That's another huge problem with Mike's analysis. In fact, I called him out on it in a different thread earlier today. His arguments that this is prior restraint only apply to the copyright seizures. But he doesn't explain how it's also prior restraint on the trademark seizures.
You mean when he said I abuse a system for profit, even though I have never done such a thing? I make my money in real estate and the stock market. Law for me is fun. I'm in law school for sheer pleasure. I have no intention of ever abusing anything for profit.
Look, I don't doubt he hates child molestation. I was simply pointing out that his innuendo that these seizures were "for the children" was somehow pretextual was baseless. I see no reason to not believe that they are in fact "for the children."
I never governments never make mistakes. In fact, I've indicated that the government, like all systems, can always be improved. What I do know is that all of my friends that work for the government are all trying their best, and I salute them for it.
Mike, It's a real shame that you can't get one of your genius First Amendment lawyer friends to write up a post analyzing the legality of these seizures. It would be nice to have legal analysis from a real-life lawyer.
Sorry, Karl, but Arcara is controlling. Wholesale copying is not protected speech, and there is no prior restraint. Even if the servers themselves had been seized, the fact that they may contain protected speech that is incidentally affected is irrelevant.
Under Name.Space, domain names are not presumptively protected speech: "Domain names and gTLDs per se are neither automatically entitled to nor excluded from the protections of the First Amendment, and the appropriate inquiry is one that fully addresses particular circumstances presented with respect to each domain name." If a determination has to be made on a case-by-case basis, then there is no presumption. A presumption would mean that no case-by-case determination would have to be made.
Bringing obscenity, trademark, etc. into the analysis only muddies it. You're trying to apply the wrong rules. Your whole post is a confused jumble of logic, to say the least.
It's not one of those things that's susceptible of exact definition--there is no bright line rule. You have to look at the totality of the circumstances.
There's a difference between a search engine that points to what is mostly infringing material, and one that points to everything on the internet. Read the copyhype article I linked to for a nice discussion of this point.
So Sly's argument is that since COICA could be abused, we shouldn't have COICA? Couldn't you make that argument about any power?
The EFF quote is silly. They gloss over the fact that the domain names were seized because they were property used to commit criminal copyright infringement. Whether or not the underlying sites are direct infringers is completely irrelevant. The FUD at the end about google being a possible target is priceless.
You lefties can spread all the FUD you want, but I'm pretty sure COICA and a bunch of other tools for rights holders are coming soon to an internet near you.
That is interesting. Even if a subdomain is being used for child porn, does that mean the entire domain name could be seized like this? That actually sounds like prior restraint to me.
On the post: Once Again, Why Homeland Security's Domain Name Seizures Are Almost Certainly Not Legal
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Once Again, Why Homeland Security's Domain Name Seizures Are Almost Certainly Not Legal
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Did Homeland Security Seize... And Then Unseize... A Dynamic DNS Domain?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Look, I don't doubt he hates child molestation. I was simply pointing out that his innuendo that these seizures were "for the children" was somehow pretextual was baseless. I see no reason to not believe that they are in fact "for the children."
On the post: Did Homeland Security Seize... And Then Unseize... A Dynamic DNS Domain?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Once Again, Why Homeland Security's Domain Name Seizures Are Almost Certainly Not Legal
Re: Re:
I would love nothing more than to hear that analysis straight from them.
On the post: Once Again, Why Homeland Security's Domain Name Seizures Are Almost Certainly Not Legal
On the post: Once Again, Why Homeland Security's Domain Name Seizures Are Almost Certainly Not Legal
Under Name.Space, domain names are not presumptively protected speech: "Domain names and gTLDs per se are neither automatically entitled to nor excluded from the protections of the First Amendment, and the appropriate inquiry is one that fully addresses particular circumstances presented with respect to each domain name." If a determination has to be made on a case-by-case basis, then there is no presumption. A presumption would mean that no case-by-case determination would have to be made.
Bringing obscenity, trademark, etc. into the analysis only muddies it. You're trying to apply the wrong rules. Your whole post is a confused jumble of logic, to say the least.
On the post: The Return Of COICA; Because Censorship Is Cool Again
Re: 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: The Return Of COICA; Because Censorship Is Cool Again
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: The Return Of COICA; Because Censorship Is Cool Again
Re: Re: Re: 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: Our comment on the suit
On the post: The Return Of COICA; Because Censorship Is Cool Again
Re: Re:
On the post: The Return Of COICA; Because Censorship Is Cool Again
Re: Re:
On the post: The Return Of COICA; Because Censorship Is Cool Again
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: The Return Of COICA; Because Censorship Is Cool Again
Re:
On the post: The Return Of COICA; Because Censorship Is Cool Again
Re:
http://www.copyhype.com/2011/02/can-google-be-seized-by-ice/
It cuts right through all the FUD.
On the post: The Return Of COICA; Because Censorship Is Cool Again
The EFF quote is silly. They gloss over the fact that the domain names were seized because they were property used to commit criminal copyright infringement. Whether or not the underlying sites are direct infringers is completely irrelevant. The FUD at the end about google being a possible target is priceless.
You lefties can spread all the FUD you want, but I'm pretty sure COICA and a bunch of other tools for rights holders are coming soon to an internet near you.
On the post: Did Homeland Security Seize... And Then Unseize... A Dynamic DNS Domain?
Re: Re:
You didn't explain why you said this: "Yes, Homeland Security is pulling out the old "protect the children!" line to defend domain seizures."
How do you know that they aren't in fact trying to protect the children?
On the post: Did Homeland Security Seize... And Then Unseize... A Dynamic DNS Domain?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Next >>