I would love to see the lawyer who agreed with you that 18 U.S.C. 985, dealing in real property, has anything to do with these seizures. Remember when I told you that real property meant real estate? I can't imagine that any lawyer who actually thought about it would agree with you that that statute applies here.
Also, it's amazing to me that you never mentioned 18 U.S.C. 2319 since that's the basis of authority for these seizures to begin with. Why the glaring omission?
If you find time, can you back up this claim wherein you attempt to distinguish Arcara: "Copyright infringement does, in fact, have "an element of protected expression" -- that is, a First Amendment defense can be raised (it need not be raised successfully). For that reason alone, Arcara does not apply."
How's that "by my logic"? I'm a gun enthusiast, and my wife's a doctor. Hence the guns and the drugs, all for legitimate purposes. The difference with sites like torrent-finder is their primary purpose is illegitimate. I'm not sure what the confusion is.
I pointed a non-lawyer to an article that would him understand jurisdictional issues. That article is very informative, and it links to other articles on similar topics. What's your problem with that? Or are you just intentionally being an ass?
No, it is prima facie evidence that the subscriber is the infringer. That's why a case against such a subscriber can withstand a motion to dismiss. It's not frivolous, and the balance of probabilities is that in fact the subscriber is the infringer.
I'd love for Karl to back up his claim that since a potential First Amendment claim can be raised, then the seizures are prior restraint. Noticeable he offered no support for this claim, and I think it to be incorrect.
Basically, he says that we need to be careful not to decimate basic principles of free speech and create all sorts of collateral damage in an effort to go after a few bad actors who can be targeted via other laws
What "other laws" do we have now that allow us to target foreign web-based operations that infringe U.S. IP?
LOL! In full disclosure, I'm registered Independent. I had every intention of voting for McCain, but when The Maverick announced his running mate, I switched my vote to Obama. I don't like Palin one bit. The thought of her running the country scares me.
Karl's rock-solid logic? LOL! If Mike's got a bevy of First Amendment lawyers who say that this is how it is, let's hear from them directly. The repeated hearsay is really, really old. Surely one of them can spare a few moments to tell us what they think.
I'm not implying that he's a liar, I'm only pointing out that we don't know exactly what these genius lawyers who always agree with Mike actually said. You'd think one of them would have five minutes to spare to back up their good friend Mike.
On the post: Once Again, Why Homeland Security's Domain Name Seizures Are Almost Certainly Not Legal
Re: Danke Shoen
Also, it's amazing to me that you never mentioned 18 U.S.C. 2319 since that's the basis of authority for these seizures to begin with. Why the glaring omission?
If you find time, can you back up this claim wherein you attempt to distinguish Arcara: "Copyright infringement does, in fact, have "an element of protected expression" -- that is, a First Amendment defense can be raised (it need not be raised successfully). For that reason alone, Arcara does not apply."
Thanks.
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:
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: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: The Return Of COICA; Because Censorship Is Cool Again
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: 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: 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: Re:
You can start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_contacts
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:
On the post: Woman Hits Back At Liberty Media; Asks For Dismissal From P2P Shakedown Saying She Never Downloaded Gay Porn
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
On the post: Once Again, Why Homeland Security's Domain Name Seizures Are Almost Certainly Not Legal
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: 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
What "other laws" do we have now that allow us to target foreign web-based operations that infringe U.S. IP?
On the post: Did Homeland Security Seize... And Then Unseize... A Dynamic DNS Domain?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: The Return Of COICA; Because Censorship Is Cool Again
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:
On the post: Did Homeland Security Seize... And Then Unseize... A Dynamic DNS Domain?
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:
On the post: Once Again, Why Homeland Security's Domain Name Seizures Are Almost Certainly Not Legal
Re: Re:
On the post: Once Again, Why Homeland Security's Domain Name Seizures Are Almost Certainly Not Legal
Re: Re: Re:
Next >>