1oz61wa

Civil Remedies
188. A technical overview is available here: http://www.securityweek.com/dnssecs-time-here-sopa-presentschallenges;
see also Steve Crocker, et al., “Security and Other Technical Concerns Raised by the DNS Filtering
Requirements in the PROTECT IP Bill,” CircleID (May 2011) (available at http://www.circleid.com/pdf/
PROTECT-IP-Technical-Whitepaper-Final.pdf).
189. E.g., United States Olympic Committee v. 2000Olympic.com, No. 1:00-cv-1018-A (E.D. Va. 2000) (in
rem action against 1,800 foreign domain names under Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, 15
U.S.C.§1125(d)). For example, bodog.com was registered with a Canadian company but seized by U.S.
authorities because VeriSign is U.S.-based. See David Kravets, “Uncle Sam: If It Ends in .Com, It’s .Seizable,”
(Mar. 6, 2012) (available at http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/feds-seize-foreign-sites/); see also Mike
Masnick, “Homeland Security Seizes Spanish Domain Name That Had Already Been Declared Legal,” TechDirt
(Feb. 1, 2011) (available at http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110201/10252412910/homeland-security-seizesspanish-domain-name-that-had-already-been-declared-legal.shtml);
Terry Hart, “Rojadirecta Seeks Return of
Seized Domain Names,” Copyhype (July 13, 2011) (available at http://www.copyhype.com/2011/07/rojadirectaseeks-return-of-seized-domain-names/);
Mike Masnick, “US Government Admits It Has Seized Hundreds Of
Domains Registered Outside The US,” TechDirt (Mar. 9, 2011) (available at http://www.techdirt.com/articles/
20120309/04064518045/us-government-admits-it-has-seized-hundreds-domains-registered-outside-us.shtml).
For a list of .org domains seized by the U.S. government, see http://pir.org/policies/takedown-policy/
takedown_notices/.
190. See, e.g., Press Release, “Operation In Our Sites protects American online shoppers, cracks down on
counterfeiters: ICE-led IPR Center seizes 150 website domains selling counterfeit and pirated merchandise,” ICE
(Nov. 28, 2011) (available at http://www.ice.gov/news/releases/1111/111128washingtondc.htm).
191. Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (“ACPA”), 15 U.S.C. §1125(d)(2)(A) (1999).
192. Hermès Int’l et al. v. John Doe et al., No. 12 Civ. 1623, at 10 (S.D.N.Y., April 30, 2012) (default
judgment and permanent injunction).
193. “In computing, a blacklist or block list is a basic access control mechanism that allows everyone access,
except for the members of the black list (i.e. list of denied accesses).” Wikipedia, Blacklist (computing) (available
at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blacklist_(computing)).
194. Testimony of Thomas M. Dailey, Vice President and Deputy General Counsel, Verizon, before the
Judiciary Committee, S. Hr’g Tr. 112-47 at 10 (Feb. 16, 2011) (available at http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/pdf/
11-2-16%20Adams%20Testimony.pdf) (“First, we appreciate the fact that the Committee has included in the
legislation provisions that appropriately limit the bill’s impact on Internet service providers, such as not requiring
a service provider to modify its network or facilities to comply with a judicial order. Second, we think the
limitation that ISPs will be required to take action only pursuant to a judicial order issued in a lawsuit filed by the
Department of Justice will help ensure COICA is narrowly invoked.”).
195. 17 U.S.C. §512(j) (the DMCA) sets forth conditions under which a court may grant injunctive relief
against service providers that are not subject to monetary remedies because they qualify for one or more DMCA
“safe harbors”. In the case of ISPs, §512(j)(1)(B)(ii) expressly allows issuance of “an order restraining the
[ISP] from providing access, by taking reasonable steps specified in the order to block access, to a specific,
identified, online location outside the United States.” Although this section might seem to make the site-blocking
provisions of COICA, PIPA and SOPA redundant, this is almost certainly not correct. Although §512(j) is
largely unlitigated, it seems clear that, unlike the three recent bills, a plaintiff seeking a site-blocking injunction
under §512(j) has to first establish that the ISP is itself liable for direct or secondary copyright infringement with
respect to the “specific, identified, online location outside the United States”, and the ISP must then establish its
eligibility for a “safe harbor” under §512(a) of the DMCA, before a court is permitted to issue a site-blocking
injunction under §512(j). By contrast, of course, COICA, PIPA and SOPA provided for “no-fault” injunctions
against ISPs, once the liability of the foreign site sought to be blocked was established. In sum, the three recent
bills made obtaining a site-blocking injunction against Predatory Foreign Websites far easier than existing law
does.
196. Josh Halliday, “Pirate Bay blockade begins with Virgin Media,” The Guardian (UK) (May 2, 2012)
(available at http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/may/02/pirate-bay-block-virgin-media).
197. Wikipedia, Cleanfeed (content blocking system) (available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Cleanfeed_%28content_blocking_system%29).
198. TorrentFreak.com, “Censoring the Pirate Bay is Useless, Research Shows” (Apr. 13, 2012) (available at
http://torrentfreak.com/censoring-the-pirate-bay-is-useless-research-shows-120413/).
199. David Sohn, “Copyright Bill Advances, But Draws Plenty of Criticism,” CDT (May 26, 2011)
45