There are those that interpret some intellectual property protection as infringing on the civil rights of others.  In Great Britain and other countries, the Anton Piller order  (first issued in 1976) allows the intellectual property owner (plaintiff)  to receive permission from the court (sans the accused’s presence) to enter and search a premise for infringing materials.  Designed to prevent the defendant from destroying evidence, this order essentially allows someone other than a governmental 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 on civil rights (e.g. 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, used in intellectual property infringement in that it can be defined as being a tool used in the commission of a crime.  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.” That burdens the accused to defend property against the government (and its unlimited resources) which may or may not be worth more than the cost in legal fees and other incidentals.