By Scott Nyman

Recently, U.S. governmental agencies have seized over 80 domains accused of selling copyright infringing products. The U.S. Department and Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) and the U.S. Department of Justice have obtained orders from courts across nine jurisdictions to seize the allegedly infringing domains.

Some of the domains seized by the government relate to counterfeit items, including Sunglasses-Mall.com and NFLjerseysupply.com. U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder stated, “We are cutting off funds to those looking to profit from the sale of illegal goods and exploit the ingenuity of others.” The domain of the allegedly infringing sites now point to a scary seizure page, complete with a notice threatening up to 10 years in federal prison and a $2,000,000 statutory fine for infringers that intentionally and knowingly traffic counterfeit goods.

Counterfeit items are generally defined under trademark law. As referenced in the notice displayed on the seized domains, 18 U.S.C. § 2320 (e) defines a “counterfeit mark” to include a spurious mark, or a mark that is: (i) used in connection with trafficking the related goods or services, label, packaging, or similar; (ii) identical with, or substantially indistinguishable from, a mark registered on the principal register in the United States Patent and Trademark Office; (iii) applied to or used in connection with the goods or services for which the mark was registered, label, packaging, or similar; and (iv) likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or deceive.

The governmental seizures also include domains which allegedly sell or distribute copyrighted movies and music, including a number of bit-torrent directories. Some of these sites include Torrent-finder.com, DVDscollection.com, RapGodFathers.com, and OnSmash.com.  These takedowns took effect despite the protests of the website owners, some of which claim they did not host any copyright infringing content and complied with takedown requests under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Other website owners claimed that they hadn’t received any takedown demands, let alone complaints of hosting infringing materials.

In addition to those affected by the seizures, a significant number of citizens are cautious of granting governmental agencies to seize domains that are simply alleged to infringe the intellectual property rights of others.  Liberal use of domain seizures may create a slippery slope, leading to agency seizures of any unfavorable website, argues those in opposition. Alternately, those in support of the seizures feel these measures are necessary to protect the intellectual properties of U.S. citizens. Senator Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, fully supports these seizures. He states, “We can no longer sit on the sidelines while American intellectual property is stolen and sold online using our own infrastructure. This cost American jobs, hurts our economy, and puts consumers at risk.”

So, again we reach the age old question. How much are we willing to erode our Constitutional rights in the interest of law enforcement? By allowing the governmental agencies to seize domains that are alleged to infringe the intellectual property rights of others, we are able to expedite the removal of domains and websites that violate U.S. copyright and trademark laws. On the other hand, we may consequentially be authorizing the removal of sites that, although controversial, are compliant with the laws created under the same Constitution that grants many of the freedoms we enjoy today.

What do you think? Hit up the comments with your opinions below.