Webwork - 2:13 pm on Nov 28, 2010 (gmt 0)

due process

[Devil's Advocate]
I can take down an "offending website" by sending a letter to a webhost and Google (DMCA). AFTER the non-judicially authorized / legislatively authorized website take down - by little me - the aggrieved party can go to court to be relieved of the wrong and claim damages too.

In the context of the U.S. Congress granting such extraordinary powers to us little folks is this action by . . shudder . . the government . . really so far removed from the legislative policy underpinning the DMCA as to warrant coloring it an outrageous abridgement of right to due process? I write a letter to kill a website and that's "due process" but Homeland Security sends a letter or makes a phone call that preemptively kills a website by barring the site's operator access to the site's domain - for the same reasons as the DMCA authorizes preemptive (non-judicial) website "kills" by barring access to hosting - and the world grabs their guns and torches and marches on Washington?

Okay. So while you're all in D.C. how about rescinding the DMCA . . the Act that so many folks appear to consider a good thing . . for enabling citizens to stop copyright infringement . . without having to spend time and money going to court.
[/Devil's Advocate]

P.S. Sure, the idea of preemptive State action scares me, too, but this action - apparently against foreigh nationals, openly trashing intellectual property rights, while probably hiding behind false IDs and operating in jurisdictions known to show low regard for US IP rights - is a) not a procedural stretch from what's allow under the DMCA; and, b) is an exercise in State power futility - since there are dozens of other countries/ccTLDs that will offer the same infringers unrestricted domain name replacements . . and hosting . . :-/.