<font><b><span><a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/246529-us-government-dismisses-case-against-rojadirecta?utm_source=MESA+Email+Newsletter&utm_campaign=2e98a68e54-my_google_analytics_key&utm_medium=email" target="_blank">US
government dismisses piracy case against Rojadirecta site</a></span></b></font><br clear="all"><br><div>
<span class="author">
By Jennifer Martinez </span>
-
<span class="date">
08/29/12 05:26 PM ET </span>
</div>
<div class="social">
<span style="display:inline-table;vertical-align:middle">
</span>
<span style="display:inline-table;vertical-align:middle">
<span style="height:20px;width:131px"></span>
</span>
<span style="display:inline-table;vertical-align:middle">
</span>
</div><p>The U.S government dismissed its case against Spanish website
Rojadirecta on Wednesday, handing a victory to critics of a
controversial government effort to crack down on piracy.<br><br>The
Justice Department and Immigrations and Custom Enforcement (ICE) seized
two of Rojadirecta's domain <a href="http://names--rojadirecta.com">names--rojadirecta.com</a> and
rojadirecta.org--a few days before the Super Bowl in 2011. Authorities
accused Rojadirecta of copyright infringement because the site featured a
set of links that directed people to other sites on the Web where they
could watch pirated broadcasts of professional sporting events. <br><br>Puerto
80, the Spanish company that runs Rojadirecta, enlisted the help of San
Francisco-based law firm Durie Tangri to challenge the government's
seizure and fight for the return of its domain names, or Web addresses.
Attorneys for Puerto 80 had argued that simply linking to other sites
that might offer pirated content is not copyright infringement. </p>
"We are pleased that the government decided to end this proceeding
and return our client's property," said Joe Gratz, a partner at Durie
Tangri. "[They have] been deprived of these domain names for 20 months
now and had to engage counsel and fight about this for some time."<br><br>Internet
advocacy groups, along with Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Rep. Zoe
Lofgren (D-Calif.), had criticized the seizure, noting that Spanish
courts had previously exonerated Rojadirecta of copyright infringement.
They also argued that Rojadirecta was complying with the copyright laws
in the country it was operating out of.<br><br>The seizure was part of
the joint "Operation in our Sites" effort led by Justice and ICE to
clamp down on piracy and the rise of websites that illegally offer
copyrighted movies, music and other content. Critics had claimed this
operation threatened free speech on the Web and lacked due process. They
also argued that it would put the United States in hot water with other
countries for shutting down websites that are operating legally within
their borders.<br><br>"From our point of view the flaw is as it always
has been: Linking to sites on the Internet isn't copyright
infringement," Gratz said. "The same way the Yellow Pages isn't liable
if someone listed in the Yellow Pages is doing something wrong, a
website that's linking to other sites ... isn't liable."<br><br>Preet
Bharara, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York,
submitted the notice of voluntary dismissal on Wednesday. In a letter to
U.S. District Judge Paul Crotty, the federal prosecutor didn't shed
much light on the reasoning behind the decision to return Rojadirecta's
domain names. <br><br>"The government respectfully submits this letter
to advise the court that as a result of certain recent judicial
authority involving issues germane to the above-captioned action, and in
light of the particular circumstances of this litigation, the
government now seeks to dismiss its amended forfeiture complaint,"
Bharara wrote. "The decision to seek dismissal of this case will best
promote judicial economy and serve the interests of justice." <br><br>Advocacy
group Public Knowledge, an opponent of the government's seizure
operation, cheered the government's decision to dismiss the case.<br><br>"It
is far too easy for the government to seize domain names and hold them
for an extended period even when it is unable to make a sustainable case
of infringement," said Sherwin Siy, vice president of legal affairs at
Public Knowledge. "The constant expansion of copyright enforcement laws
has given us a system where website owners are effectively treated as
guilty until proven innocent. These sorts of abuses are likely to
continue until there are adequate safeguards to assure accountability."<br>-- <br>Michelle Paulson<br>Legal Counsel<br>Wikimedia Foundation<br>149 New Montgomery Street, 3rd Floor<br>San Francisco, CA 94105<br><a href="mailto:mpaulson@wikimedia.org" target="_blank">mpaulson@wikimedia.org</a><br>
415.839.6885 ext. 6608 (Office)<br><div>415.882.0495 (Fax)<br><div><font><span style="border-collapse:collapse"><br></span></font><span style="font-size:7.5pt;color:black;font-family:Tahoma"><br><br><br style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif">
<font style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0)" size="1">NOTICE: </font></span><font style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0)" size="1"><i>This message might have confidential or legally privileged information
in it. If you have received this message by accident, please delete it
and let us know about the mistake. For legal reasons, I may only serve as an attorney for
the Wikimedia Foundation. This means I may not give legal advice to or serve
as a lawyer for community members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal<b> </b>capacity.</i></font></div></div><br>