There are those who believe intellectual property protection infringes on the civil rights of others.  In Great Britain and other countries, the Anton Piller order (first issued in 1976) allows an intellectual property owner (plaintiff) to gain permission from the court to enter and search premises for infringing materials, absent the accused.  Designed to prevent the defendant from destroying evidence, this order essentially allows someone other than a government representative to search another’s home and seize those materials deemed to infringe on intellectual property rights.  Although the plaintiff is burdened with providing ample evidence, many warn that the order impacts the civil rights of the accused against illegal search and seizure.  Further, often accompanying Anton Piller orders, Mareva injunctions allow for the defendant’s assets to be frozen until the matter is resolved in the courts.

In the United States, asset forfeiture allows the government to confiscate and eventually sell a computer, for example, if it can be proven to be a tool used in the commission of a crime, i.e. intellectual property infringement.  According to the Legal Information Institute, “Once the government establishes probable cause that the property is subject to forfeiture, the owner must prove by ‘preponderance of the evidence’ that it is not.” The accused is thereby burdened to defend his property against the government, with its unlimited resources, incurring legal costs which may well be greater than the value of the seized item(s).