Real property is real estate. Look at 18 U.S.C. 985(b)(1)(B) where it speaks of "the owners or occupants of the real property shall not be evicted . . . ."
Domain names are intangible, personal property. Google it.
The notice requirement is for after the forfeiture action has been filed. Your claim that this procedure "has not been followed" is simply wrong.
Honestly, Karl, I could go line-by-line, post-by-post, and point out all of your legal errors, but there just aren't enough hours in the day. Besides, you just can't be reasoned with. You're going to think you've got it right no matter how many mistakes I point out, and at this point, I don't care. Go on and butcher it while the half-wits sing your praise. Good for you.
Shame on you, Mike, for putting forth Karl's ridiculous analysis as something plausible. Like "Lawyer" posted below, it's a "disjoint mess." The fact that Karl is the one doing the legal analysis for techdirt speaks wonders.
That's right, I point out other people's errors. And other people point out mine. When I am proved to be wrong, I thank the person who so proved it. Such pleasantries are not usually reciprocated.
I am just about the only named poster on techdirt I can think of who gladly admits when he's wrong. You disagree. That's fine. We're obviously not going to have a meeting of the minds on this.
I can point to a few posts from the past week alone where I thanked someone for pointing out my error. Can you do the same?
I'm not going to debate you on this any further, because honestly, I'm fed up with all this bullshit. Think whatever the fuck you want, genius, I don't fucking care.
Give me a break. I don't think I understand the law better than non-lawyers. In fact, I frequently tell people not to listen to me. I like people to point out flaws in my arguments, and I thank people when they do me that honor. I've done this already a few times this week. I welcome anyone pointing out my errors because it means I've learned something new. I'm obsessed with getting things right, not it in always being right. Keep your dime store psychology to yourself. It's way off base.
All I did was point out a factual error in Mike's article. Rather than get thanks, I get flack from all sides from people who, frankly, I wonder how they can even dress themselves in the morning. The level of idiocy on this site is astounding. I'm going to start tuning all the idiots out and just respond to people who want to have productive conversations. Honestly, Rose, don't defend me. I don't fucking care what you do.
As domain names have been ruled not to be real property for th purposes of settling debts, it is unlikely that a court would find them as real property in any other way. So the questions of seizure against real property tend to fall by the wayside when you look at them.
Huh? Domain names are property. They're not real property, as my understanding of that term means real estate. Domain names are intangible personal property, or as we call it in my part of the world, incorporeal movable property. Domain names can be seized. They have been seized for as long as domain names have existed. See, for example, the ACPA, 15 U.S.C. 1125(d). Domain names can be bought and sold. Their ownership can be transferred. Etc. They are property, no doubt about it.
Says you. I don't think my question to Mike is at all stupid, and I'm hoping he takes the time to answer it. What are you adding to this thread? Nothing.
Nobody has to figure out another way to get paid since the law already provides a way that works. Look, I know all you guys think IP is dumb and you hate it, etc. etc. etc. etc. I don't care. I disagree. Big woop.
All I asked in this thread was why Mike thinks piracy is not OK if he believe that piracy does no harm.
All I did in this thread was point out that the appeal was not for the purpose of declaring the use to be fair. What is your fucking problem with that? I corrected a factual error in Mike's reporting.
Aren't you just an unpleasant ass? I thought that subdomains could be seized individually. Apparently they cannot. I learned something new. Big woopity doo. No need to be such an incredible asshole.
I take the time to explain my position more than any other poster on TD that I can think of. What does it get me? Grief from people like you. I'm sorry if my views upset everyone's world views. I like my world view to be challenged. People here apparently like to hear only what they want to hear. It's idiotic.
That's exactly right. Of course, we already know how this judge is going to rule on summary judgment on remand. The point is to rectify the judge's error, even though in the end, Righthaven still loses.
Nope. I never claimed to have any such reports. I don't need a report to tell me that people have rights to the fruits of their labor and that other people shouldn't violate those rights.
On the post: Once Again, Why Homeland Security's Domain Name Seizures Are Almost Certainly Not Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Danke Shoen
Domain names are intangible, personal property. Google it.
The notice requirement is for after the forfeiture action has been filed. Your claim that this procedure "has not been followed" is simply wrong.
Honestly, Karl, I could go line-by-line, post-by-post, and point out all of your legal errors, but there just aren't enough hours in the day. Besides, you just can't be reasoned with. You're going to think you've got it right no matter how many mistakes I point out, and at this point, I don't care. Go on and butcher it while the half-wits sing your praise. Good for you.
Shame on you, Mike, for putting forth Karl's ridiculous analysis as something plausible. Like "Lawyer" posted below, it's a "disjoint mess." The fact that Karl is the one doing the legal analysis for techdirt speaks wonders.
On the post: Can Senator Patrick Leahy Actually Provide The Proof That The COICA Censorship Law Is Needed?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I am just about the only named poster on techdirt I can think of who gladly admits when he's wrong. You disagree. That's fine. We're obviously not going to have a meeting of the minds on this.
I can point to a few posts from the past week alone where I thanked someone for pointing out my error. Can you do the same?
I'm not going to debate you on this any further, because honestly, I'm fed up with all this bullshit. Think whatever the fuck you want, genius, I don't fucking care.
On the post: Can Senator Patrick Leahy Actually Provide The Proof That The COICA Censorship Law Is Needed?
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Righthaven Appeals Ruling That Said Using Partial Article Was Fair Use
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Once Again, Why Homeland Security's Domain Name Seizures Are Almost Certainly Not Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Danke Shoen
Huh? Domain names are property. They're not real property, as my understanding of that term means real estate. Domain names are intangible personal property, or as we call it in my part of the world, incorporeal movable property. Domain names can be seized. They have been seized for as long as domain names have existed. See, for example, the ACPA, 15 U.S.C. 1125(d). Domain names can be bought and sold. Their ownership can be transferred. Etc. They are property, no doubt about it.
On the post: Can Senator Patrick Leahy Actually Provide The Proof That The COICA Censorship Law Is Needed?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Can Senator Patrick Leahy Actually Provide The Proof That The COICA Censorship Law Is Needed?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Can Senator Patrick Leahy Actually Provide The Proof That The COICA Censorship Law Is Needed?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
All I asked in this thread was why Mike thinks piracy is not OK if he believe that piracy does no harm.
On the post: Righthaven Appeals Ruling That Said Using Partial Article Was Fair Use
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Righthaven Appeals Ruling That Said Using Partial Article Was Fair Use
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Did Homeland Security Seize... And Then Unseize... A Dynamic DNS Domain?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Righthaven Appeals Ruling That Said Using Partial Article Was Fair Use
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Righthaven Appeals Ruling That Said Using Partial Article Was Fair Use
Re:
On the post: Righthaven Appeals Ruling That Said Using Partial Article Was Fair Use
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Can Senator Patrick Leahy Actually Provide The Proof That The COICA Censorship Law Is Needed?
Re: Re:
On the post: Can Senator Patrick Leahy Actually Provide The Proof That The COICA Censorship Law Is Needed?
Re: Re:
On the post: Can Senator Patrick Leahy Actually Provide The Proof That The COICA Censorship Law Is Needed?
Re: Re:
On the post: Righthaven Appeals Ruling That Said Using Partial Article Was Fair Use
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Righthaven Appeals Ruling That Said Using Partial Article Was Fair Use
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Ron Wyden Speaks Out Against COICA: We Shouldn't Toss Out The First Amendment Just To Go After A Few Bad Actors
Re: Re: Re:
Next >>