The forfeiture procedures were followed in the dajaz1.com case. The issue there isn't due process per se, it's the lack of procedural safeguards for First Amendment protected speech (which the forfeiture laws do not address one way or the other).
I still do support Operation in Our Sites and SOPA, so sorry if I gave you a different impression. SOPA is procedurally adequate, and Operation in Our Sites is only problematic with respect to websites that have significant amounts of protected speech on them (which seems to be very few of the sites targeted). Sites that sell fake NFL jerseys and such are rightfully seized and forfeited. Sites with protected speech on them just need to be given a chance to challenge the seizures promptly afterwards. So with a minor tweaking, Operation in Our Sites would be fine in all cases.
What's not fine is websites that exist for the purpose of violating other people's rights. It never ceases to amaze me how much Mike doesn't care about that. He's decided for himself which rights are worth protecting and which ones it's OK to violate. That's a sick and twisted view of things, IMO. It's absolutely disgusting.
LOL! It's scary that you think that. Unlike you, I think everyone's rights are important and worth protecting. If you don't think people should have copyright rights, then work to change the law. Unless and until the law changes, though, people do have those rights and they should be respected.
It's scary how guys like you and Mike think you get to decide which rights are worth protecting and which rights it's OK to violate.
If you really cared about due process, you would be concerned with the way SOPA handles the blocking of sites. SOPA only allows for an adversarial hearing AFTER the site has already been blocked. This is after damage has been done. After a punishment has already been enacted. This is contrary to the Constitution's definitions of due process rights.
That's not exactly true. SOPA claims would be filed in a federal district court, and the only way the site would be blocked without an adversarial hearing would be if the court issued an ex parte TRO, or if the defendant didn't show up to defend the suit. An ex parte TRO would only issue if the judge was convinced that the plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm otherwise, and even then a TRO is limited to 14 days max (with one possible extension of another 14 days). I see no reason why TROs would issue at all in the typical case. Instead, the judge would likely issue a preliminary injunction which by definition can only occur after notice and a hearing. Now, if the defendant doesn't show up to the hearing once notified, then that's the defendant's fault and his rights will be adjudicated without him.
The procedures in SOPA are the procedures used in the federal courts already. To say they violate Due Process is silly. No Federal Rule has ever been declared unconstitutional in a Due Process challenge or otherwise.
If this law wasn't aimed at copyright piracy, none of you would be giving this much attention to it. Give me a break. Just look at how obsessed Mike is with the copyright aspect of it. He doesn't care about the trademark infringement.
Or have we again reached the theory (which you continue to dance around but never openly advocate because you know it's unjustifiable) the US is just going to impose its laws on the entire world?
You're so obsessed with this notion. This must be the tenth time you've brought it up with me. You're really boring with this line of argument. And for the record, no, I do not think that U.S. law applies outside of the U.S. How could it even I wanted it to? As far as what law applies in space, I have no idea. Never thought about it and don't care. Not interesting enough to research.
Probable cause was demonstrated to a judge who then issued a warrant. That's not where the problem was. The problem was that dajaz1.com wasn't given a chance to challenge the seizure in court promptly afterwards. My opinion is that that violated their rights. This opinion is independent of whether the site was actually dedicated to infringement or subject to forfeiture--which I don't have an opinion on either way.
And, yes, my opinion of the Operation in Our Sites has changed as I learn more about Due Process and the First Amendment. If you think that's me being hypocritical, then I don't know what to tell you. I make mistakes, I learn from them, and I admit when I'm wrong. I only care about getting the law right, and my opinion actually changes as new information becomes known. I can't say that much for Mike et al.
A "private right of action" means the right to file a lawsuit. I know people are also using it to describe the notice-and-takedown procedure that once existed in SOPA, but that's not the correct usage of the phrase. There is still in fact a private right of action in SOPA, i.e., a private individual may file suit.
It is not better, unless, of course, your end goal is to eliminate any attempt to craft a means by which copyright/trademarks/ etc. can be enforced.
Exactly. I don't actually expect Zachary to explain why the OPEN Act is better at targeting rogue sites than SOPA. But you and I both know why the pirate-apologists like it better--it's simply designed to be less effective at combating piracy.
I don't like it when anyone's rights are violated, and it certainly looks like theirs were. I agree with you about the specific case of dajaz1.com. But that doesn't change the fact that rogue sites exist, they exist for the purpose of violating people's rights, and something should be done about it.
I write a letter to paypal and ISPs telling them a site is dedicated to infringement. They have 5 days to block that site.
Um, you're referring to sections of SOPA that have been cut out. There is no more "private right of action" as you call it. Everything is now done in a federal court, before a federal judge, and following the Federal Rules.
However, if you want an example of a better solution, you already have one. It is called the OPEN Act. While it is not perfect, it does a better job at targeting the issue of rogue sites than SOPA does.
But why is the OPEN Act better than SOPA? How does it do a "better job at targeting the issue of rogue sites"?
So your fear is that federal judges will allow SOPA to be used to bring China-like censorship to the U.S., where websites get taken down not because they're used to violate people's rights but because of the messages and ideas being voiced on those sites?
You've been reading Techdirt too much. That's simply idiotic.
This is how SOPA works. Instead of creating a narrowly targeted law that deal only with copyright infringement, Congress has instead made it possible to shut down entire avenues of communication.
SOPA targets websites that are dedicated to infringement, and they are taken down only via court order and with all the procedural safeguards provided by the Federal Rules. What else would you target but the websites themselves? You guys keep saying it's not "narrowly targeted" enough, but you don't explain how you would target things more narrowly.
Tell me, Zachary, what the perfect law would be to deal with these rogue sites. What would the definition be? What would the procedures be? I'm seeing a lot of whining but no viable alternatives. I can't help but think that you and the other whiners will complain no matter what the law actually says. The fact is, you don't want anything to be done about piracy. And given that, it's hard to take your criticisms seriously.
As for your issue with "a key issue" and "an example" considering there were no other examples given in the source article, I don't see any issue calling it a key issue. If there was a better example to give other than general censorship, then why did the source article not use it?
That's just silly, but I'm not surprised you're defending Mike. If I say I want to launch satellites to combat censorship, and give as "an example" SOPA, it's not accurate to report that my example is the "key reason." Mike twisted it like he twists everything SOPA-related to suit his needs. Mike couldn't be honest about SOPA if his life depended on it.
And I think this Thursday he and Drizzle are supposed to appear in person before the judge. Should be interesting to see what bullshit excuse they have for not handing over the documents to Randazza last week. Watch Gibson not even show up this Thursday. They'll send out Tommy Lee Jones and the U.S. Marshals at that point, I'm sure. ;)
I dunno. If their plan was to "illegally extort money," then it doesn't seem likely that they would us the federal court system to do it. Most criminals operate outside of the courts, I should think. You're right that they're just stalling and trying to avoid the inevitable. It's sad to watch. I will point out though that they have several appeals pending, and I'll be completely blown away if the appellate courts agree with the fair use holdings or even the standing analysis. I say analysis because even if finding that they don't have standing is the right result, I don't think the reasoning to date has been correct.
I think a majority of the cases settled, in fact. And the ones that did go to court were either thrown out on a procedural point (standing) or lost on a fair use defense (which was only a couple cases if I recall correctly, and even then the reasoning was very spotty at best). Generally speaking, if a person cuts and pastes an entire copyrighted work into their blog or message board, that's going to be infringement. But you're right, I shouldn't imply that it's always infringement. It's certainly fair to say that it usually is, IMO.
I don't think I'm up for rehashing the whole thing, but I believe that Righthaven was created for the purpose of vindicating rights that were being violated. That shysters and bad lawyering became the story there is just a shame. I actually think Righthaven had the right idea. I know you all disagree, and I'm fine with that.
On the post: Hackers Figuring Out How To Set Up Satellites To Route Around Internet Censorship
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I still do support Operation in Our Sites and SOPA, so sorry if I gave you a different impression. SOPA is procedurally adequate, and Operation in Our Sites is only problematic with respect to websites that have significant amounts of protected speech on them (which seems to be very few of the sites targeted). Sites that sell fake NFL jerseys and such are rightfully seized and forfeited. Sites with protected speech on them just need to be given a chance to challenge the seizures promptly afterwards. So with a minor tweaking, Operation in Our Sites would be fine in all cases.
What's not fine is websites that exist for the purpose of violating other people's rights. It never ceases to amaze me how much Mike doesn't care about that. He's decided for himself which rights are worth protecting and which ones it's OK to violate. That's a sick and twisted view of things, IMO. It's absolutely disgusting.
On the post: Hackers Figuring Out How To Set Up Satellites To Route Around Internet Censorship
Re: Re:
It's scary how guys like you and Mike think you get to decide which rights are worth protecting and which rights it's OK to violate.
On the post: Hackers Figuring Out How To Set Up Satellites To Route Around Internet Censorship
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's not exactly true. SOPA claims would be filed in a federal district court, and the only way the site would be blocked without an adversarial hearing would be if the court issued an ex parte TRO, or if the defendant didn't show up to defend the suit. An ex parte TRO would only issue if the judge was convinced that the plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm otherwise, and even then a TRO is limited to 14 days max (with one possible extension of another 14 days). I see no reason why TROs would issue at all in the typical case. Instead, the judge would likely issue a preliminary injunction which by definition can only occur after notice and a hearing. Now, if the defendant doesn't show up to the hearing once notified, then that's the defendant's fault and his rights will be adjudicated without him.
The procedures in SOPA are the procedures used in the federal courts already. To say they violate Due Process is silly. No Federal Rule has ever been declared unconstitutional in a Due Process challenge or otherwise.
On the post: Hackers Figuring Out How To Set Up Satellites To Route Around Internet Censorship
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Hackers Figuring Out How To Set Up Satellites To Route Around Internet Censorship
Re: Re:
You're so obsessed with this notion. This must be the tenth time you've brought it up with me. You're really boring with this line of argument. And for the record, no, I do not think that U.S. law applies outside of the U.S. How could it even I wanted it to? As far as what law applies in space, I have no idea. Never thought about it and don't care. Not interesting enough to research.
On the post: Hackers Figuring Out How To Set Up Satellites To Route Around Internet Censorship
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Hackers Figuring Out How To Set Up Satellites To Route Around Internet Censorship
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And, yes, my opinion of the Operation in Our Sites has changed as I learn more about Due Process and the First Amendment. If you think that's me being hypocritical, then I don't know what to tell you. I make mistakes, I learn from them, and I admit when I'm wrong. I only care about getting the law right, and my opinion actually changes as new information becomes known. I can't say that much for Mike et al.
On the post: Hackers Figuring Out How To Set Up Satellites To Route Around Internet Censorship
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Hackers Figuring Out How To Set Up Satellites To Route Around Internet Censorship
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Exactly. I don't actually expect Zachary to explain why the OPEN Act is better at targeting rogue sites than SOPA. But you and I both know why the pirate-apologists like it better--it's simply designed to be less effective at combating piracy.
On the post: Hackers Figuring Out How To Set Up Satellites To Route Around Internet Censorship
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Hackers Figuring Out How To Set Up Satellites To Route Around Internet Censorship
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Um, you're referring to sections of SOPA that have been cut out. There is no more "private right of action" as you call it. Everything is now done in a federal court, before a federal judge, and following the Federal Rules.
Read the latest version and see for yourself: http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/HR%203261%20Managers%20Amendment.pdf
On the post: Hackers Figuring Out How To Set Up Satellites To Route Around Internet Censorship
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But why is the OPEN Act better than SOPA? How does it do a "better job at targeting the issue of rogue sites"?
On the post: Hackers Figuring Out How To Set Up Satellites To Route Around Internet Censorship
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You've been reading Techdirt too much. That's simply idiotic.
On the post: Hackers Figuring Out How To Set Up Satellites To Route Around Internet Censorship
Re: Re: Re: Re:
SOPA targets websites that are dedicated to infringement, and they are taken down only via court order and with all the procedural safeguards provided by the Federal Rules. What else would you target but the websites themselves? You guys keep saying it's not "narrowly targeted" enough, but you don't explain how you would target things more narrowly.
Tell me, Zachary, what the perfect law would be to deal with these rogue sites. What would the definition be? What would the procedures be? I'm seeing a lot of whining but no viable alternatives. I can't help but think that you and the other whiners will complain no matter what the law actually says. The fact is, you don't want anything to be done about piracy. And given that, it's hard to take your criticisms seriously.
As for your issue with "a key issue" and "an example" considering there were no other examples given in the source article, I don't see any issue calling it a key issue. If there was a better example to give other than general censorship, then why did the source article not use it?
That's just silly, but I'm not surprised you're defending Mike. If I say I want to launch satellites to combat censorship, and give as "an example" SOPA, it's not accurate to report that my example is the "key reason." Mike twisted it like he twists everything SOPA-related to suit his needs. Mike couldn't be honest about SOPA if his life depended on it.
On the post: Hackers Figuring Out How To Set Up Satellites To Route Around Internet Censorship
Re: Re:
On the post: Randazza Files For Contempt Of Court Against Righthaven
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Randazza Files For Contempt Of Court Against Righthaven
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Randazza Files For Contempt Of Court Against Righthaven
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Randazza Files For Contempt Of Court Against Righthaven
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Randazza Files For Contempt Of Court Against Righthaven
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Next >>