15 ms·

US judge orders hundreds of sites "de-indexed" from Google, Facebook

434 points by gigawatt 15y ago

scott_s 15y ago
I find Venkat Balasubramani's post linked to at the end of that article worth reading in full: http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2011/11/court_oks_priva.htm http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2011/11/court_oks_priva...
jinushaun 15y ago
As the article demonstrates, why wait for SOPA?
scottshea 15y ago
I am really curious how Google and Facebook will handle this...
madmaze 15y ago
Even if some of these websites sell fake/counterfit goods, they should only be taken out of the ads. Otherwise we are starting a trend of black-listing website once again. This could be another seedpoint for the freedom of speech and firewall-of-america discussion which was raised with SOPA
ebzlo 15y ago
Facebook? Twitter? De-index? It sounds to me like the judge doesn't know much of what he's talking about. Taking down the companies and their assets I'm all for, but de-indexing them from search results seems a little bit unnecessary, especially since they'll go away on their own once the domains are dead.
mindstab 15y ago
Is there really infrastructure available for this yet? Also "All Internet search engines"... Possibly the judge underestimates how many there are out there who will never even hear of this ruling without horrible SOPA legislature and infrastructure in place. Till then they can't seriously expect random search engine in my bedroom to track all legal rulings in this space. This is fantastically impossible. And it raises the point of how tricky it will be to even suggest enforcing SOPA with out providing massive centralized services listing blocked sites etc.
- Joakal 15y ago
  It is possible with Google to de-index websites. Look up Google chilling effects warnings. The judge can take it to mean that any search engines not complying are in contempt.
  - mindstab 15y ago
    Which now means with out central infrastructure, it's going to be mighty challenging for any new search start ups to not get sued in the states
  - _delirium 15y ago
    I'm no lawyer, but to be held in contempt of a court order, don't you actually have to be specifically named in the court order and notified of it?
- angli 15y ago
  I'm totally against the idea to begin with, but wouldn't it just be easier to seize the domains and have them redirect to the "proper" site? Why get the search engines involved at all? On a related note, does it become in the social/search/social search giants' interest to take on the cases and attempt to overturn these decisions at some point? It would provide better results, for one, as well as lessen the technical burden of suppressing these sites. I expect that the times we live in are ultimately going to be a "trial by fire" for the tech industry. The result, I think, is probably that Google, Facebook, etc. conduct extensive lobbying, and other massive PR operations, to gain the support of both users and government officials. For the companies of the future though, this is probably great: a Congress where the size, economic impact and mindshare of tech is noted, and laws are passed accordingly.
- stfu 15y ago
  Does anyone know how this is handled at Google with their different data centers i.e. are the sites going to be indexed in the UK version?
danilocampos 15y ago
Look. I know it's HN and we're all very serious business here. And I'm not trying to be age-ist – my condemnation is strictly confined to mental state. But what. the fuck. do we do with these dinosaurs who know nothing of technology policy but have decided to go and make it anyway? What do we do? The strategy of waiting for them to retire or whatever doesn't seem to be paying off.
- yolesaber 15y ago
  What can be done is encouraging more engineers and scientists to run for offices in the United States Government.
  - dantheman 15y ago
    What can be done is to educate people and engage in a discussion on what the proper role of the state should be. For many, the government should have little to no involvement in technological and economic matters and focus merely on the preservation of individual liberties - if this view continues to gain momentum issues such as these will become nonissues.
  - rhizome 15y ago
    The US electoral process is prejudiced against any candidate with skills other than "people skills." Anybody who campaigns on a platform even implying the advantage of intelligence will be cast as an elitist. Boom, campaign-headshot.
    - gujk 15y ago
      http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Biss http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Biss
      - rhizome 15y ago
        Sure, there are exceptions, and that guy is pretty low-level. My point is on the level of Mitt Romney's Mormonism: certain traits do not appear to be compatible with higher office (these days). Look at John Kerry's 2004 campaign for some examples of what I'm talking about.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
stellar678 15y ago
How can a judge possibly be so daft as to put a judgement against companies not even party to the lawsuit? If we find out these counterfeit goods are also coming over from China, should we tell UPS and FedEx they can no longer fly planes out of there?
- 1010100101 15y ago
  So should they still comply with the order? Why or why not? Why not issue an injunction to US-based ISP's or even IXP's to filter the IP addresses these domains point to, or even whole address blocks? Do you think they would comply?
  - charliesome 15y ago
    nitpick: both spellings are accepted
electromagnetic 15y ago
I'm waiting for the day that a 15 year old files a patent on a new style of Capri's and ends up owning Levi, Wrangler, etc. for selling counterfeit products. Oh wait, that would never happen. (Incidentally in about 98, before capri's got fashionable again, my friend took to folding and stitching her jeans, in a few weeks all the girls were doing it throughout the summer; about 4 years later she was pissed when Levi and Wrangler jeans started selling them, manufactured from regular jeans and stitched almost identically) I dislike the whole anti-counterfeit programs because companies want you to spend $2000 for a leather bag with their name on it, but the bag is only really worth $20. They're not even complaining that you're not willing to pay for it (like pirating a movie), they're complaining because you're unwilling to spend a massively unreasonable amount on it. There's no reason to target the counterfeitters as they're not hurting your business model. They're selling to people who know they're getting ripped off, but Gucci and what not are selling it to rich idiots who don't know they're getting ripped off.
- OstiaAntica 15y ago
  You can't copyright or trademark a fashion pattern, like your friend's jeans. Fake products using a trademarked name is a different matter-- they are of inferior quality, and widespread distribution seriously damages the legitimate brand.
  - electromagnetic 15y ago
    Yes, the name ripping is their right to enforce, however the big brands also prevent knockoffs and imitations from being sold in major stores for threat of pulling everything with their name on it if the store stocks similar-look products.
- rick888 15y ago
  "I dislike the whole anti-counterfeit programs because companies want you to spend $2000 for a leather bag with their name on it, but the bag is only really worth $20. They're not even complaining that you're not willing to pay for it (like pirating a movie), they're complaining because you're unwilling to spend a massively unreasonable amount on it." This just isn't true. Many times, the $20 bag uses inferior materials and doesn't go through the quality checks of the bigger companies. It's also about brand name. Some brands are worth more than others. "There's no reason to target the counterfeitters as they're not hurting your business model. They're selling to people who know they're getting ripped off, but Gucci and what not are selling it to rich idiots who don't know they're getting ripped off." It does hurt their business model. There are many people selling counterfeits as the original. If the company does nothing about it, people will not only expect to get it at the cheaper price in the future, but will complain if the quality sucks or it falls apart after a few weeks of use, which will hurt the companies image.
kevinalexbrown 15y ago
I think the appropriate (humorous) response would be to de-index federal government websites, or websites which were pro-SOPA, or refuse to provide services the judge, or those who work with him, use. After all, it's aiding and abetting someone who's not acting in their interests ...
ImprovedSilence 15y ago
I'm curious, how are there not "offshore" domains yet, much in the same fashion there of offshore shell corporations for tax havens? Somebody tether me a server farm in the middle of the Atlantic, and tap on into the cables down below or something. Heck, got your water cooled farm right there. All jesting aside though, does anyone think domains name registration is going to start soaring in other countries because of all this bickering going on lately? I see business models waiting to be found here.
- calloc 15y ago
  Because ICANN is still governed by US rules, and while it would probably cause a LOT of damage they could seize any domain they wanted since they own the root DNS servers.
DanielBMarkham 15y ago
So if I decide to sell my wife's (imaginary) 3 tons of Chanel goods, and open a site called chanel-goods-for-cheap, odds are my site gets lifted and I become a part of this action no matter whether I am selling counterfeit goods or not, right? I agree with the attorney. Why get upset about SOPA? They can screw you over just the same way today without all the extra laws. This will eventually reach the point, if left unchecked, where large corporations will completely own all of their internet distribution channels -- resale, wholesale, damaged goods, you name it. If it's got "Brand X" as part of the offering, folks over at Brand X are going to want to control it. I really hate the fact that so many of these stories remind me of people running around waving their arms with their heads on fire. It's always the end of western civilization as we know it. But damn it, the problem is that there are many separate issues where there are real threats to common sense and to liberty. It's like living in a town where several large buildings are on fire. Being alarmed seems appropriate, but why bother? The whole place is hosed.
- Jabbles 15y ago
  Please read the article and stop spreading false information. It doesn't help. Obviously the court's decision sets an awful precedent. But the third paragraph clearly states that Chanel checked that the sites were actually selling counterfeit goods. So your analogy doesn't work.
  - DanielBMarkham 15y ago
    As I understood the article, there was an open order that Chanel simply stuffed websites into. I'm not sure exactly what the qualifications of a "anti-counterfeiting specialist" are, but it certainly doesn't involve judicial review. From the article: The case has been a remarkable one. Concerned about counterfeiting, Chanel has filed a joint suit in Nevada against nearly 700 domain names that appear to have nothing in common. When Chanel finds more names, it simply uses the same case and files new requests for more seizures. (A recent November 14 order went after an additional 228 sites; none had a chance to contest the request until after it was approved and the names had been seized.) How were the sites investigated? For the most recent batch of names, Chanel hired a Nevada investigator to order from three of the 228 sites in question. When the orders arrived, they were reviewed by a Chanel official and declared counterfeit. The other 225 sites were seized based on a Chanel anti-counterfeiting specialist browsing the Web. I'm not sure how that can be misconstrued. Chanel pays an expert who puts together a list and they are automatically banned. Each site can then, and only then, try to get some review. Chanel picks and chooses who to take sites away from, then the site owners -- if they have the resources -- can try to get things sorted out. Seems pretty straightforward to me (if completely whacked) Yes, I extrapolate that situation into the future, but that's the purpose of commentary: to use analogy and extrapolation to show facets of the article that aren't immediately apparent to the reader. I never said that brands own the internet now. I simply said that if things keep going this way, this is where we are going to end up.
desireco42 15y ago
I don't think judges should be able to order unreasonable things like this one. From article it shows that they don't even have proof that some of the sites have done anything illegal. I understand Channel and sympathize with them, but this judge should never be able to order something like this.
dchest 15y ago
Reading this order: http://www.scribd.com/doc/73773870/Chanel-Inc-v-Does-11-Cv-01508-KJD-PAL-D-Nev-Nov-14-2011 http://www.scribd.com/doc/73773870/Chanel-Inc-v-Does-11-Cv-0... I wonder who is responsible for de-indexing and/or removing the domain names? Other points begin with "Plaintiffs shall...", "Defendants shall...", but in this point there's no party stated that must do the action: "The Group II Subject Domain Names shall immediately be de-indexed and/or removed from any search results pages of all Internet search engines including, but not limited to, Google, Bing, and Yahoo, and all social media websites including, but not limited to, Facebook, Google+, and Twitter until otherwise instructed by this Court or Plaintiff that any such domain name is authorized to be reinstated, at which time it shall be reinstated to its former status within each search engine index from which it was removed."
- alttag 15y ago
  IANAL, but isn't this outside the court's scope of authority, as many (most?) aren't parties to the case? As I understand the role of judicial review and precedent, I don't see how a party not associated with a case can be compelled to do anything without a due process opportunity.
  - 1010100101 15y ago
    Do you think they will resist the order in this case? Why or why not?
    - brettnak 15y ago
      I'm pretty sure they will do what their lawyers tell them the judge had the authority to do. If the judge does not have this authority, their lawyers will tell them to ignore it. If they judge does, they will tell them to obey it.
cube13 15y ago
Sigh. This is pretty much a classic case of "THE INTERNET IS NEW AND SCARY". Assuming that Charnel's claims are accurate(that counterfeit goods were being sold), then the standard procedure 20 years ago would have been to work with law enforcement and the courts. If the defendants were found guilty, the counterfeit goods would be seized and profits off of them would be awarded to Charnel. With the invention of the Internet, the exact same thing should have happened. Charnel should have worked with law enforcement and the courts, and if the defendants were found guilty, the goods should have been seized, and the story should have ended. In either case, it would take a while(especially if the shops were in countries that had very lax copyright laws), but there should not have been really any difference between now and 20 years ago. Only in this case, the judge, in his infinite wisdom, went the "OMG INTERNET IS NEW AND SCARY" route, and decided to just remove the sites from indexes. Aside from the fact that this doesn't actually fix the problem(hello, eBay), this is a pretty new(and dumb) "solution" to a pretty settled problem.
dsplittgerber 15y ago
Not to be overly political, but: This is what you get when you support a modern liberal state. It's always going to over-extend and over-regulate, because that's just the way the bureaucracy works - it's preserving itself by always finding new areas of society and the economy that "just have to be regulated for the common good". It's a matter of basic principles, really. It's just never going to end unless you stand up for individual freedoms and very limited powers of the state.
- kstenerud 15y ago
  If it's only a liberal thing, then why was the bill submitted with bipartisan support?
  - dsplittgerber 15y ago
    There is no difference between US political parties as far as being in favor of regulating areas of society and life is concerned.
    - kstenerud 15y ago
      So why the talk of a liberal state? America is far more conservative overall than, for example, most Western European countries.
      - marshray 15y ago
        People who still believe in politics in the US tend to attach themselves to "liberal" or "conservative" and use the other one as a pejorative. Neither term has a very well defined meaning, other than for a few select issues like, say, gay marriage.
        sdkmvx 15y ago
        > Neither term has a very well defined meaning, other than for a few select issues like, say, gay marriage. Not really. I'm conservative in that I don't think that being radical will ever help your cause (see the French Revolution). I'm liberal in that I think people should be able to do whatever the hell they want with their lives (i.e., classical liberalism. It follows that I don't support excessive government interference, regulation, or social programs, so I wouldn't go on about being liberal, as that's what the U.S. Democrats have used to describe their platform (which isn't liberal in the traditional sense). For the record, the government doesn't need to regulate marriage whatsoever. Obviously they want to know for tax purposes, but they shouldn't care about the genders of the people involved. Churches can say whatever they want about marriage, I don't really care, and I don't think gay people do either. So which label do you want to attach to me?
FreshCode 15y ago
Picketing around the Google search box doesn't seem like the way to fight counterfeiters, but I symphatise with Chanel on this. What would the ideal solution be?
- lubujackson 15y ago
  The ideal solution would be to seize the domains/servers/property of counterfeiters where legally allowable (i.e., in the U.S.). Where the U.S. has no jurisdiction (China, where the bags are likely made) they can follow the procedures of China. Unfortunately for Chanel, China doesn't seem to give 2 shits about people making similar-looking bags.
- marshallp 15y ago
  hire more seo's. in the pre-internet days they hire more marketers/distributors, in the internet age they need seo;s
andrewfelix 15y ago
Where's the oversight? Where's the appeal process? Who's deciding whether or not the evidence is solid enough to de-index a site? What about outlets that got dodgy handbags from their supplier amongst legitimate merhandise? The precedent here is terrifying. They're shutting down entire businesses on some private dick's say so.
rokhayakebe 15y ago
Why can't these companies simply give a unique ID to each item they sell and allow owners to register them online, just like the DMV with cars. In this way you will know what is fake, who bought what, ownership exchange etc...
- kpanghmc 15y ago
  That would solve the problem of people accidentally buying fake Chanel products. Is that really what Chanel is concerned about here? When I first read this article, I assumed that Chanel was trying to cut down on the number of people who deliberately purchase fake Chanel products since they cost a fraction of the price and are not easily discernible from the real thing.
  - jiggy2011 15y ago
    I wonder if they are really losing sales here though, I imagine most people buying fake Chanel/Rolex etc wouldn't be able to afford the real thing.
nextparadigms 15y ago
Can't they appeal this?
jakeonthemove 15y ago
"All search engines and social media sites" - hehe, I can imagine the dialog: - But your Honor, they're based in another country! - I don't care if they're from Florida, they will remove the site or else! But seriously, the Judge may be just as tired of it as we are, and just made a quick ruling to please Chanel, at least for another month or so...
- marshray 15y ago
  Or he believed there were new laws coming, or the issue as a whole was over his head, he's just punting this up to some higher courts.
vaksel 15y ago
it's not like this stuff even works...most of these counterfeiters make their cash by spamming people
nathanb 15y ago
Just out of curiosity, were Google to simply not comply with this ridiculous abortion of justice, what would be the result? Could Google appeal any sanctions imposed as a result of their non-compliance? What a mess.
- marshray 15y ago
  IANAL, but it's unimaginable that Google, Twitter, Facebook, et al. would somehow be compelled by this with no possibility of appeal. That kind of law hasn't passed yet.
maqr 15y ago
There is a strong need to keep a very public list of every host that is blocked in this way, so we can keep track of what's being censored. Has anyone set up a wiki or something similar for this purpose yet?
ChuckMcM 15y ago
Sigh, don't panic, the system will work, just legislative time is not internet time. As far as I can tell by reading the order [1] the order is temporary, and as its from a district judge [2] really only holds for Nevada at the moment. If it gets to the appeals process and the circuit court upholds it, it will apply more broadly, up to the supreme court where it will apply to the US as a whole. However what that means with regard to Chanel I'm not sure as it really only means that from within the US are these things outlawed. But having such cases is useful because it gives the system something on which to chew, and then publish opinions (not all cases get published opinions) which set case law. So the good news might be that it gets to the circuit court which then has a chance to publish an opinion that our courts can't make these kinds of claims, and that gets upheld in the Supreme court and life is better because all the judges have to follow along. The system is cranky, and obtuse at times, but its remarkably resilient in the face of unexpected challenges. That being said, for the folks who are complaining about the institutions in the US being subverted, I point out that nearly all the elections in this country are won or lost by at most a 10% difference in votes. Further, in general more than 20% of the registered voters don't even bother to vote. So one could argue that if 20% of the 99% really cared about stuff they could actully vote in whomever they chose to vote in and no amount of money, croniesim, or stupidity on the part of the voters who are being lead around by their noses could stop them. The math says it is impossible (short of fraud) but fraud on that scale is really really hard to cover up. [1] http://servingnotice.com/sdv/038%20-%20Order%20Granting%20Second%20TRO.PDF http://servingnotice.com/sdv/038%20-%20Order%20Granting%20Se... [2] Federal courts have 89 districts, feeding into 13 circut courts, feeding into the supreme court. http://www.uscourts.gov/Common/FAQS.aspx http://www.uscourts.gov/Common/FAQS.aspx
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
zeteo 15y ago
It's very unlikely that this article is correct. Here is the legal ruling: http://servingnotice.com/sdv/038%20-%20Order%20Granting%20Second%20TRO.PDF http://servingnotice.com/sdv/038%20-%20Order%20Granting%20Se... This is a temporary restraining order. Chanel is posting a bond for any damages to the defendants, should the trial prove them innocent. Regarding de-indexing, there is only one paragraph (10) which says the domains "shall immediately be de-indexed and/or removed", without specifying who will do this action. This is vague, but I don't think it can be interpreted as an order to Google / FB because: - the list of search engines / social sites is open ended - the previous paragraphs require actions by the plaintiff or by the defendants (e.g. preserve computer files). Among others, paragraph (8) states that the plaintiff can use Google Webmaster Tools on these domains. - the (temporary) transfer of DNS records is specified in small technical details (including multiple technical solutions for the redirection involved) in multiple paragraphs, while this arguably much more complex requirement receives minimum treatment. While the language is indeed a bit vague in paragraph (10), I think consideration of all these factors seems to indicate it is the plaintiff and the defendants who are to take action to see the sites de-indexed (using, e.g., Google Webmaster Tools) and not the indexing companies.
- tsunamifury 15y ago
  Right, so couldn't this order more resonably be interpreted by saying the web sites need to post no-robots in their meta info to delist themselves rather than Google having to do it? More like, stop having yourself indexed rather than de-indexing.
  - anigbrowl 15y ago
    Correct.
- jeroen 15y ago
  The november 14 order mentioned in the article (see http://www.scribd.com/doc/73773870/Chanel-Inc-v-Does-11-Cv-01508-KJD-PAL-D-Nev-Nov-14-2011 http://www.scribd.com/doc/73773870/Chanel-Inc-v-Does-11-Cv-0... ) contains the following text (on page 11): (10) The Group II Subject Domain Names shall immediately be de-indexed and/or removed from any search result pages of all Internet search engines including, but not limited to, Google, Bing and Yahoo, and all social media websites including, but not limited to, Facebook, Google+, and Twitter ... Looks like Ars got it right.
kevinburke 15y ago
Practically, this ruling won't have much effect. There's a team of people at Google already dedicated to removing results like these from the index, as they aren't that great for users. Any counterfeit goods site with enough SERP already gets on their radar, and gets removed/demoted, without action from Us courts.
- cheald 15y ago
  No, practically, this ruling has a lot of effect. It establishes precedent for the courts being able to declare a web address illegal to publish. The judge effectively ordered that the website be scrubbed clean from the internet, and failure to do so could be construed as contempt. He has declared that it is illegal to "say" those words on the internet. Besides being a gross violation of the First Amendment, letting this ruling stand would open the door for people to leverage this precedent against other "undesirables".
ComputerGuru 15y ago
To all the people suggesting we approach this and other political problems from a technological/engineering perspective: how do you think it could be pulled off? Put aside all the technical limitations - they can (have been or will be) solved. The real question is adoption. What's a darknet without Facebook, Google, etc. worth? Who will use it? There are already countless projects implementing parts of suggested darknets, some of them very cleverly. They've been around for literally decades. None of them are perfect, but they're not so fatally flawed either. The fact of the matter is, the internet is one big, huge de facto standard. No one will use your pet project. No one will look at it. People would far rather shoehorn or build on top of existing infrastructure (thereby being bound to the limitations of the underlying architecture and design requirements). Just look at IPv6. It's a new technology with the full force of all the giants in the industry.... and it hasn't gone anywhere. Actually, IPv6 would have been a good place to add the support for decentralized everything, as it is pretty much the only "authoritive" replacement for the current generation of technology. But it doesn't and it's not. You can build it, they won't come. History proves it.
- TillE 15y ago
  > Just look at IPv6. It's a new technology with the full force of all the giants in the industry.... and it hasn't gone anywhere. One of my VPS providers recently started offering IPv6 addresses to all customers. Linode is starting to roll it out too. My residential ISP doesn't offer anything natively, but the router they provided lets me set up a 6to4 tunnel in a couple clicks, which automagically gives all my devices an address starting with 2002::/16. I can even go to ipv6.google.com on my iPad with no extra configuration. Progress is slow, but it's hardly stagnant. A few months ago, I didn't have any of that. Ancient infrastructure is gradually being replaced by necessity, and then it's just a matter of configuration.
VladRussian 15y ago
how it was managed before the Internet? Did they order to blacken specific phone number(s) in all instances of yellow books?
kogir 15y ago
It's counterintuitive, but things like this are actually good. We need more of them to happen, and for it to affect more people more often. Right now the core of the internet is broken from a security perspective. DNS[1], BGP[2], and SSL[3], despite being key to daily internet function, are all completely inadequate for the important role the internet now plays in the world and society. The thing is: right now they all work, almost all of the time. Any change will be really painful. Even incremental changes like DNSSEC see scant adoption[4] and obviously needed changes like IPv6 are put off until the last possible second[5]. We need things to break before we'll see real change. And by break I mean really break. When enough money is lost because of meddlesome, malicious, or ignorant government and other intervention, we'll finally see real change. But not one second before. After all, if it works, don't fix it[6]. If you really want to see change, exploit these laws to take down legitimate and government websites. Post infringing links, ideas, etc, in the most visible places you can. Try to get major news and other sites that allow user generated content taken down. In the process you'll hopefully break things for enough people that we see change, or you'll at least demonstrate how blatantly inequitable most of these laws are. Both are good steps toward real change. [1] http://www.dnssec.net/dns-threats http://www.dnssec.net/dns-threats [2] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4272.txt http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4272.txt [3] http://www.darkreading.com/taxonomy/index/printarticle/id/231600498 http://www.darkreading.com/taxonomy/index/printarticle/id/23... [4] http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20110330006919/en/IID-Survey-Reveals-Insights-DNSSEC-Adoption http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20110330006919/en/IID-... [5] http://ripe59.ripe.net/presentations/botterman-v6-survey.pdf http://ripe59.ripe.net/presentations/botterman-v6-survey.pdf [6] Yes, I know it doesn't technically work in all cases right now, but did you notice when any of these sites went offline? I didn't. I see an increasing frequency of these types of reports, but have yet to be personally affected.
Zarathust 15y ago
I posted a few sites on my facebook page, I'm waiting for the US to take it down
craigmc 15y ago
I liked the use of the "whack a mole" analogy. Here (for those who don't know) is how this industrial-scale counterfeiting scam works: 1. Set up OSCommerce or Magento site with design roughly copied from legit rights owner. 2. Get local 'middleman' to donate paypal account in return for small cut 3. Buy a bucket load of adwords 4. Run massive scale xrumer / scrapebox / etc 'SEO' campaign 5. Repeat thousands of times over Getting domains de-indexed via the DMCA process on Google, never mind taking after-the-fact legal action, is just treating the symptoms. Given that Paypal and Google are at the forefront of this issue, they are where the responsibility lies in terms of preventing the sites from transacting: by denying them a payment method and heaps of traffic respectively. I am sure that both companies are working hard on this issue, but having looked at the problem over the past couple of years, it hasn't always seemed to be that much of a priority. Beyond that it is basically a question of international trade treaties and better local law enforcement in the territories where the offenders operate (predominately China) - i.e. NOT an easy fix. You can understand the frustration of rights owners who are obviously going to take every opportunity to use legal action domestically. If they get a fairly tech illiterate decision in their favour that has potential dangerous consequences for the internet at large, then this is as much because they are just swinging at everything (back to those moles) than any great desire on their part to restrict legitimate rights and freedoms. Finally, it is important to realise that this is not a victimless crime. What brought this home to me was a few years back when I overheard a nurse in the neonatal unit my son was being looked after in at the time excitedly talking about a pair of brand name boots she'd bought on the internet. I realised that she had absolutely no clue they were fake because why should she? She had found the legitimate-looking site on the first page of Google and had paid with Paypal. This was not a transaction carried out 'out the back of a van', where caveat emptor might more readily apply. A lot (majority?) of consumers don't realise that for all the brand loyality they might have in respect of Google and Paypal, etc^, they are services that are easily misused by unrelated third parties and so should not be taken as any sort of 'trust mark' in they way that shopping in large well-known department store does. ^Amazon and eBay deserve honourable mentions as being popular conduits for counterfeit scams too (although eBay in particular deserves a lot of credit for taking the subject more seriously than most).
- marshray 15y ago
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
bane 15y ago
Well, at least DuckDuckGo wasn't named in the court order.
dholowiski 15y ago
When the kindle fire comes out and it's not available in Canada, it drives me crazy. When I had to wait years before Netflix was available in Canada I was really mad. When Apple launched iTunes music, the iPhone, TV shows and Movies in the US only I actually illegally obtained a US itunes account. It sucks living in Canada. Most days. Not today.
jeswin 15y ago
Let me be the devil's advocate here. If the pricing is more for the exclusivity than its utility, you could argue that counterfeiting diminishes the brand. And while it isn't the general opinion, it is a fair argument. Isn't this case similar to a DMCA takedown notice? IMO DMCA take-down notices make sense; it puts the onus on the content owner to correctly identify infringement and report to the website. (OTOH, SOPA is ridiculous.)
therandomguy 15y ago
Somewhere right now the world's greatest minds in the network/cryptography space are designing the next version of internet which will be beyond the reach of governments... I hope.
beedogs 15y ago
☐ Understands how the Internet works. ☑ Renders a (faulty) decision anyway.
VonLipwig 15y ago
Its backward decisions like this which make me want to make sure that future ventures are not using a domain with a US registrar. I would go further and say its decisions like this which make we want to avoid dealing with any business in the states at all. The thing of most concern isn't the seizures themselves. It is the lack of due process. The litigant finds 3 websites from 228 are selling counterfeit goods. The litigant says the other 225 are also selling counterfeit goods.. the judge takes their word. Websites disappear!? I don't have a problem with counterfeit websites being taken offline. They can ship goods which are dangerous to the public. What I have a problem with is the lack of due process and the ordering of international websites which everyone depends on to press the delete button also. Perhaps the biggest surprise is the lack of influence Silicon Valley apparently has on US law. The western world's internet is dominated by US tech giants. Yet US law seems to be moving against the tech sector. I say its about time Silicon Valley started lobbying Washington.
capkutay 15y ago
This is why we need more software engineers in the US. If we have people with law AND engineering backgrounds making policy, we would see a system much more rational/practical/just toward new technology. These types of issues only occur because current policy makers have little understanding of the consequences of their own actions (or perhaps they don't care.
yaix 15y ago
"poshmoda.ws" has a hidden domain owner. But the "toll free" phone number on their shows the obvious +86... Chinese copycat. While I don't approve the methods they use to go after the Chinese copy industry, I also dislike a lot how China has built a huge industry that just profits of the good names Western companies have built up over decades, sometimes centuries of reliable products. The Chinise gov't is no help here either. So, what do?
teja1990 15y ago
Why does Google/Facebook have to de-index? Its their site and they have right to do whatever they want. If Chanel has issues with counterfeits , they have to deal with that themselves ,petition with ICANN but not asking Google to de-index. I dont get why these people take everything for granted and think as if Google is doing some public service.
gst 15y ago
As a non-US-citizen I honestly don't see any major problem with that. com/net/org domains are handled by US companies and it's therefore clear for me that they fall under US jursidiction. If I want a domain that the US cannot take away from me I just get one under a local TLD (which the US does not have access to).
abrichr 15y ago
Would anyone be able to recommend a good non-US domain name registrar? I think I'll be looking to switch.

434 points by gigawatt 15y ago

I find Venkat Balasubramani's post linked to at the end of that article worth reading in full: http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2011/11/court_oks_priva.htm http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2011/11/court_oks_priva...

jinushaun 15y ago

As the article demonstrates, why wait for SOPA?

scottshea 15y ago

I am really curious how Google and Facebook will handle this...

madmaze 15y ago

Even if some of these websites sell fake/counterfit goods, they should only be taken out of the ads. Otherwise we are starting a trend of black-listing website once again. This could be another seedpoint for the freedom of speech and firewall-of-america discussion which was raised with SOPA

ebzlo 15y ago

Facebook? Twitter? De-index? It sounds to me like the judge doesn't know much of what he's talking about. Taking down the companies and their assets I'm all for, but de-indexing them from search results seems a little bit unnecessary, especially since they'll go away on their own once the domains are dead.

mindstab 15y ago

Is there really infrastructure available for this yet? Also "All Internet search engines"... Possibly the judge underestimates how many there are out there who will never even hear of this ruling without horrible SOPA legislature and infrastructure in place. Till then they can't seriously expect random search engine in my bedroom to track all legal rulings in this space. This is fantastically impossible. And it raises the point of how tricky it will be to even suggest enforcing SOPA with out providing massive centralized services listing blocked sites etc.

Joakal 15y ago
It is possible with Google to de-index websites. Look up Google chilling effects warnings. The judge can take it to mean that any search engines not complying are in contempt.
- mindstab 15y ago
  Which now means with out central infrastructure, it's going to be mighty challenging for any new search start ups to not get sued in the states
- _delirium 15y ago
  I'm no lawyer, but to be held in contempt of a court order, don't you actually have to be specifically named in the court order and notified of it?
angli 15y ago
I'm totally against the idea to begin with, but wouldn't it just be easier to seize the domains and have them redirect to the "proper" site? Why get the search engines involved at all? On a related note, does it become in the social/search/social search giants' interest to take on the cases and attempt to overturn these decisions at some point? It would provide better results, for one, as well as lessen the technical burden of suppressing these sites. I expect that the times we live in are ultimately going to be a "trial by fire" for the tech industry. The result, I think, is probably that Google, Facebook, etc. conduct extensive lobbying, and other massive PR operations, to gain the support of both users and government officials. For the companies of the future though, this is probably great: a Congress where the size, economic impact and mindshare of tech is noted, and laws are passed accordingly.
stfu 15y ago
Does anyone know how this is handled at Google with their different data centers i.e. are the sites going to be indexed in the UK version?

danilocampos 15y ago

Look. I know it's HN and we're all very serious business here. And I'm not trying to be age-ist – my condemnation is strictly confined to mental state. But what. the fuck. do we do with these dinosaurs who know nothing of technology policy but have decided to go and make it anyway? What do we do? The strategy of waiting for them to retire or whatever doesn't seem to be paying off.

yolesaber 15y ago
What can be done is encouraging more engineers and scientists to run for offices in the United States Government.
- dantheman 15y ago
  What can be done is to educate people and engage in a discussion on what the proper role of the state should be. For many, the government should have little to no involvement in technological and economic matters and focus merely on the preservation of individual liberties - if this view continues to gain momentum issues such as these will become nonissues.
- rhizome 15y ago
  The US electoral process is prejudiced against any candidate with skills other than "people skills." Anybody who campaigns on a platform even implying the advantage of intelligence will be cast as an elitist. Boom, campaign-headshot.
  - gujk 15y ago
    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Biss http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Biss
    - rhizome 15y ago
      Sure, there are exceptions, and that guy is pretty low-level. My point is on the level of Mitt Romney's Mormonism: certain traits do not appear to be compatible with higher office (these days). Look at John Kerry's 2004 campaign for some examples of what I'm talking about.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

stellar678 15y ago

How can a judge possibly be so daft as to put a judgement against companies not even party to the lawsuit? If we find out these counterfeit goods are also coming over from China, should we tell UPS and FedEx they can no longer fly planes out of there?

1010100101 15y ago
So should they still comply with the order? Why or why not? Why not issue an injunction to US-based ISP's or even IXP's to filter the IP addresses these domains point to, or even whole address blocks? Do you think they would comply?
- charliesome 15y ago
  nitpick: both spellings are accepted

electromagnetic 15y ago

I'm waiting for the day that a 15 year old files a patent on a new style of Capri's and ends up owning Levi, Wrangler, etc. for selling counterfeit products. Oh wait, that would never happen. (Incidentally in about 98, before capri's got fashionable again, my friend took to folding and stitching her jeans, in a few weeks all the girls were doing it throughout the summer; about 4 years later she was pissed when Levi and Wrangler jeans started selling them, manufactured from regular jeans and stitched almost identically) I dislike the whole anti-counterfeit programs because companies want you to spend $2000 for a leather bag with their name on it, but the bag is only really worth $20. They're not even complaining that you're not willing to pay for it (like pirating a movie), they're complaining because you're unwilling to spend a massively unreasonable amount on it. There's no reason to target the counterfeitters as they're not hurting your business model. They're selling to people who know they're getting ripped off, but Gucci and what not are selling it to rich idiots who don't know they're getting ripped off.

OstiaAntica 15y ago
You can't copyright or trademark a fashion pattern, like your friend's jeans. Fake products using a trademarked name is a different matter-- they are of inferior quality, and widespread distribution seriously damages the legitimate brand.
- electromagnetic 15y ago
  Yes, the name ripping is their right to enforce, however the big brands also prevent knockoffs and imitations from being sold in major stores for threat of pulling everything with their name on it if the store stocks similar-look products.
rick888 15y ago
"I dislike the whole anti-counterfeit programs because companies want you to spend $2000 for a leather bag with their name on it, but the bag is only really worth $20. They're not even complaining that you're not willing to pay for it (like pirating a movie), they're complaining because you're unwilling to spend a massively unreasonable amount on it." This just isn't true. Many times, the $20 bag uses inferior materials and doesn't go through the quality checks of the bigger companies. It's also about brand name. Some brands are worth more than others. "There's no reason to target the counterfeitters as they're not hurting your business model. They're selling to people who know they're getting ripped off, but Gucci and what not are selling it to rich idiots who don't know they're getting ripped off." It does hurt their business model. There are many people selling counterfeits as the original. If the company does nothing about it, people will not only expect to get it at the cheaper price in the future, but will complain if the quality sucks or it falls apart after a few weeks of use, which will hurt the companies image.

kevinalexbrown 15y ago

I think the appropriate (humorous) response would be to de-index federal government websites, or websites which were pro-SOPA, or refuse to provide services the judge, or those who work with him, use. After all, it's aiding and abetting someone who's not acting in their interests ...

ImprovedSilence 15y ago

I'm curious, how are there not "offshore" domains yet, much in the same fashion there of offshore shell corporations for tax havens? Somebody tether me a server farm in the middle of the Atlantic, and tap on into the cables down below or something. Heck, got your water cooled farm right there. All jesting aside though, does anyone think domains name registration is going to start soaring in other countries because of all this bickering going on lately? I see business models waiting to be found here.

calloc 15y ago
Because ICANN is still governed by US rules, and while it would probably cause a LOT of damage they could seize any domain they wanted since they own the root DNS servers.

DanielBMarkham 15y ago

So if I decide to sell my wife's (imaginary) 3 tons of Chanel goods, and open a site called chanel-goods-for-cheap, odds are my site gets lifted and I become a part of this action no matter whether I am selling counterfeit goods or not, right? I agree with the attorney. Why get upset about SOPA? They can screw you over just the same way today without all the extra laws. This will eventually reach the point, if left unchecked, where large corporations will completely own all of their internet distribution channels -- resale, wholesale, damaged goods, you name it. If it's got "Brand X" as part of the offering, folks over at Brand X are going to want to control it. I really hate the fact that so many of these stories remind me of people running around waving their arms with their heads on fire. It's always the end of western civilization as we know it. But damn it, the problem is that there are many separate issues where there are real threats to common sense and to liberty. It's like living in a town where several large buildings are on fire. Being alarmed seems appropriate, but why bother? The whole place is hosed.

Jabbles 15y ago
Please read the article and stop spreading false information. It doesn't help. Obviously the court's decision sets an awful precedent. But the third paragraph clearly states that Chanel checked that the sites were actually selling counterfeit goods. So your analogy doesn't work.
- DanielBMarkham 15y ago
  As I understood the article, there was an open order that Chanel simply stuffed websites into. I'm not sure exactly what the qualifications of a "anti-counterfeiting specialist" are, but it certainly doesn't involve judicial review. From the article: The case has been a remarkable one. Concerned about counterfeiting, Chanel has filed a joint suit in Nevada against nearly 700 domain names that appear to have nothing in common. When Chanel finds more names, it simply uses the same case and files new requests for more seizures. (A recent November 14 order went after an additional 228 sites; none had a chance to contest the request until after it was approved and the names had been seized.) How were the sites investigated? For the most recent batch of names, Chanel hired a Nevada investigator to order from three of the 228 sites in question. When the orders arrived, they were reviewed by a Chanel official and declared counterfeit. The other 225 sites were seized based on a Chanel anti-counterfeiting specialist browsing the Web. I'm not sure how that can be misconstrued. Chanel pays an expert who puts together a list and they are automatically banned. Each site can then, and only then, try to get some review. Chanel picks and chooses who to take sites away from, then the site owners -- if they have the resources -- can try to get things sorted out. Seems pretty straightforward to me (if completely whacked) Yes, I extrapolate that situation into the future, but that's the purpose of commentary: to use analogy and extrapolation to show facets of the article that aren't immediately apparent to the reader. I never said that brands own the internet now. I simply said that if things keep going this way, this is where we are going to end up.

desireco42 15y ago

I don't think judges should be able to order unreasonable things like this one. From article it shows that they don't even have proof that some of the sites have done anything illegal. I understand Channel and sympathize with them, but this judge should never be able to order something like this.

dchest 15y ago

Reading this order: http://www.scribd.com/doc/73773870/Chanel-Inc-v-Does-11-Cv-01508-KJD-PAL-D-Nev-Nov-14-2011 http://www.scribd.com/doc/73773870/Chanel-Inc-v-Does-11-Cv-0... I wonder who is responsible for de-indexing and/or removing the domain names? Other points begin with "Plaintiffs shall...", "Defendants shall...", but in this point there's no party stated that must do the action: "The Group II Subject Domain Names shall immediately be de-indexed and/or removed from any search results pages of all Internet search engines including, but not limited to, Google, Bing, and Yahoo, and all social media websites including, but not limited to, Facebook, Google+, and Twitter until otherwise instructed by this Court or Plaintiff that any such domain name is authorized to be reinstated, at which time it shall be reinstated to its former status within each search engine index from which it was removed."

alttag 15y ago
IANAL, but isn't this outside the court's scope of authority, as many (most?) aren't parties to the case? As I understand the role of judicial review and precedent, I don't see how a party not associated with a case can be compelled to do anything without a due process opportunity.
- 1010100101 15y ago
  Do you think they will resist the order in this case? Why or why not?
  - brettnak 15y ago
    I'm pretty sure they will do what their lawyers tell them the judge had the authority to do. If the judge does not have this authority, their lawyers will tell them to ignore it. If they judge does, they will tell them to obey it.

cube13 15y ago

Sigh. This is pretty much a classic case of "THE INTERNET IS NEW AND SCARY". Assuming that Charnel's claims are accurate(that counterfeit goods were being sold), then the standard procedure 20 years ago would have been to work with law enforcement and the courts. If the defendants were found guilty, the counterfeit goods would be seized and profits off of them would be awarded to Charnel. With the invention of the Internet, the exact same thing should have happened. Charnel should have worked with law enforcement and the courts, and if the defendants were found guilty, the goods should have been seized, and the story should have ended. In either case, it would take a while(especially if the shops were in countries that had very lax copyright laws), but there should not have been really any difference between now and 20 years ago. Only in this case, the judge, in his infinite wisdom, went the "OMG INTERNET IS NEW AND SCARY" route, and decided to just remove the sites from indexes. Aside from the fact that this doesn't actually fix the problem(hello, eBay), this is a pretty new(and dumb) "solution" to a pretty settled problem.

dsplittgerber 15y ago

Not to be overly political, but: This is what you get when you support a modern liberal state. It's always going to over-extend and over-regulate, because that's just the way the bureaucracy works - it's preserving itself by always finding new areas of society and the economy that "just have to be regulated for the common good". It's a matter of basic principles, really. It's just never going to end unless you stand up for individual freedoms and very limited powers of the state.

kstenerud 15y ago
If it's only a liberal thing, then why was the bill submitted with bipartisan support?
- dsplittgerber 15y ago
  There is no difference between US political parties as far as being in favor of regulating areas of society and life is concerned.
  - kstenerud 15y ago
    So why the talk of a liberal state? America is far more conservative overall than, for example, most Western European countries.
    - marshray 15y ago
      People who still believe in politics in the US tend to attach themselves to "liberal" or "conservative" and use the other one as a pejorative. Neither term has a very well defined meaning, other than for a few select issues like, say, gay marriage.
      - sdkmvx 15y ago
        > Neither term has a very well defined meaning, other than for a few select issues like, say, gay marriage. Not really. I'm conservative in that I don't think that being radical will ever help your cause (see the French Revolution). I'm liberal in that I think people should be able to do whatever the hell they want with their lives (i.e., classical liberalism. It follows that I don't support excessive government interference, regulation, or social programs, so I wouldn't go on about being liberal, as that's what the U.S. Democrats have used to describe their platform (which isn't liberal in the traditional sense). For the record, the government doesn't need to regulate marriage whatsoever. Obviously they want to know for tax purposes, but they shouldn't care about the genders of the people involved. Churches can say whatever they want about marriage, I don't really care, and I don't think gay people do either. So which label do you want to attach to me?

FreshCode 15y ago

Picketing around the Google search box doesn't seem like the way to fight counterfeiters, but I symphatise with Chanel on this. What would the ideal solution be?

lubujackson 15y ago
The ideal solution would be to seize the domains/servers/property of counterfeiters where legally allowable (i.e., in the U.S.). Where the U.S. has no jurisdiction (China, where the bags are likely made) they can follow the procedures of China. Unfortunately for Chanel, China doesn't seem to give 2 shits about people making similar-looking bags.
marshallp 15y ago
hire more seo's. in the pre-internet days they hire more marketers/distributors, in the internet age they need seo;s

andrewfelix 15y ago

Where's the oversight? Where's the appeal process? Who's deciding whether or not the evidence is solid enough to de-index a site? What about outlets that got dodgy handbags from their supplier amongst legitimate merhandise? The precedent here is terrifying. They're shutting down entire businesses on some private dick's say so.

rokhayakebe 15y ago

Why can't these companies simply give a unique ID to each item they sell and allow owners to register them online, just like the DMV with cars. In this way you will know what is fake, who bought what, ownership exchange etc...

kpanghmc 15y ago
That would solve the problem of people accidentally buying fake Chanel products. Is that really what Chanel is concerned about here? When I first read this article, I assumed that Chanel was trying to cut down on the number of people who deliberately purchase fake Chanel products since they cost a fraction of the price and are not easily discernible from the real thing.
- jiggy2011 15y ago
  I wonder if they are really losing sales here though, I imagine most people buying fake Chanel/Rolex etc wouldn't be able to afford the real thing.

nextparadigms 15y ago

Can't they appeal this?

jakeonthemove 15y ago

"All search engines and social media sites" - hehe, I can imagine the dialog: - But your Honor, they're based in another country! - I don't care if they're from Florida, they will remove the site or else! But seriously, the Judge may be just as tired of it as we are, and just made a quick ruling to please Chanel, at least for another month or so...

marshray 15y ago
Or he believed there were new laws coming, or the issue as a whole was over his head, he's just punting this up to some higher courts.

vaksel 15y ago

it's not like this stuff even works...most of these counterfeiters make their cash by spamming people

nathanb 15y ago

Just out of curiosity, were Google to simply not comply with this ridiculous abortion of justice, what would be the result? Could Google appeal any sanctions imposed as a result of their non-compliance? What a mess.

marshray 15y ago
IANAL, but it's unimaginable that Google, Twitter, Facebook, et al. would somehow be compelled by this with no possibility of appeal. That kind of law hasn't passed yet.

maqr 15y ago

There is a strong need to keep a very public list of every host that is blocked in this way, so we can keep track of what's being censored. Has anyone set up a wiki or something similar for this purpose yet?

ChuckMcM 15y ago

Sigh, don't panic, the system will work, just legislative time is not internet time. As far as I can tell by reading the order [1] the order is temporary, and as its from a district judge [2] really only holds for Nevada at the moment. If it gets to the appeals process and the circuit court upholds it, it will apply more broadly, up to the supreme court where it will apply to the US as a whole. However what that means with regard to Chanel I'm not sure as it really only means that from within the US are these things outlawed. But having such cases is useful because it gives the system something on which to chew, and then publish opinions (not all cases get published opinions) which set case law. So the good news might be that it gets to the circuit court which then has a chance to publish an opinion that our courts can't make these kinds of claims, and that gets upheld in the Supreme court and life is better because all the judges have to follow along. The system is cranky, and obtuse at times, but its remarkably resilient in the face of unexpected challenges. That being said, for the folks who are complaining about the institutions in the US being subverted, I point out that nearly all the elections in this country are won or lost by at most a 10% difference in votes. Further, in general more than 20% of the registered voters don't even bother to vote. So one could argue that if 20% of the 99% really cared about stuff they could actully vote in whomever they chose to vote in and no amount of money, croniesim, or stupidity on the part of the voters who are being lead around by their noses could stop them. The math says it is impossible (short of fraud) but fraud on that scale is really really hard to cover up. [1] http://servingnotice.com/sdv/038%20-%20Order%20Granting%20Second%20TRO.PDF http://servingnotice.com/sdv/038%20-%20Order%20Granting%20Se... [2] Federal courts have 89 districts, feeding into 13 circut courts, feeding into the supreme court. http://www.uscourts.gov/Common/FAQS.aspx http://www.uscourts.gov/Common/FAQS.aspx

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]

zeteo 15y ago

It's very unlikely that this article is correct. Here is the legal ruling: http://servingnotice.com/sdv/038%20-%20Order%20Granting%20Second%20TRO.PDF http://servingnotice.com/sdv/038%20-%20Order%20Granting%20Se... This is a temporary restraining order. Chanel is posting a bond for any damages to the defendants, should the trial prove them innocent. Regarding de-indexing, there is only one paragraph (10) which says the domains "shall immediately be de-indexed and/or removed", without specifying who will do this action. This is vague, but I don't think it can be interpreted as an order to Google / FB because: - the list of search engines / social sites is open ended - the previous paragraphs require actions by the plaintiff or by the defendants (e.g. preserve computer files). Among others, paragraph (8) states that the plaintiff can use Google Webmaster Tools on these domains. - the (temporary) transfer of DNS records is specified in small technical details (including multiple technical solutions for the redirection involved) in multiple paragraphs, while this arguably much more complex requirement receives minimum treatment. While the language is indeed a bit vague in paragraph (10), I think consideration of all these factors seems to indicate it is the plaintiff and the defendants who are to take action to see the sites de-indexed (using, e.g., Google Webmaster Tools) and not the indexing companies.

tsunamifury 15y ago
Right, so couldn't this order more resonably be interpreted by saying the web sites need to post no-robots in their meta info to delist themselves rather than Google having to do it? More like, stop having yourself indexed rather than de-indexing.
- anigbrowl 15y ago
  Correct.
jeroen 15y ago
The november 14 order mentioned in the article (see http://www.scribd.com/doc/73773870/Chanel-Inc-v-Does-11-Cv-01508-KJD-PAL-D-Nev-Nov-14-2011 http://www.scribd.com/doc/73773870/Chanel-Inc-v-Does-11-Cv-0... ) contains the following text (on page 11): (10) The Group II Subject Domain Names shall immediately be de-indexed and/or removed from any search result pages of all Internet search engines including, but not limited to, Google, Bing and Yahoo, and all social media websites including, but not limited to, Facebook, Google+, and Twitter ... Looks like Ars got it right.

kevinburke 15y ago

Practically, this ruling won't have much effect. There's a team of people at Google already dedicated to removing results like these from the index, as they aren't that great for users. Any counterfeit goods site with enough SERP already gets on their radar, and gets removed/demoted, without action from Us courts.

cheald 15y ago
No, practically, this ruling has a lot of effect. It establishes precedent for the courts being able to declare a web address illegal to publish. The judge effectively ordered that the website be scrubbed clean from the internet, and failure to do so could be construed as contempt. He has declared that it is illegal to "say" those words on the internet. Besides being a gross violation of the First Amendment, letting this ruling stand would open the door for people to leverage this precedent against other "undesirables".

ComputerGuru 15y ago

To all the people suggesting we approach this and other political problems from a technological/engineering perspective: how do you think it could be pulled off? Put aside all the technical limitations - they can (have been or will be) solved. The real question is adoption. What's a darknet without Facebook, Google, etc. worth? Who will use it? There are already countless projects implementing parts of suggested darknets, some of them very cleverly. They've been around for literally decades. None of them are perfect, but they're not so fatally flawed either. The fact of the matter is, the internet is one big, huge de facto standard. No one will use your pet project. No one will look at it. People would far rather shoehorn or build on top of existing infrastructure (thereby being bound to the limitations of the underlying architecture and design requirements). Just look at IPv6. It's a new technology with the full force of all the giants in the industry.... and it hasn't gone anywhere. Actually, IPv6 would have been a good place to add the support for decentralized everything, as it is pretty much the only "authoritive" replacement for the current generation of technology. But it doesn't and it's not. You can build it, they won't come. History proves it.

TillE 15y ago
> Just look at IPv6. It's a new technology with the full force of all the giants in the industry.... and it hasn't gone anywhere. One of my VPS providers recently started offering IPv6 addresses to all customers. Linode is starting to roll it out too. My residential ISP doesn't offer anything natively, but the router they provided lets me set up a 6to4 tunnel in a couple clicks, which automagically gives all my devices an address starting with 2002::/16. I can even go to ipv6.google.com on my iPad with no extra configuration. Progress is slow, but it's hardly stagnant. A few months ago, I didn't have any of that. Ancient infrastructure is gradually being replaced by necessity, and then it's just a matter of configuration.

VladRussian 15y ago

how it was managed before the Internet? Did they order to blacken specific phone number(s) in all instances of yellow books?

kogir 15y ago

It's counterintuitive, but things like this are actually good. We need more of them to happen, and for it to affect more people more often. Right now the core of the internet is broken from a security perspective. DNS[1], BGP[2], and SSL[3], despite being key to daily internet function, are all completely inadequate for the important role the internet now plays in the world and society. The thing is: right now they all work, almost all of the time. Any change will be really painful. Even incremental changes like DNSSEC see scant adoption[4] and obviously needed changes like IPv6 are put off until the last possible second[5]. We need things to break before we'll see real change. And by break I mean really break. When enough money is lost because of meddlesome, malicious, or ignorant government and other intervention, we'll finally see real change. But not one second before. After all, if it works, don't fix it[6]. If you really want to see change, exploit these laws to take down legitimate and government websites. Post infringing links, ideas, etc, in the most visible places you can. Try to get major news and other sites that allow user generated content taken down. In the process you'll hopefully break things for enough people that we see change, or you'll at least demonstrate how blatantly inequitable most of these laws are. Both are good steps toward real change. [1] http://www.dnssec.net/dns-threats http://www.dnssec.net/dns-threats [2] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4272.txt http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4272.txt [3] http://www.darkreading.com/taxonomy/index/printarticle/id/231600498 http://www.darkreading.com/taxonomy/index/printarticle/id/23... [4] http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20110330006919/en/IID-Survey-Reveals-Insights-DNSSEC-Adoption http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20110330006919/en/IID-... [5] http://ripe59.ripe.net/presentations/botterman-v6-survey.pdf http://ripe59.ripe.net/presentations/botterman-v6-survey.pdf [6] Yes, I know it doesn't technically work in all cases right now, but did you notice when any of these sites went offline? I didn't. I see an increasing frequency of these types of reports, but have yet to be personally affected.

Zarathust 15y ago

I posted a few sites on my facebook page, I'm waiting for the US to take it down

craigmc 15y ago

I liked the use of the "whack a mole" analogy. Here (for those who don't know) is how this industrial-scale counterfeiting scam works: 1. Set up OSCommerce or Magento site with design roughly copied from legit rights owner. 2. Get local 'middleman' to donate paypal account in return for small cut 3. Buy a bucket load of adwords 4. Run massive scale xrumer / scrapebox / etc 'SEO' campaign 5. Repeat thousands of times over Getting domains de-indexed via the DMCA process on Google, never mind taking after-the-fact legal action, is just treating the symptoms. Given that Paypal and Google are at the forefront of this issue, they are where the responsibility lies in terms of preventing the sites from transacting: by denying them a payment method and heaps of traffic respectively. I am sure that both companies are working hard on this issue, but having looked at the problem over the past couple of years, it hasn't always seemed to be that much of a priority. Beyond that it is basically a question of international trade treaties and better local law enforcement in the territories where the offenders operate (predominately China) - i.e. NOT an easy fix. You can understand the frustration of rights owners who are obviously going to take every opportunity to use legal action domestically. If they get a fairly tech illiterate decision in their favour that has potential dangerous consequences for the internet at large, then this is as much because they are just swinging at everything (back to those moles) than any great desire on their part to restrict legitimate rights and freedoms. Finally, it is important to realise that this is not a victimless crime. What brought this home to me was a few years back when I overheard a nurse in the neonatal unit my son was being looked after in at the time excitedly talking about a pair of brand name boots she'd bought on the internet. I realised that she had absolutely no clue they were fake because why should she? She had found the legitimate-looking site on the first page of Google and had paid with Paypal. This was not a transaction carried out 'out the back of a van', where caveat emptor might more readily apply. A lot (majority?) of consumers don't realise that for all the brand loyality they might have in respect of Google and Paypal, etc^, they are services that are easily misused by unrelated third parties and so should not be taken as any sort of 'trust mark' in they way that shopping in large well-known department store does. ^Amazon and eBay deserve honourable mentions as being popular conduits for counterfeit scams too (although eBay in particular deserves a lot of credit for taking the subject more seriously than most).

marshray 15y ago

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

bane 15y ago

Well, at least DuckDuckGo wasn't named in the court order.

dholowiski 15y ago

When the kindle fire comes out and it's not available in Canada, it drives me crazy. When I had to wait years before Netflix was available in Canada I was really mad. When Apple launched iTunes music, the iPhone, TV shows and Movies in the US only I actually illegally obtained a US itunes account. It sucks living in Canada. Most days. Not today.

jeswin 15y ago

Let me be the devil's advocate here. If the pricing is more for the exclusivity than its utility, you could argue that counterfeiting diminishes the brand. And while it isn't the general opinion, it is a fair argument. Isn't this case similar to a DMCA takedown notice? IMO DMCA take-down notices make sense; it puts the onus on the content owner to correctly identify infringement and report to the website. (OTOH, SOPA is ridiculous.)

therandomguy 15y ago

Somewhere right now the world's greatest minds in the network/cryptography space are designing the next version of internet which will be beyond the reach of governments... I hope.

beedogs 15y ago

☐ Understands how the Internet works. ☑ Renders a (faulty) decision anyway.

VonLipwig 15y ago

Its backward decisions like this which make me want to make sure that future ventures are not using a domain with a US registrar. I would go further and say its decisions like this which make we want to avoid dealing with any business in the states at all. The thing of most concern isn't the seizures themselves. It is the lack of due process. The litigant finds 3 websites from 228 are selling counterfeit goods. The litigant says the other 225 are also selling counterfeit goods.. the judge takes their word. Websites disappear!? I don't have a problem with counterfeit websites being taken offline. They can ship goods which are dangerous to the public. What I have a problem with is the lack of due process and the ordering of international websites which everyone depends on to press the delete button also. Perhaps the biggest surprise is the lack of influence Silicon Valley apparently has on US law. The western world's internet is dominated by US tech giants. Yet US law seems to be moving against the tech sector. I say its about time Silicon Valley started lobbying Washington.

capkutay 15y ago

This is why we need more software engineers in the US. If we have people with law AND engineering backgrounds making policy, we would see a system much more rational/practical/just toward new technology. These types of issues only occur because current policy makers have little understanding of the consequences of their own actions (or perhaps they don't care.

yaix 15y ago

"poshmoda.ws" has a hidden domain owner. But the "toll free" phone number on their shows the obvious +86... Chinese copycat. While I don't approve the methods they use to go after the Chinese copy industry, I also dislike a lot how China has built a huge industry that just profits of the good names Western companies have built up over decades, sometimes centuries of reliable products. The Chinise gov't is no help here either. So, what do?

teja1990 15y ago

Why does Google/Facebook have to de-index? Its their site and they have right to do whatever they want. If Chanel has issues with counterfeits , they have to deal with that themselves ,petition with ICANN but not asking Google to de-index. I dont get why these people take everything for granted and think as if Google is doing some public service.

gst 15y ago

As a non-US-citizen I honestly don't see any major problem with that. com/net/org domains are handled by US companies and it's therefore clear for me that they fall under US jursidiction. If I want a domain that the US cannot take away from me I just get one under a local TLD (which the US does not have access to).

abrichr 15y ago

Would anyone be able to recommend a good non-US domain name registrar? I think I'll be looking to switch.