He can write letters to whomever he wants. But my opinion is that writing this letter and sending it off in the first place, then editing the letter to create a silly updated draft that's obviously staged, and then sending that draft to Mike to publish on Techdirt is the definition of petulance. I'm not challenging his ability to do this. I'm questioning the wisdom of it. This seems more about Marc than it does about Marc's client, that's for sure. I think Marc just wanted a way to update the world on his dismantling of Righthaven. Good for him for vanquishing the troll and all that, but this strikes me as just silliness.
Good grief. The judge ruled that the court didn't have subject matter jurisdiction but then reached the merits of the fair use defense anyway. And the fair use analysis was completely botched. Filing an amicus brief to point out these obvious errors doesn't mean they will "take up arms for Righthaven."
This is the final draft. It's out of committee, now it can only be voted on.
And yet a markup of the bill is scheduled for Dec. 15th. Do you actually ever know what you're talking about, Karl?
You'll forgive me if your approval does not exactly inspire confidence. I wrote a (too-lengthy) comment about the things I believe must be in the bill in order for it to be constitutional (and fair). Keep in mind that most of what I wrote is not in either bill.
I think I read the post you're referring to. The fact that you have absolutely no legal training is quite obvious. You attempting constitutional analysis of anything is hilarious. Sorry to sound mean, but your cluelessness is epic when it comes to these things. No amount of pointing out how incredibly wrong you are seems to dissuade you, though. You keep on talking like you are an expert.
I see what you meant. You had said the "private right of action, as written, means the courts would not be involved..." A private right of action means the right to bring a specific case to court, so obviously the courts are involved if you're talking about a right of action.
You're talking about the notice-and-takedown scheme. I think that part of SOPA is silly and obviously shouldn't be in the final draft. I think it's probably unconstitutional and definitely a bad idea. Other than that though, I generally like SOPA and PROTECT IP.
This whole idea with the ITC seems silly to me. I just don't see the advantage of taking this out of the federal district courts. The discussion draft said something about not wanting magistrates who are unfamiliar with the internet from deciding these things. That's stupid. A 12-year-old can tell you whether a website is dedicated to infringement or not.
Sigh. You might want to look at what Customs and Border Protection does. Believe it or not, law enforcement actually enforces the law at the border--without reference necessarily to the ITC.
Sorry, Karl, but I know you're not an authority on international trade law. Had you even heard of the ITC before yesterday? I hadn't.
From their standpoint, they would be an exporter; from the standpoint of the U.S., an importer.
If the person in Mexico shipping the goods to the U.S. is the importer, then who is the person they're shipping the goods to that's in the U.S.? You're not making any sense.
In fact, it is exactly the type of trade that the ITC typically deals with:
If buying fake NFL jerseys and downloading illicit mp3's over the internet was already the "type of trade the ITC typically deals with," then there would be no need to change the law--the ITC would already have jurisdiction. But obviously they're talking about changing the law so that the ITC would have jurisdiction.
As I said to Mike above, the ITC, as the name suggests, deals in international trade. If I buy a fake NFL jersey from fakeNFLjersey.com located in Mexico, I'm not an importer subject to U.S. trade regulations, rules, tariffs, quotas, and agreements like NAFTA. Give me a break.
Congress can certainly give the ITC authority, but don't pretend like this is what the ITC already does.
Why do you assume that if the case is handled by the ITC it will be the paragon of "due diligence and proper procedures," but if it happens in a federal district court it will be unconstitutional? That makes no sense.
How would you describe legislators? Or any other public servant? Is their job title relevant?
You're implying that an entire branch of government is incapable of action.
Not at all. My concern is that the problem is too big to limit to one court in D.C. that only has a handful of judges. While that arrangement might be workable for big fish, the little guy would effectively have no remedy.
From that document: "The Commission also adjudicates cases involving imports that allegedly infringe intellectual property rights."
Sounds like it covers *exactly* the issue at hand.
Imports, as in bulk goods coming into a port subject to federal trade regulations, quotas, tariffs, agreements, etc. I'm sure the ALJ judges at the ITC could quite easily decide whether a website is devoted to counterfeiting and piracy, though.
My concerns are that the process of going through the ITC would be too slow, and limiting the action to one court in D.C. is not convenient for plaintiffs.
I'm not sure I see how a few Article I administrative law judges in Washington, D.C. will solve the rogue sites problem, no matter what authority they're given.
We do need an alternative bill. One that shortens copy protection lengths, one that makes copy'right' opt in and not opt out while providing for a centralized database that protected works must be listed in for others to look up and better know what's infringing vs what's not (or at least have a starting point for further investigation), one that lowers infringement penalties, and one that puts greater liability on bogus takedown requests.
There, now did I leave anything out?
Those are good proposals in general. I'd add a need for broader personal use rights and bright line rules for fair use.
But none of this addresses the rogue sites problem. How do you suggest we deal with that?
Nobody here wants any real legal analysis anyway. And you're right, if a lawyer came on here and told them how it is, they'd only troll that lawyer. They wouldn't even understand the truth if it was explained to them like they were little children. Everybody here just wants to think what they want to think--they do not care about truth.
Mike's the ringleader of a bunch of pirate-loving half-wits. Good for you, Mike. Congrats.
On the post: RIAA Really Planning To Join Righthaven Fight
Re: Re: Re: Not that I disagree with Randazza
On the post: RIAA Really Planning To Join Righthaven Fight
Re: Re: Re: Not that I disagree with Randazza
On the post: RIAA Really Planning To Join Righthaven Fight
Re: Not that I disagree with Randazza
It is rather petulant of Randazza to fire off this warning letter to them and then to give a copy to Mike to share with the world.
This isn't an attack on your client, Marc. This is about the judge completely blowing it. If you were being honest you'd admit that.
On the post: RIAA Really Planning To Join Righthaven Fight
On the post: Alternative To PIPA/SOPA Proposed; Points Out That This Is An International Trade Issue
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And yet a markup of the bill is scheduled for Dec. 15th. Do you actually ever know what you're talking about, Karl?
You'll forgive me if your approval does not exactly inspire confidence. I wrote a (too-lengthy) comment about the things I believe must be in the bill in order for it to be constitutional (and fair). Keep in mind that most of what I wrote is not in either bill.
I think I read the post you're referring to. The fact that you have absolutely no legal training is quite obvious. You attempting constitutional analysis of anything is hilarious. Sorry to sound mean, but your cluelessness is epic when it comes to these things. No amount of pointing out how incredibly wrong you are seems to dissuade you, though. You keep on talking like you are an expert.
On the post: Alternative To PIPA/SOPA Proposed; Points Out That This Is An International Trade Issue
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Alternative To PIPA/SOPA Proposed; Points Out That This Is An International Trade Issue
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're talking about the notice-and-takedown scheme. I think that part of SOPA is silly and obviously shouldn't be in the final draft. I think it's probably unconstitutional and definitely a bad idea. Other than that though, I generally like SOPA and PROTECT IP.
This whole idea with the ITC seems silly to me. I just don't see the advantage of taking this out of the federal district courts. The discussion draft said something about not wanting magistrates who are unfamiliar with the internet from deciding these things. That's stupid. A 12-year-old can tell you whether a website is dedicated to infringement or not.
On the post: Alternative To PIPA/SOPA Proposed; Points Out That This Is An International Trade Issue
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Alternative To PIPA/SOPA Proposed; Points Out That This Is An International Trade Issue
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sorry, Karl, but I know you're not an authority on international trade law. Had you even heard of the ITC before yesterday? I hadn't.
On the post: Alternative To PIPA/SOPA Proposed; Points Out That This Is An International Trade Issue
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If the person in Mexico shipping the goods to the U.S. is the importer, then who is the person they're shipping the goods to that's in the U.S.? You're not making any sense.
On the post: Alternative To PIPA/SOPA Proposed; Points Out That This Is An International Trade Issue
Re: Re: Re: Re:
And since they are a foreign company, it would be international trade. I honestly don't know how you're not getting this.
If a company is in Mexico and they ship goods to the U.S., that Mexican company is not an importer. They're an exporter. Sheesh.
On the post: Alternative To PIPA/SOPA Proposed; Points Out That This Is An International Trade Issue
Re: Re:
If buying fake NFL jerseys and downloading illicit mp3's over the internet was already the "type of trade the ITC typically deals with," then there would be no need to change the law--the ITC would already have jurisdiction. But obviously they're talking about changing the law so that the ITC would have jurisdiction.
As I said to Mike above, the ITC, as the name suggests, deals in international trade. If I buy a fake NFL jersey from fakeNFLjersey.com located in Mexico, I'm not an importer subject to U.S. trade regulations, rules, tariffs, quotas, and agreements like NAFTA. Give me a break.
Congress can certainly give the ITC authority, but don't pretend like this is what the ITC already does.
On the post: Alternative To PIPA/SOPA Proposed; Points Out That This Is An International Trade Issue
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Alternative To PIPA/SOPA Proposed; Points Out That This Is An International Trade Issue
Re: Re:
You're implying that an entire branch of government is incapable of action.
Not at all. My concern is that the problem is too big to limit to one court in D.C. that only has a handful of judges. While that arrangement might be workable for big fish, the little guy would effectively have no remedy.
On the post: Alternative To PIPA/SOPA Proposed; Points Out That This Is An International Trade Issue
Re: Re:
Sounds like it covers *exactly* the issue at hand.
Imports, as in bulk goods coming into a port subject to federal trade regulations, quotas, tariffs, agreements, etc. I'm sure the ALJ judges at the ITC could quite easily decide whether a website is devoted to counterfeiting and piracy, though.
My concerns are that the process of going through the ITC would be too slow, and limiting the action to one court in D.C. is not convenient for plaintiffs.
On the post: Alternative To PIPA/SOPA Proposed; Points Out That This Is An International Trade Issue
This isn't the type of trade that the ITC typically deals with: http://www.usitc.gov/press_room/about_usitc.htm
The trade remedy law that ITC enforces: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/usc_sec_19_00001337----000-.html
I'm not sure I see how a few Article I administrative law judges in Washington, D.C. will solve the rogue sites problem, no matter what authority they're given.
On the post: MPAA Pretends To Capitulate On SOPA, Will Offer Changes For 'Legitimate Concerns'
Re: Re:
That's the zen approach. Be one with the infringer.
On the post: MPAA Pretends To Capitulate On SOPA, Will Offer Changes For 'Legitimate Concerns'
Re:
There, now did I leave anything out?
Those are good proposals in general. I'd add a need for broader personal use rights and bright line rules for fair use.
But none of this addresses the rogue sites problem. How do you suggest we deal with that?
On the post: MPAA Pretends To Capitulate On SOPA, Will Offer Changes For 'Legitimate Concerns'
What "legitimate concerns" are they going to address in the next draft? Any ideas?
The thing is, O'Leary knows that's untrue. He knows damn well that plenty of folks have presented or are working on alternative proposals.
Got any links for these alternative proposals? I'd love to see a better plan for dealing with rogue sites.
On the post: Once Again, Why Homeland Security's Domain Name Seizures Are Almost Certainly Not Legal
Re: Where are all the lawyers?
Mike's the ringleader of a bunch of pirate-loving half-wits. Good for you, Mike. Congrats.
Next >>