Hear hear! I think when this is over we should all send them thank-you cards. (Dead-tree cards by snailmail. I don't want to be accused of promoting spam or a DDOS attack. :)
"First off, the first amendment issue is for a court to decide. Illegal speech is not protected by the first amendment, so turning off the domain may have few if any first amendment issues."
Since the court has not yet determined that, suppressing Puerto 80's first amendment rights on the grounds of illegal speech is prior restraint. You're starting with an assumption of guilt. Next!
"Seizing a domain used in a potentially illegal act is no more and no less valid than seizing a car or the contents of a warehouse. There is no judgement at that moment, only an accusation. Domains are not special property, they are no more and no less subject to seizure than anything else."
As I understand it (IANAL) seizure of property prior to due process is intended for cases in which the prosecution believes that the the property constitutes evidence and that the accused may destroy or otherwise make unavailable the evidence before it can be used. So what you're saying is that if Puerto 80 is allowed to retain their domains, they could hide them or destroy them. And in fact that they're likely to do so. I'm still trying to figure out a) how they'd hide or destroy them and b) how they'd use them for their business after they've been hidden or destroyed. Moreover, you're suggesting that the actual domains may be evidence. Not the content of the web sites, but just the domains.
"Further, if we want to get even more into it, Puerto 80 doesn't have any American free speech rights, unless they first want to admit that they are subject to US law. They would have to show that their "free speech" was occurring in the US, which could potentially make everything on their site subject to US law. Wouldn't that be fancy?"
And yet the US has control over the domain system and is using that to prosecute Puerto 80. Isn't that fancy?
"Why do you think that a Spanish website can be immune from prosecution in the US for any of it's piracy, but somehow able to benefit from US law in the matters of free speech? Either they are in or they are out. Which one is it?"
It seems like they're making legal arguments in US court that the seizure of their domains is illegal in the US by US law. Which is exactly what they'd be doing if they were a US-based company, and they'd be doing it whether they were guilty or not.
And if they are immune from prosecution, what right does the US have for seizing the domains in the first place? Seems like you're trying to say that it's OK for the US to seize property for alleged crimes outside its jurisdiction, but the defendant is not allowed to try to get its property back because it's outside the US's jurisdiction. Nice scam but not a very good simulation of logic.
Oh, all kinds of actions have unintended consequences. Fox recently put up restrictions on their shows that encouraged more people to download unlicensed copies than otherwise would have, for example.
You can never predict all possible unintended consequences, but you can mitigate or avoid many by properly analyzing the intended action before you make it. That includes getting input from other sources and seriously considering them.
What doesn't work is only listening to people whose opinions agree with your own and dismissing those who disagree. Which is what's happening here, apparently. Several very smart and very high-profile people have weighed in with carefully considered and explained analyses and they've all fallen on deaf ears.
Though to be honest I assume that those lawmakers ignoring the opposing viewpoints are actually quite aware of the negative consequences and either don't care (because they're being paid not to) or are counting on it (because they're interested in unfettered power).
Simply claiming it's FUD is just another way of dismissing the arguments unconsidered. It likely either puts you in the "willfully ignorant" camp or in the "I'm paid not to care" camp. Unless you're in the "too stupid to understand" camp.
Life is full of unintended consequences. Writing vague laws with power of censorship built in is a lighting rod for negative consequences, intended or not.
Similar here. I find them playing the same songs over and over, and after a few days I just turn the damned thing off. Or in a 30 minute commute I usually hear the end of a song I like, then they go into 28 minutes of endless commercials interspersed with traffic/sports/news/weather, then they start a song I never liked just as I get to work. Guess what? I'm not a captive audience. I just plug in my MP3 player and listen to Discworld or Paul Oakenfold or Edison Suit or whatever else suits my mood.
Which means you've completely lost me as a listener. More commercials does not equal more income; it means lost audience.
Sorry, bit of a rant there. You know, people just love to hear about how horrible they are, does wonders for their self-respect. I think most of 'em are going to turn the radio off and listed to silence.
Mike doesn't assert that all copyright is bad. He complains about the current state of copyright law and how it gets abused. Perhaps you should try reading some of his articles. You know, all the way through to the end.
As for what Mike thinks, I suggest you give up the mind-reading act and get a day job.
Yeah, but it's more difficult, which is why money was invented in the first place. It allows me to buy something from somebody who doesn't want what I have to trade, and vice-versa.
It also means I don't have to carry cattle around to pay for my groceries. Just tuck a cow under one arm and pop into the local Quik-E-Mart for a cola.
And you thought that silver dollars were unwieldy!
It's a private event -- just me and a few thousand of my closest friends.
By your logic then the following are not public spaces: movie theater, race track, stadium, live theater, hockey rink, indoor shopping mall, grocery store. Some of them require explicit permission to enter (via tickets, in the case of the sporting and theater venues) and others imply permission to the public at large (but such permission can be revoked at any time). Outside of business hours they're generally closed and locked up, usually with security.
Apparently it's only public if it's either outside on the grass, or in your living room.
Sorry, your conclusion is based on the wrong premise. If the public is allowed inside for an event, it's a public event. The fact that it's in what is normally a private place doesn't matter.
"Just go around and ask people you know how many are aware of MAC spoofing and if it was necessary to hack someone's internet, I'm pretty sure that not many people know what it is, outside a select group of people who discuss those issues."
I've known about it for years and I don't think I've ever discussed it before now. Does that make me part of your "select group"? Please, tell me I'm not part of your select group.
Oddly enough it doesn't have to be the unwashed masses that know about MAC spoofing to permit one person to use it for hiding his online activities. So I'm not sure what the point is of making this argument.
On the post: Puerto 80 Appeals: Asks Court To Recognize That Trampling The First Amendment Is Substantial Harm
Re: Re: What everyone is missing ....
On the post: Puerto 80 Appeals: Asks Court To Recognize That Trampling The First Amendment Is Substantial Harm
Re: Re: Re:
Since the court has not yet determined that, suppressing Puerto 80's first amendment rights on the grounds of illegal speech is prior restraint. You're starting with an assumption of guilt. Next!
"Seizing a domain used in a potentially illegal act is no more and no less valid than seizing a car or the contents of a warehouse. There is no judgement at that moment, only an accusation. Domains are not special property, they are no more and no less subject to seizure than anything else."
As I understand it (IANAL) seizure of property prior to due process is intended for cases in which the prosecution believes that the the property constitutes evidence and that the accused may destroy or otherwise make unavailable the evidence before it can be used. So what you're saying is that if Puerto 80 is allowed to retain their domains, they could hide them or destroy them. And in fact that they're likely to do so. I'm still trying to figure out a) how they'd hide or destroy them and b) how they'd use them for their business after they've been hidden or destroyed. Moreover, you're suggesting that the actual domains may be evidence. Not the content of the web sites, but just the domains.
"Further, if we want to get even more into it, Puerto 80 doesn't have any American free speech rights, unless they first want to admit that they are subject to US law. They would have to show that their "free speech" was occurring in the US, which could potentially make everything on their site subject to US law. Wouldn't that be fancy?"
And yet the US has control over the domain system and is using that to prosecute Puerto 80. Isn't that fancy?
"Why do you think that a Spanish website can be immune from prosecution in the US for any of it's piracy, but somehow able to benefit from US law in the matters of free speech? Either they are in or they are out. Which one is it?"
It seems like they're making legal arguments in US court that the seizure of their domains is illegal in the US by US law. Which is exactly what they'd be doing if they were a US-based company, and they'd be doing it whether they were guilty or not.
And if they are immune from prosecution, what right does the US have for seizing the domains in the first place? Seems like you're trying to say that it's OK for the US to seize property for alleged crimes outside its jurisdiction, but the defendant is not allowed to try to get its property back because it's outside the US's jurisdiction. Nice scam but not a very good simulation of logic.
On the post: Secretly Snapping Naked Pics Of The Woman Who Ended Up With A Stolen Laptop Might Just Be Illegal
Re: Re: Doesn't have to be used
Because, you know, it's so hard to find porn on the Internet.
On the post: ISP Sued For Revealing Info On US-Based Critic Of Thai Laws
Re: Re: Re: Dangling?
On the post: Surprise: Justice Department Says AT&T/T-Mobile Merger Would Be Anticompetitive
I'm glad to see this. I want to keep my T-Mobile customer service which, while not perfect, beats the crap out of AT&T's.
On the post: What Can Bring Together Opposites On The Traditional Political Spectrum? A Fear Of Censorship Due To PROTECT IP
Re: Re: Re:
You can never predict all possible unintended consequences, but you can mitigate or avoid many by properly analyzing the intended action before you make it. That includes getting input from other sources and seriously considering them.
What doesn't work is only listening to people whose opinions agree with your own and dismissing those who disagree. Which is what's happening here, apparently. Several very smart and very high-profile people have weighed in with carefully considered and explained analyses and they've all fallen on deaf ears.
Though to be honest I assume that those lawmakers ignoring the opposing viewpoints are actually quite aware of the negative consequences and either don't care (because they're being paid not to) or are counting on it (because they're interested in unfettered power).
Simply claiming it's FUD is just another way of dismissing the arguments unconsidered. It likely either puts you in the "willfully ignorant" camp or in the "I'm paid not to care" camp. Unless you're in the "too stupid to understand" camp.
Life is full of unintended consequences. Writing vague laws with power of censorship built in is a lighting rod for negative consequences, intended or not.
On the post: Nigeria 'Celebrates' Its Recording Artists With 'No Music Day'
Re: The beatings shall continue until morale improves
On the post: Nigeria 'Celebrates' Its Recording Artists With 'No Music Day'
Re:
Which means you've completely lost me as a listener. More commercials does not equal more income; it means lost audience.
Sorry, bit of a rant there. You know, people just love to hear about how horrible they are, does wonders for their self-respect. I think most of 'em are going to turn the radio off and listed to silence.
On the post: Nigeria 'Celebrates' Its Recording Artists With 'No Music Day'
The beatings shall continue until morale improves
Tim, you're crazy.
"If our children don't love us let's beat them until they do." - The Hornet's Nest, Sally Watson
On the post: Yet Again, Evidence Of The Need For Fashion Copyright Is Totally And Completely Missing
Re:
On the post: You Can Copy Our Articles All You Want... But Please Don't Claim The Copyright Belongs To You
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Willful_ignorance
On the post: You Can Copy Our Articles All You Want... But Please Don't Claim The Copyright Belongs To You
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Mike doesn't assert that all copyright is bad. He complains about the current state of copyright law and how it gets abused. Perhaps you should try reading some of his articles. You know, all the way through to the end.
As for what Mike thinks, I suggest you give up the mind-reading act and get a day job.
On the post: You Can Copy Our Articles All You Want... But Please Don't Claim The Copyright Belongs To You
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Representation
Mine imploded about halfway in. Since then I've just assumed that everything in it is a lie, including this (my own) comment.
On the post: Would We Have Art Without Copyright Law?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Partially Subverted
Yeah, but it's more difficult, which is why money was invented in the first place. It allows me to buy something from somebody who doesn't want what I have to trade, and vice-versa.
It also means I don't have to carry cattle around to pay for my groceries. Just tuck a cow under one arm and pop into the local Quik-E-Mart for a cola.
And you thought that silver dollars were unwieldy!
On the post: DOJ: This Case Has Nothing To Do With Puerto 80; Now Here Is Why Puerto 80 Is Guilty
Re: Re: 5th ammendment
On the post: Feds Raid Gibson; Musicians Now Worried The Gov't Will Take Their Guitars Away
Re: Re:
On the post: Background Check Company Sued For Calling Samuel Jackson A Sex Offender
On the post: Federal Court Invents A New Intellectual Property Right: The Money Makes It So Exclusive Right To Record
Re:
By your logic then the following are not public spaces: movie theater, race track, stadium, live theater, hockey rink, indoor shopping mall, grocery store. Some of them require explicit permission to enter (via tickets, in the case of the sporting and theater venues) and others imply permission to the public at large (but such permission can be revoked at any time). Outside of business hours they're generally closed and locked up, usually with security.
Apparently it's only public if it's either outside on the grass, or in your living room.
Sorry, your conclusion is based on the wrong premise. If the public is allowed inside for an event, it's a public event. The fact that it's in what is normally a private place doesn't matter.
On the post: US Copyright Group, Hurt Locker Producers Sue Dead Man & Others Unlikely To Have Infringed
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Heck, it's built right into routers these days.
"Just go around and ask people you know how many are aware of MAC spoofing and if it was necessary to hack someone's internet, I'm pretty sure that not many people know what it is, outside a select group of people who discuss those issues."
I've known about it for years and I don't think I've ever discussed it before now. Does that make me part of your "select group"? Please, tell me I'm not part of your select group.
Oddly enough it doesn't have to be the unwashed masses that know about MAC spoofing to permit one person to use it for hiding his online activities. So I'm not sure what the point is of making this argument.
On the post: Feds Raid Gibson; Musicians Now Worried The Gov't Will Take Their Guitars Away
*rimshot*
Next >>