btjunkie says goodbye

Re:btjunkie says goodbye by scott_s on Monday February 06, 2012 @11:51AM (#3558061)

Tomorrow morning, the feds could release Kim DotCom, give him all of his money, apologize, and immediately return their domains, and it wouldn't matter. The site, and the multi-million dollar business behind it, are dead.

I find that difficult to believe. If tomorrow, the people behind MegaUpload were released, and their assets were released, and they were told they could go back to running MegaUpload as they had done so, I suspect they would, and the users would flock back to it.

Your claim is that websites require unique protection with regards to seizures. I have difficulty granting that, because if you seize all of the assets of any business, that business is, at the least [1], temporarily on hold. So, unless you can provide an argument for why websites are unique, then the process you propose would have to apply to all businesses. I have difficulty with that.

[1] I mean "at the least" literally, as a lower-bound. I don't want to get into a side argument about the likely fate of MegaUpload, since my point is that MegaUpload's fate is no different from that of other businesses.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:btjunkie says goodbye by downandout on Monday February 06, 2012 @02:08PM (#3558723)

I think an argument can be made that domains do require special protection. Web-based businesses are living, breathing entities that are permanently damaged when offline. Simply look at the before/after traffic statistics of the few sites that have been wrestled back from the claws of the government after seizure. The sites are dead.

The real world equivalent of domain seizure isn't temporarily restraining a business from certain questionable activities. It is to fire missiles at the corporate headquarters the moment they are indicted, destroying the building, and then posting a billboard on the empty land saying how the company that used to be there and all of their customers are criminals even if they haven't yet been found guilty. If they are found not guilty, then, after more legal wrangling, they'll get the empty lot back. They are then "free" to resume their former operation.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:btjunkie says goodbye by jonhendry on Monday February 06, 2012 @03:42PM (#3559101)

It's more like shutting down a restaurant for sanitation violations.

If they open up, they might have trouble getting business if everyone thinks there are probably still rat turds in the food. So they need to advertise, maybe "change management", maybe change the name.

Who cares if the old domain is dead, if a new one can be set up that runs the same way and is just as popular?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:btjunkie says goodbye by scott_s on Monday February 06, 2012 @02:31PM (#3558810)

It is to fire missiles at the corporate headquarters the moment they are indicted, destroying the building, and then posting a billboard on the empty land saying how the company that used to be there and all of their customers are criminals even if they haven't yet been found guilty.

I find that characterization both hyperbolic and inaccurate. An analogy I am much more comfortable with is seizing a business's physical store, locking the doors and keeping the key during the trial. I'm more comfortable with it because it smells like the kind of analogy a judge would make when interpreting how existing laws should apply to the internet.

So, can you provide an argument for why seizing the physical building is okay, while seizing the domain and servers is not okay? If you cannot, then what you propose would have to also apply to physical buildings, which means you're proposing a fundamental change to how seizures work before a criminal trial.

[ Parent | on HN ]