[ajross]

You appeal to a higher court. Courts make mistakes. The system is designed to handle that. Let it work.

Relax, basically. This won't stand. That's not to say you're going to agree with everything the higher courts do (c.f. the Citizens United ruling, yada yada). But you can be sure that smart people will look at the problem. Silliness like this won't stand.

[jcr]

I totally agree with you on letting the courts work, but you're missing an important point; who will pay to fight it through the higher courts?

We already know the court proceedings were "one-sided" so it's safe to assume no one showed up to defend themselves. For the sake of argument, let's assume the seized domains were actually selling copied goods. Whether one considers copied goods to be good or bad is irrelevant; the most we can say is there are laws forbidding the sale of copied goods. Given such laws, the "defendants" are best off hiding rather than coming forward to defend themselves in court and potentially facing further losses.

With this said, why should the likes of Google, Facebook, Twitter and other other for-profit entities bear the costs of a protracted legal battle through the higher courts? Additionally, why should they bear the costs of compliance with the court orders?

It's not that the courts can't work, instead, it's whether or not making the courts work is worth the expense.

[marshray]

With this said, why should the likes of Google, Facebook, Twitter and other other for-profit entities bear the costs of a protracted legal battle through the higher courts?

1. Because they pull down boatloads of money doing business on the internet and it's the right thing to do for them to help defend it.

2. Because they depend on the stable operation of the Internet for their business, in particular: A. the stability of names and URLs, and B. a censorship-free legal envrionment where they don't have to process regular expressions or O(M*N) algorithms serving every page.

[jcr]

I pretty much agree with you on both counts, but as a for-profit entity, it's a matter of financial math rather than "doing the right thing." If it costs "X" to fight it through the courts, and costs "Y" to implement and maintain the censorship/court-orders, then "Y" has to be greater than "X" (plus long term consequences) for the math to work. If "Y" is substantial, the legal fight can be re-framed as an unfair burden, so there is now no need to fight the initial issue through the courts or endure cost "X".

[marshray]

but as a for-profit entity, it's a matter of financial math rather than "doing the right thing."

Yes and No, I think.

Yes, a for-profit company is generally required to act in the service of their "financial math". But nothing says they can only consider the immediate short-term (i.e. next quarter) for this math. That short-term-thinking-only is a relatively new concept and the smarter companies don't buy into it.

Consider all the money companies spend on political contributions, appointing former politicians to their board, and paid lobbying in Washington DC. There's usually not an immediate payoff expected for that. They just know it pays well in the long term to fertilize the field, so to speak.

[ajross]

The costs of a "protracted legal battle" are quite small when viewed from the perspective of Google, Facebook or Twitter. There's an argument there about small entities (which is why SLAPP statutes exist), but not here.

I mean, check revenue numbers on Chanel (Chanel!) vs. any of those giants. I don't think they're worried about being unfairly punished with legal fees.

[jcr]

In practice, you're right, but in theory, the law is supposed to be "fair" rather than based on your net-worth.

[anigbrowl]

With this said, why should the likes of Google, Facebook, Twitter and other other for-profit entities bear the costs of a protracted legal battle through the higher courts? Additionally, why should they bear the costs of compliance with the court orders?

They don't. That task falls upon the new administrators (ICE), just as it would fall upon you if you bought a competitor and wanted to power down their brand. Chanel's obligation to post a $20k bond is to cover the risk of an accidental infringement upon legitimate operations, a possible reversal if any defendants come forward and make a credible case (unlikely, but possible), or expenses incurred by the government in course of administering the shutdown of those internet entities that are infringing upon Chanel's brand.