It's your statement at the end where you query whether we want to be listed with those countries that I was responding to, not Castro's position. I have no problem with the U.S. being on that list because I understand the difference between the bad kind of censorship and the kind that SOPA envisions. And the fact is that the internet is already censored in numerous ways. All of this silliness about comparing us to North Korea and such just rings hollow with me. Taking down a few rogue sites is not the demise of the First Amendment. Give me a break.
It isn't Mike that's making the comparison, genius. It's Castro and his friends at the **AAs.
The part of the article I quoted is Mike asking if we really want to be compared to those countries. I'm tying that statement in with Mike's general position that this is censorship and we're just like China. I wasn't confusing Mike's argument for Castro's, but thanks for recognizing my "genius."
You mean like the shame you should have for completely misconstruing the article and placing the blame for the comparison on someone who points it out rather than the person who actually made it?
The one misconstruing my post is you. Nice try though. Maybe you're "get me" next time.
I appreciate the response. I must admit that your argument is persuasive. I've read the linked-to article on the Balkin blog as well. I was reading Section 105 differently--and apparently wrongly--and I'm happy to admit it. I wish I had caught that part of the markup debate so I could have heard what was said.
Your example of how this would play out doesn't strike me as a problem that can't exist already. What's stopping private parties from sending informal requests now? And who says this isn't already happening (I don't pretend to know, but I wouldn't be surprised to hear this happens all the time). As I said above, these companies can already terminate services in good faith without liability--it most likely says exactly that in their terms of service. And the point about the CDA was not the fact that IP is exempt, but that providers have immunity in the CDA context for good faith terminations, and that's not a problem. I just don't buy the parade of horribles that you guys are trying to sell here.
But, more to the point: is this really the list of countries that Lamar Smith, Patrick Leahy, the MPAA and Daniel Castro think that the US ought to go about emulating? Really?
Comparing the United States and its enforcement of intellectual property rights on the internet to those countries that practice actual censorship, i.e., governmental blocking of speech because of the message being conveyed, is idiotic. You obviously have no shame, Mike. Nonetheless, shame on you for continuing with the over-the-top rhetorical nonsense.
Why do critics of SOPA worry that the bill will threaten legitimate speech and innovation? Because its supporters have spent three decades providing overwhelming justification for that fear at every opportunity. If I may end by making a bit of "fair use" of the genius of former Smiths' front-man Morrisey:
He was a sweet and tender hooligan, hooligan
He said that he'd never, never do it again
And of course he won't, oh, not until the next time
Empowered with the ability to threaten blocking of entire domains, I'd rather not see what the copyright hooligans do "next time."
I enjoyed the piece, but it's totally one-sided. Is it too much to ask to have a scintilla of balance on Techdirt? Not one word about the pirates who for the past three decades have pushed things to ridiculous levels, bringing about this response on themselves. Not one word about all of the times copyright law worked exactly as it's supposed to. Just a laser focus on what you consider to be the worst of the worst. No effort to put it into perspective or to tell the other side of the story. It really worries me that you guys don't even acknowledge that the lawbreakers are the "file sharers" as you so lovingly call them. All conversations about the response to piracy should start with recognition of that simple fact. You guys (the pirates among you) are the hooligans.
Nice Smiths quote at the end (though you did spell Morrissey's name wrong). "And in the midst of life we are in debt, et cetera."
If they consciously removed the word "voluntary," then that indicates a desire to not cover voluntary actions. So that cuts against your argument.
I read it that if they are following the court order while acting in good faith and based on credible evidence, then they are covered. A court order would tell them what action to take in general, while this section explains how they must act to be given immunity for their specific actions while carrying out the order.
Your argument about 104(b)(2) is actually pretty tight. Good job.
Either way, I think the argument below that Section 230 has a similar provision (as does the DMCA if I recall correctly) is right on. Chances are these entities wouldn't be liable anyway for cutting off parties that are abusing their services (they likely have terms of service that say just that), so it's not a big deal to say they are immune per se for taking voluntary actions.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Pssst, Mike, they already snuck that into 47 U.S.C. sec 230...
Dilatory is right. And give me a break with Lofgren's idiotic making them read the whole thing out loud for an hour. No wonder the rest of the committee didn't want to talk about this issue with 105 seriously. The opponents are coming on so hard and so strong that it's working against them. If they have good ideas about the bill, then share them. But give me a break with all the ridiculous amendments that are clearly brought only for the purpose of stalling.
What makes you a nut job is your reaction to it. Look at the headline and the subheading (Scary!) and your ridiculously aggressive framing of the issue. All you have to do is say, "Look, that section could be worded better so as not to confuse. Maybe we should look at it closer." Instead, you come out with both FUD guns blazin'. It's the ridiculous, over the top presentation of the issue that makes you a nut job, not the fact that you have a good point that's worth looking at. CALM THE FUCK DOWN, MIKE. Seriously, dude.
Re: Re: Re: Pssst, Mike, they already snuck that into 47 U.S.C. sec 230...
I don't take you seriously because you're a ridiculous person. You jump to conclusions. You have the worst case of confirmation bias I've ever seen. You have no objectivity. You lie and manipulate. I could go on and on...
You may fool others, Mike, but you don't fool me. I wouldn't trust you to mow my grass.
No, Mike. You sound like a freaking nut job zealot because you have gone completely over the edge since SOPA dropped. No one is freaking out or being more insane about this than you. No one. You are the biggest SOPA whiner on the planet.
I don't care how many legal scholars you have. It's one sentence, written in English. You don't have to be a Yale scholar to read it and understand it. It's a huge twist and stretch of the English language to read it the way you are.
Yes, it refers to the "actions" taken in those two sections. But those actions all occur PURSUANT TO A COURT ORDER. You cannot escape the clear import of the text that says it provides immunity ONLY for those who take actions pursuant to those sections that apply only to those taking actions pursuant to a court order.
I have no problem with clarifying it further, as I stated above. But it doesn't need clarifying since it's clear enough already.
And no matter what it says, there is no reason for you to be so completely over the top with all of this. You really, really, really sound like a fucking idiot with all of the SOPA stuff. Seriously, dude. You don't have to be so extreme to get your message across--well, maybe you do. I know you're focusing of swaying the lowest common denominator, and they don't really respond well unless the rhetoric is turned up to 11. It's a shame that that's your target audience.
Re: Pssst, Mike, they already snuck that into 47 U.S.C. sec 230...
Well done. Please don't be a stranger. We need more level-headed people around here. Mike's really gone over the edge lately--lost all credibility and objectivity. It's amusing and frustrating at the same time.
That interpretation just doesn't jive with what the text says. You cut off the word "only." It says "only for taking the actions described in section[s] . . . ." And those sections only refer to complying with a court order. I agree that it could be made even more clear (and amending this wasn't a bad idea), but nonetheless the bill as it sits is perfectly clear that this "only" applies to parties who are complying with a court order. It's clear enough as is, but obviously there is no harm in making it even more clear. I'm sure this section will get looked at again. And there's certainly no need for all the "sky is falling" and "it's SCARY" nonsense from Mike.
Where are you getting the term "voluntary action"? That text does not appear in Section 105. It says "only for taking the actions described in section 102(c)(2) or section 103(c)(2)," and those sections specifically say they apply to "actions based on court orders."
Section 105 clearly applies only to taking an action based on a court order. It's got nothing to do receiving an informal request and taking voluntary action. Mike is just making this shit up he's so desperate. He obviously lets his zealotry blind him.
... how none of the pro-sopa folks here have responded to the actual analysis.
I'll bite, Mike.
Section 105 says that it provides immunity "only for taking the actions described in section 102(c)(2) or section 103(c)(2) with respect to an Internet site, acting in good faith and based on credible evidence . . . ."
Sections 102(c)(2) and 103(c)(2) both refer "reasonable measures" to take "actions based on court orders."
In sum, all Section 105 does is say that those parties that take reasonable measures to take action based on court orders are immune from liability. That's it.
There's no need for all the FUD, Mike. If you want to be taken seriously, you really should calm down. Seriously, dude. You sound like a freaking nut job zealot.
Wait, I get points off for ad hominems, being illogical, and general douche baggery? That sucks. How am I supposed to troll with those kinds of restrictions? ;)
The paper, the Indianapolis Star, is arguing that Indiana's shield law protects anonymous commenters in the same way that it protects sources. After all, anonymous commenters can be sources. Of course, it may come down to the specific language in Indiana's shield law.
You think? Of course the specific language of the shield law is determinative of the law's scope. That's obvious. Duh. Too bad you aren't adding any actual analysis (that's apparently too much to ask).
I tried to find the appellee's brief (unlike you, I like to hear both sides of the argument), but I didn't have any luck.
A more interesting question is should such laws protect anonymous commenters? I'd argue that the First Amendment should, generally speaking, protect most anonymity, so I'm not sure a specific shield law provides much more that's useful beyond that. However, if you were definitely applying such shield laws to comments, perhaps it should just be limited to cases or individuals who actually are acting as sources (i.e., providing news) in the comments.
So your argument is that shield laws shouldn't cover every single comment. Well, duh. That point hardly seems worth mentioning since it's so obvious.
I appreciate you posting the "story" because I was unaware of this case (I'm enjoying the briefs with my morning coffee), but it's a shame you yourself don't try a little real journalism. It's no wonder you have 40,000+ blog posts if this is the amount of effort you put into a post.
On the post: The List Of Internet Censoring Countries The MPAA Thinks Provide A Good Example For The US
Re: Re:
On the post: The List Of Internet Censoring Countries The MPAA Thinks Provide A Good Example For The US
Re: Re:
The part of the article I quoted is Mike asking if we really want to be compared to those countries. I'm tying that statement in with Mike's general position that this is censorship and we're just like China. I wasn't confusing Mike's argument for Castro's, but thanks for recognizing my "genius."
You mean like the shame you should have for completely misconstruing the article and placing the blame for the comparison on someone who points it out rather than the person who actually made it?
The one misconstruing my post is you. Nice try though. Maybe you're "get me" next time.
On the post: How SOPA 2.0 Sneaks In A Really Dangerous Private Ability To Kill Any Website
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Kinda funny...
Your example of how this would play out doesn't strike me as a problem that can't exist already. What's stopping private parties from sending informal requests now? And who says this isn't already happening (I don't pretend to know, but I wouldn't be surprised to hear this happens all the time). As I said above, these companies can already terminate services in good faith without liability--it most likely says exactly that in their terms of service. And the point about the CDA was not the fact that IP is exempt, but that providers have immunity in the CDA context for good faith terminations, and that's not a problem. I just don't buy the parade of horribles that you guys are trying to sell here.
On the post: The List Of Internet Censoring Countries The MPAA Thinks Provide A Good Example For The US
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm happy to talk about these issues with you, but you need to drop the copycat persona first.
On the post: The List Of Internet Censoring Countries The MPAA Thinks Provide A Good Example For The US
Comparing the United States and its enforcement of intellectual property rights on the internet to those countries that practice actual censorship, i.e., governmental blocking of speech because of the message being conveyed, is idiotic. You obviously have no shame, Mike. Nonetheless, shame on you for continuing with the over-the-top rhetorical nonsense.
On the post: How SOPA Will Be (Ab)Used
I enjoyed the piece, but it's totally one-sided. Is it too much to ask to have a scintilla of balance on Techdirt? Not one word about the pirates who for the past three decades have pushed things to ridiculous levels, bringing about this response on themselves. Not one word about all of the times copyright law worked exactly as it's supposed to. Just a laser focus on what you consider to be the worst of the worst. No effort to put it into perspective or to tell the other side of the story. It really worries me that you guys don't even acknowledge that the lawbreakers are the "file sharers" as you so lovingly call them. All conversations about the response to piracy should start with recognition of that simple fact. You guys (the pirates among you) are the hooligans.
Nice Smiths quote at the end (though you did spell Morrissey's name wrong). "And in the midst of life we are in debt, et cetera."
On the post: How SOPA 2.0 Sneaks In A Really Dangerous Private Ability To Kill Any Website
Re: Re: Re: Kinda funny...
I read it that if they are following the court order while acting in good faith and based on credible evidence, then they are covered. A court order would tell them what action to take in general, while this section explains how they must act to be given immunity for their specific actions while carrying out the order.
Your argument about 104(b)(2) is actually pretty tight. Good job.
Either way, I think the argument below that Section 230 has a similar provision (as does the DMCA if I recall correctly) is right on. Chances are these entities wouldn't be liable anyway for cutting off parties that are abusing their services (they likely have terms of service that say just that), so it's not a big deal to say they are immune per se for taking voluntary actions.
Trying to paint this as "scary" is idiotic FUD.
On the post: How SOPA 2.0 Sneaks In A Really Dangerous Private Ability To Kill Any Website
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Pssst, Mike, they already snuck that into 47 U.S.C. sec 230...
On the post: How SOPA 2.0 Sneaks In A Really Dangerous Private Ability To Kill Any Website
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Kinda funny...
On the post: How SOPA 2.0 Sneaks In A Really Dangerous Private Ability To Kill Any Website
Re: Re: Re: Pssst, Mike, they already snuck that into 47 U.S.C. sec 230...
You may fool others, Mike, but you don't fool me. I wouldn't trust you to mow my grass.
On the post: How SOPA 2.0 Sneaks In A Really Dangerous Private Ability To Kill Any Website
Re: Re: Re: Kinda funny...
I don't care how many legal scholars you have. It's one sentence, written in English. You don't have to be a Yale scholar to read it and understand it. It's a huge twist and stretch of the English language to read it the way you are.
Yes, it refers to the "actions" taken in those two sections. But those actions all occur PURSUANT TO A COURT ORDER. You cannot escape the clear import of the text that says it provides immunity ONLY for those who take actions pursuant to those sections that apply only to those taking actions pursuant to a court order.
I have no problem with clarifying it further, as I stated above. But it doesn't need clarifying since it's clear enough already.
And no matter what it says, there is no reason for you to be so completely over the top with all of this. You really, really, really sound like a fucking idiot with all of the SOPA stuff. Seriously, dude. You don't have to be so extreme to get your message across--well, maybe you do. I know you're focusing of swaying the lowest common denominator, and they don't really respond well unless the rhetoric is turned up to 11. It's a shame that that's your target audience.
On the post: How SOPA 2.0 Sneaks In A Really Dangerous Private Ability To Kill Any Website
Re: Pssst, Mike, they already snuck that into 47 U.S.C. sec 230...
On the post: How SOPA 2.0 Sneaks In A Really Dangerous Private Ability To Kill Any Website
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Kinda funny...
On the post: How SOPA 2.0 Sneaks In A Really Dangerous Private Ability To Kill Any Website
Re: Re: Re: Kinda funny...
Section 105 clearly applies only to taking an action based on a court order. It's got nothing to do receiving an informal request and taking voluntary action. Mike is just making this shit up he's so desperate. He obviously lets his zealotry blind him.
On the post: How SOPA 2.0 Sneaks In A Really Dangerous Private Ability To Kill Any Website
Re: Kinda funny...
I'll bite, Mike.
Section 105 says that it provides immunity "only for taking the actions described in section 102(c)(2) or section 103(c)(2) with respect to an Internet site, acting in good faith and based on credible evidence . . . ."
Sections 102(c)(2) and 103(c)(2) both refer "reasonable measures" to take "actions based on court orders."
In sum, all Section 105 does is say that those parties that take reasonable measures to take action based on court orders are immune from liability. That's it.
There's no need for all the FUD, Mike. If you want to be taken seriously, you really should calm down. Seriously, dude. You sound like a freaking nut job zealot.
On the post: How SOPA 2.0 Sneaks In A Really Dangerous Private Ability To Kill Any Website
Re: Re: Kinda funny...
On the post: How SOPA 2.0 Sneaks In A Really Dangerous Private Ability To Kill Any Website
On the post: Should Online Newspaper's Comments Be Protected By Journalism Shield Laws?
Re: Re:
On the post: Should Online Newspaper's Comments Be Protected By Journalism Shield Laws?
Re: Re:
On the post: Should Online Newspaper's Comments Be Protected By Journalism Shield Laws?
The paper, the Indianapolis Star, is arguing that Indiana's shield law protects anonymous commenters in the same way that it protects sources. After all, anonymous commenters can be sources. Of course, it may come down to the specific language in Indiana's shield law.
You think? Of course the specific language of the shield law is determinative of the law's scope. That's obvious. Duh. Too bad you aren't adding any actual analysis (that's apparently too much to ask).
If you want to see what they are actually arguing, you can read their actual arguments: https://www.eff.org/files/miller_appellant_brief.pdf
Your EFF friends filed an amicus brief (I can't believe you didn't link/embed it!): https://www.eff.org/files/miller_amicus.pdf
I tried to find the appellee's brief (unlike you, I like to hear both sides of the argument), but I didn't have any luck.
A more interesting question is should such laws protect anonymous commenters? I'd argue that the First Amendment should, generally speaking, protect most anonymity, so I'm not sure a specific shield law provides much more that's useful beyond that. However, if you were definitely applying such shield laws to comments, perhaps it should just be limited to cases or individuals who actually are acting as sources (i.e., providing news) in the comments.
So your argument is that shield laws shouldn't cover every single comment. Well, duh. That point hardly seems worth mentioning since it's so obvious.
I appreciate you posting the "story" because I was unaware of this case (I'm enjoying the briefs with my morning coffee), but it's a shame you yourself don't try a little real journalism. It's no wonder you have 40,000+ blog posts if this is the amount of effort you put into a post.
Next >>