I am just wondering, do these domains appear seized to you at this time? Torrent-finder is working fine here (in Portugal). BR, Nuno Garcia On 27 November 2010 13:25, Marc Rotenberg <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > According to the New York York Times, it was the Dept of > Homeland Security (the same agency that brought us > airport body scanners) that seized the BitTorrent site and others. > This seems odd since it is the US Dept of Justice that would > typically investigate copyright matters. > > Note also that this action took place prior to Senate action > on COICA. > > Marc Rotenberg > EPIC > > ----------------------------- > > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/27/technology/27torrent.html > > U.S. Shuts Down Web Sites in Piracy Crackdown > By BEN SISARIO > Published: November 26, 2010 > > In what appears to be the latest phase of a far-reaching federal > crackdown on online piracy of music and movies, the Web addresses of > a number of sites that facilitate illegal file-sharing were seized > this week by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, a division of the > Department of Homeland Security. > > By Friday morning, visiting the addresses of a handful of sites that > either hosted unauthorized copies of films and music or allowed > users to search for them elsewhere on the Internet produced a notice > that said, in part: “This domain name has been seized by ICE — > Homeland Security Investigations, pursuant to a seizure warrant > issued by a United States District Court.” > > * * * > > > > > > On Nov 27, 2010, at 1:57 AM, Alex Gakuru wrote: > > > Does this mean *all* search engines with links will be shut down > > anytime, including 'Big G'? > > > > On 11/27/10, Alex Gakuru <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> Why complained earlier on expectations that cash strapped ccTLDs > especially > >> in Africa/developing cannot afford parallel servers, databases and time > >> costs to enforce third parties IP/copyrights/trademark etc interests. It > >> somehow 'feels' safer NOT to register a .com now? > >> > >> On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 7:34 AM, Robin Gross <[log in to unmask]> > wrote: > >> > >>> The latest info that I've seen is that Verisign assigned new DNS > servers > >>> at the Registry level, and then locked the domain so that even the > >>> Registrar > >>> can't update it. So now it looks like it may have been VeriSign who > >>> "seized" them. No word on ICANN's role in this situation, if any. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Nov 26, 2010, at 8:29 PM, Marc Perkel wrote: > >>> > >>> So was it ICANN that actually did the seizing? > >>> > >>> On 11/26/2010 7:25 PM, Michael Haffely wrote: > >>> > >>> The concerning part about the report from today is that the domain > owner > >>> never received any complaint or due process before the domains were > >>> seized. > >>> It appears that no Cease and Desist, warrant, suit, or other criminal > >>> complaint was brought up before the domain was taken. What if (for an > >>> example) this behavior is taken up by the Patent and Copyright > "trolls". > >>> What happens to an individual/nonprofit/organization when they have > their > >>> domain yanked out from under them? > >>> > >>> If ICANN is to seize domains from their rightful owners by demand of a > >>> law > >>> enforcement agency we need to have a clear, *rapid* appeals process to > >>> prevent abuse by corporations, law enforcement agencies, and > governments. > >>> > >>> > >>> -Mike H. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 8:46 PM, Andrew A. Adams <[log in to unmask]> > wrote: > >>> > >>>> Very similar moves are happening in the UK, with Nominet (UK > non-profit > >>>> with > >>>> the .uk (and .gb) country-code delegation) engaging with the UK's SOCA > >>>> (Serious and Organised Crime Agency *) to remove 1200 "sites engaged > in > >>>> selling counterfeit goods" recently and now doing a more explicit deal > >>>> with > >>>> the police to take down the DNS registration for sites "alleged to be > >>>> involved in criminal activity". > >>>> > >>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/11/25/nominet_crime/ > >>>> > >>>> (*) The SOCA is a rather dodgy organisation, IMHO. When it was set up > >>>> the > >>>> then home secrewtary made a big thing of it not being actually police > >>>> and > >>>> therefore not bound by the requirements that the police have to > respect > >>>> the > >>>> human rights of citizens. THat's a recipe for a secret police > operating > >>>> extra-judicially and here we see exactly that kind of approach. > >>>> > >>>> I am very worried by these kinds of moves. Zittrain's "The Future of > the > >>>> Internet" and Mueller's "Networks and States" concerns about > censorship > >>>> becoming the norm not the exception online seem to be coming true. > While > >>>> I'm > >>>> not in favour of criminals having free reign, the trouble is that all > >>>> the > >>>> hard won freedoms such as due process, balance of rights, etc. seem to > >>>> be > >>>> being thrown out in the digital domain. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Professor Andrew A Adams [log in to unmask] > >>>> Professor at Graduate School of Business Administration, and > >>>> Deputy Director of the Centre for Business Information Ethics > >>>> Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan http://www.a-cubed.info/ > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> IP JUSTICE > >>> Robin Gross, Executive Director > >>> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA > >>> p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 > >>> w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: [log in to unmask] > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> regards, > >> > >> Alex Gakuru > >> http://www.mwenyeji.com > >> Hosting, surprise yourself! > >> > > > > > > -- > > regards, > > > > Alex Gakuru > > http://www.mwenyeji.com > > Hosting, surprise yourself! >