Well it would be trivial to then seize Dajza2.com as well, but they could easily get Daj.za or something else and use that-- which would be much harder to seize.

However the kim dotcom issue shows that even being located in another country, and the claim that you're "breaking the law" being very flimsy, is not sufficient protection in many cases.

It will be interesting to see if foreign domain names start getting seized by US officials.

You're absolutely right, but after so long some interesting issues start to pop up. If "dajza1.com" was able to be seized on the premise that they had released a specific set of songs, on what grounds could a new domain be seized? "ICE, a branch of the Department of Homeland Security, has the power to seize web domains engaged in infringing activity under the same forfeiture laws used to seize property like houses, cars and boats allegedly tied to illegal activity such as drug running or gambling." If I own and operate prettycatcalendars.com and blackmarketorgans.org, the feds might have grounds to seize one, but certainly not every site I operate? What about a Facebook or Twitter account that is not connected to the infringing site?

(Most of these are rhetorical, and probably don't have very pleasant answers.)

[Edit] Come to think of it, I'm kind of pissed the site owners didn't just laugh at the seizure and immediately start up a new site, purely on principle. URLs are basically irrelevant these days, and ICE seizing them on the grounds that they're "tied to illegal activity" that adds up to copyright infringement at best sounds like a lot of dick-swinging by ridiculous executives in an industry well past its expiration date. They should be treated with appropriate insolence.

>It will be interesting to see if foreign domain names start getting seized by US officials. //

Or it could go down like in the UK and the ISPs could be ordered not to route traffic to/from the website - eg http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2172223/virgin-medi...