StandardsUnreasonable%20Unfair%20and%20Unintended%20Results.aspx http://www.kleinfeldlaw.com/Publications/Articles/Variances%... and in other places; the usage seems to be fairly consistent

cabalamat 15y ago

The purpose of the domain seizures was to disrupt -- ideally, to shut down -- websites that the US copyright industries didn't like. Causing them substantial hardship was the entire purpose of the seizure, and to argue that the seizure didn't cause that is purely dishonest.

nextparadigms 15y ago
Exactly. If he's saying it shouldn't be a big deal to get back up at another address, then why is he allowing ICE to seize it in the first place, and what's the point of his ruling?

nirvana 15y ago

If the seizure of the domains didn't cause substantial hardship, why were they seized in the first place? Seems this judge thinks the government can play both sides of the fence depending on what is convenient in a given context.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]

dromidas 15y ago

I suspect that if it was an american website it would be considered more substantial.

bhewes 15y ago

In the future I will make sure that I register domains that are not under the control of the U.S. government.

Astrohacker 15y ago
I would like to do the same. Do you have any suggestions about which TLD to use and which registrar to use?

lukeschlather 15y ago

Are they redirecting MX records? What would happen, for example, to a Google Apps user in this situation? My understanding is that the entire online infrastructure would disappear for a Google Apps user without some intervention by Google. It seems that there are are a variety of situations where having your domain cut off would result in significant data loss. This might even be a blessing in disguise for people facing charges in court. "No your honor, I can't give law enforcement access to my email - they were deleted by Google when you seized my domain, since I was no longer the verified owner."

MiguelHudnandez 15y ago
I have moved away from Google Apps for Domains without canceling, and I could still manage the account from https://www.google.com/a/domain-name.example/ https://www.google.com/a/domain-name.example/ So if this is still true, a user could set up for the new domain name and carry on. Of course if there is a warrant to seize the name, there may also be a warrant to seize control of associated services.

ltamake 15y ago

Stupid judge. He has no idea what happens when you lose a domain: you need to pay money for a new one, alert your customers, pay for new ads, and possibly modify your site with the new code.