UK seizes rnbxclusive.com, owners arrested, website visitors threatened(dajaz1.com)
dajaz1.com
UK seizes rnbxclusive.com, owners arrested, website visitors threatened
http://dajaz1.com/2012/02/14/so-the-uk-government-gets-in-on-seizing-domains-music-websites-seized/
4 comments
Which parts are biased? Things like whether or not the government allowed the domain owner to contest the extensions should be pretty easy to verify. I'm sure that the lawyer probably has some record of a number of the communications he/she had with the government.
I realize that there's a bit of hand-waving with respect to 'holding people responsible,' but most of the things in that article that are verifiable are pretty damning of the government if they are true.
I realize that there's a bit of hand-waving with respect to 'holding people responsible,' but most of the things in that article that are verifiable are pretty damning of the government if they are true.
I guess I'm not too familiar with what happened, are there any "unbiased" overviews of the events? I doubt the feds would give any information period.
Well, you can read what the RIAA thinks about it, along with an informationless non-statement from ICE: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111209/03385017020/ice-ad...
Or you can read the almost-totally-redacted FOIA document dump: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111214/03264917079/freedo...
The court case is under seal, so I can't point you to any relevant court documents. Heck, even Senator Wyden raised a fuss about it: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/12/wyden-domain-seizur...
I don't have much reason to doubt the accounting of events described in the TechDirt article -- although it does contain a fair amount of editorializing.
If the government would remove the seal and speak up instead of remaining mum, we'd have another side to the story, and maybe we could eliminate this perceived "bias".
Or you can read the almost-totally-redacted FOIA document dump: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111214/03264917079/freedo...
The court case is under seal, so I can't point you to any relevant court documents. Heck, even Senator Wyden raised a fuss about it: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/12/wyden-domain-seizur...
I don't have much reason to doubt the accounting of events described in the TechDirt article -- although it does contain a fair amount of editorializing.
If the government would remove the seal and speak up instead of remaining mum, we'd have another side to the story, and maybe we could eliminate this perceived "bias".
How did this domain seizure work? I understood it when it happened in the US since they own .com and are the jurisdiction for registrars like godaddy.com, but how does this work from the UK?
With cooperation from Rackspace.
Domain servers in listed order:
NS.RACKSPACE.COM
NS2.RACKSPACE.COM
Apparently they just ask the registrar. Here is a blog post about it.
http://blog.dominicsayers.com/2011/02/11/uk-police-can-turn-...
The placeholder page looks fake to me. Any confirmation from SOCA?
This ZDNet blog apparently got confirmation from SOCA: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/london/uk-authorities-take-down-a-...
[deleted]
I don't know a lot about SOCA, but I agree that the amateur, bullying tone of the page reads more like the work of an interested party than of a police agency.
I agree. I mean think about it...
Imagine locking people up for 10 years for downloading an unlicensed music file.
I thought SOCA was the serious organised crime agency. Weapons, rackets, gangs, people trafficking are on a different scale from downloading music files for personal use...
Imagine locking people up for 10 years for downloading an unlicensed music file.
I thought SOCA was the serious organised crime agency. Weapons, rackets, gangs, people trafficking are on a different scale from downloading music files for personal use...
... back in 2010 (should be the end of the full title)
dajaz1.com is very much alive and prospering right now.
dajaz1.com is very much alive and prospering right now.
I think there's some confusion here. dajaz1.com was seized back in 2010 by the US government, but the title is about a different site/domain that has recently be seized by the UK government. Not only seized, but the admins have been arrested, something that did not happen in the case of dajaz1.com.
This article is dajaz1 writing about a different hip-hop site in the UK which was recently seized by the UK authorities, not the seizure of dajaz1 in 2010-2011.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111208/08225217010/breaki... gives a horribly biased overview of the events behind the dajaz1 seizure.