Because "for the children" is the root password to the constitution. A lot of "average Joes" seeing basic rights trampled in the name of protecting children draw the conclusion that it's a good thing that law enforcement has that shortcut around the law. Once such abuses are seen as acceptable, they're easier to abuse. It has nothing to do with loving child molesters. Nice straw man.
Mike's derision assumes that the "for the children" argument was just pretext. What if they were actually targeting child porn?
It seems to me that what happened here is that certain subdomains were found to have child porn, and somehow the entire domain name was taken down instead of the subdomains. We don't know why that happened, but it's apparent that the mistake was quickly reversed.
Instead, this is called "Operation Protect Our Children," and was focused on child porn. Yes, Homeland Security is pulling out the old "protect the children!" line to defend domain seizures.
Why the derision? Do you not think that sites dealing in child porn should be taken down? We know you love pirates, but do you love child molesters too?
Oh, please. When the *account holder* of the IP address gets a letter saying pay up or we'll sue *you* for infringing, that's exactly the argument that's being used.
No, it's not. They are able to sue because there is prima facie evidence of infringement. It is not necessarily true that the subscriber in fact infringed. They could very well be able to mount a successful defense.
But these mass p2p cases almost never do move forward, do they? Because that's not the point of them. Identifying the actual infringer is expensive. Using false arguments to scare people into settling is the goal. From an article in South Florida Gay News, concerning one of the Liberty Media mass suits: "Randazza said his company doesn’t want to sue these individuals and that’s why the company offered the amnesty."
There is no "false arguments" being used. Whether or not to move forward with the case is the right holder's prerogative, just as it's the prerogative of the accused subscriber to settle or not.
And again, none of you has ever suggested a viable for rights holders to identify infringers.
Another TD classic. I didn't write it, I just put it out there with my full support except that I don't support it if you ask me, but I don't think it is wrong just don't try to pin me to it.
"I don't expect Techdirt to cheerlead for me on every case" - especially those like this one and your mass John Doe cases where your clients are using "evidence" that is technologically unsupportable, i.e. an IP address equals an infringer. Techdirt readers are way too smart for that.
Are they "too smart for that"? I hadn't noticed.
You do understand that it's never been the argument that the IP address necessarily means that the particular subscriber is the infringer. The IP address is evidence that allows the case to move forward. If you couldn't move forward using the IP address, how could you ever identify the actual infringer?
What you complainers never, ever do is suggest a viable alternative method for rights holder to go after infringers.
Once again you duck the issue. Please explain the exact legal reasoning for why the seizure of these suspected trademark-infringing domain names violates due process. No links, no waffling,,, the exact analysis. If you cannot give this analysis, then admit it.
And yet, when I have presented the evidence you attack me with unfounded assertions and blatant lies and attacks on my character. Do you think that's convincing over the actual evidence of what the case law says?
Show us the exact case law to which you are referring. Otherwise, you're blowing smoke.
I'm sorry that you disagree with my analysis. Thankfully, we're about to see what real lawyers in real courts have to say about this. You'll see the details soon, but many of the previous domain seizures are about to be fought in court, and there are some very impressive lawyers involved.
What analysis? You do realize that trademark infringement is different than copyright infringement, right?
Wait, you're actually suggesting that innocent until proven guilty is not a good standard to use?
They are innocent until proven guilty. That does not mean that the domain names cannot be seized prior to an adversary hearing. Try again.
Because, despite your insipid need to claim otherwise, I do not think piracy is okay. How difficult is it for you to separate the messenger from what's happening? It's a little scary.
Piracy's not OK, yet you defend it every single chance you get. Do you think your readers are stupid?
Look, Mike, you can put this to rest right now. Prove right here, right now that these seizures violate due process.
I was a little disappointed to find this "hit piece" on here, yet nobody contacted me asking for a comment. Mr. Masnick certainly knew how to contact me last week when he knew someone who wanted a favor from me. So, I am surprised that he didn't bother to contact me to get a comment about this case. . . .
And no response from Mike. Really classy, Mike. Real classy. Another POS hit piece from techdirt.
Going after sites that sell counterfeit goods makes a lot more sense than some of the other sites that were seized in the past, but there still are serious questions about the legality of such a seizure prior to any adversarial hearing
And what exactly are these "serious questions about the legality" in these counterfeit goods cases? I understand that you don't like the seizures in general, but what specifically is illegal about them? Please cite the precise legal source for your claim that an adversary hearing is necessary before the domain name of a site that sells counterfeited goods may be seized. Your unsupported, conclusory claims of "no due process" are getting rather old. I know you can't prove there is "no due process" in these in rem forfeiture actions because you are simply wrong. But rather than learn and understand what the law actually is, you just keep saying that it's illegal. Your mind is so completely closed that you can't accept the fact that seizing property under a court order that is used to commit crime is completely legal and completely comports with due process. How you can claim to have an open mind defies all logic.
I don't know if this is the case or not, but how does ICE know that these sites did not believe they were selling legitimate products?
Really? Is that the best you can do? Whether or not the site operators believed that they were not breaking the law is irrelevant to the legality of the seizures. Besides, do you think the guy selling $20 "Rolexx" watches from China is somehow a victim of fraud himself? Your need to defend these pirates is absolutely disgusting. I expect no less from you, though. Anything to defend the pirates, right? Somehow "piracy is not OK," yet you will go to great lengths to defend it using arguments that make no sense, all the while ignoring all other arguments to the contrary. The depth of your hypocrisy is for all practical purposes bottomless, and your denial of being a pirate apologist is a ridiculous lie that everyone who looks at can see right through.
We all know that you do not think that "piracy is not OK." Why not just fess up?
I'm not sure what this means. I've been interested in helping content creators of all types make more money since I began this site.
More bullshit. Sure, you might help some people make money, but that's not the point. You consistently admonish anyone who doesn't embrace your alternative business models. If you've got something that works for some people, then great, but don't pretend like you don't celebrate the demise of anyone who doesn't agree with your alternative views. We can all tell how so very excited you get when someone fails using business methods that differ from your own.
Yes. Very telling. I want them to have more successful businesses and I think that focusing on "fighting piracy" is an expensive cost that provides almost no benefit.
You want them to roll over and just let anyone and everyone stomp all over their rights. You have absolutely no respect for other people's choices of how to run their business. Trying to say that you're concerned about the "expensive cost" of these lawsuits is absolutely hollow bullshit. Your claim they provide "almost no benefit" is similar bullshit. Why don't you respect how other people decide to run their business? Your business models aren't the only ones that matter.
You aren't concerned for their business, Mike, you're just concerned that someone is doing something about piracy. It's hilarious what a two-faced liar you are. Piracy's not OK, but no one should ever do anything about it, right? It's not OK, but we should embrace it with open arms. It's not OK, but you always side with the pirates in any lawsuit that may be brought against them. Do you really think people don't notice your lies?
Shocking how "telling" it is that I hope businesses succeed.
Praytell, AJ, how is that evil?
Lots and lots and lots of businesses do just fine, and they aren't following your business models. Explain that. You only want to defend piracy. That's all this is about. Trying to pretend like you're concerned for their business is absolutely bullshit. My God... Do you actually believe what you write, or are you just evil? I don't know which is scarier.
The comments on our original article had some claims from some of our usual critics, claiming that our statement that the judge had asked for the impossible was "FUD" and not accurate, and even accused me of intentionally misleading readers here.
You certainly are being vindicated here. I'm happy to admit it: I was wrong. I apologize for calling it FUD.
That is interesting, thanks. I really haven't read up too much on CC licenses, GPL, copyleft, etc. I'm thinking it through, and I don't see how a grantee of rights is contractually bound with the grantor. I'm sure there's an argument, but I'm not seeing it. It seems to me that the only action available would be in copyright, not contract. I'll have to give it some more thought. I'd look up caselaw on this, but I don't think there is any in the U.S. Is there any caselaw on point?
You know, I go to school in Louisiana, and we have our own civil law tradition that differs from the other 49 states. To us, the requirements for a valid contract are: (1) capacity, (2) consent, (3) cause, and (4) object. Offer and acceptance fall under consent. What's interesting is that consideration is not necessary for a contract to be binding in my state. We're also the only state not to adopt Article II of the UCC.
Despite you're being a complete and total asshole about it, I see that you are correct that a CC license is not a contract, so it cannot restrict the licensee's rights under the Copyright Act. I gladly and fully admit that I was wrong, and I thank you for pointing out my error. I am, as always, excited to be proved wrong, because it means that I learned something new. Thank you for making me see something in the proper light.
I'm still grinning from the other day when Mike referred to Terry Hart as a law student. I called him out on it since he knows for a fact that Hart is not a law student. Mike said that he was only using "shorthand," and despite the fact that he was admitting that he intentionally misrepresented the truth, he refused to admit that it was a lie. LOL! The intellectual dishonesty is astounding at times. Since when is intentionally misrepresenting the truth not a lie?
From now on when Mike claims he's not lying, I'll just assume he's still intentionally misrepresenting the truth.
On the post: Did Homeland Security Seize... And Then Unseize... A Dynamic DNS Domain?
Re: Re:
On the post: Did Homeland Security Seize... And Then Unseize... A Dynamic DNS Domain?
Re: Re:
Mike's derision assumes that the "for the children" argument was just pretext. What if they were actually targeting child porn?
It seems to me that what happened here is that certain subdomains were found to have child porn, and somehow the entire domain name was taken down instead of the subdomains. We don't know why that happened, but it's apparent that the mistake was quickly reversed.
On the post: Did Homeland Security Seize... And Then Unseize... A Dynamic DNS Domain?
Why the derision? Do you not think that sites dealing in child porn should be taken down? We know you love pirates, but do you love child molesters too?
On the post: Woman Hits Back At Liberty Media; Asks For Dismissal From P2P Shakedown Saying She Never Downloaded Gay Porn
Re: Re: Re:
No, it's not. They are able to sue because there is prima facie evidence of infringement. It is not necessarily true that the subscriber in fact infringed. They could very well be able to mount a successful defense.
But these mass p2p cases almost never do move forward, do they? Because that's not the point of them. Identifying the actual infringer is expensive. Using false arguments to scare people into settling is the goal. From an article in South Florida Gay News, concerning one of the Liberty Media mass suits: "Randazza said his company doesn’t want to sue these individuals and that’s why the company offered the amnesty."
There is no "false arguments" being used. Whether or not to move forward with the case is the right holder's prerogative, just as it's the prerogative of the accused subscriber to settle or not.
And again, none of you has ever suggested a viable for rights holders to identify infringers.
On the post: Would Shakespeare Have Survived Today's Copyright Laws?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
LOL! Classic techdirt dodge and waffle. LMAO!
On the post: Woman Hits Back At Liberty Media; Asks For Dismissal From P2P Shakedown Saying She Never Downloaded Gay Porn
Re:
Are they "too smart for that"? I hadn't noticed.
You do understand that it's never been the argument that the IP address necessarily means that the particular subscriber is the infringer. The IP address is evidence that allows the case to move forward. If you couldn't move forward using the IP address, how could you ever identify the actual infringer?
What you complainers never, ever do is suggest a viable alternative method for rights holder to go after infringers.
On the post: Homeland Security Seizes Another 18 Domain Names, With No Adversarial Hearings Or Due Process
Re: Re:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101229/01381312444/yes-legal-technical-errors-homeland- securitys-domain-seizure-affidavit-do-matter.shtml
Why pretend I have not?
Once again you duck the issue. Please explain the exact legal reasoning for why the seizure of these suspected trademark-infringing domain names violates due process. No links, no waffling,,, the exact analysis. If you cannot give this analysis, then admit it.
And yet, when I have presented the evidence you attack me with unfounded assertions and blatant lies and attacks on my character. Do you think that's convincing over the actual evidence of what the case law says?
Show us the exact case law to which you are referring. Otherwise, you're blowing smoke.
I'm sorry that you disagree with my analysis. Thankfully, we're about to see what real lawyers in real courts have to say about this. You'll see the details soon, but many of the previous domain seizures are about to be fought in court, and there are some very impressive lawyers involved.
What analysis? You do realize that trademark infringement is different than copyright infringement, right?
Wait, you're actually suggesting that innocent until proven guilty is not a good standard to use?
They are innocent until proven guilty. That does not mean that the domain names cannot be seized prior to an adversary hearing. Try again.
Because, despite your insipid need to claim otherwise, I do not think piracy is okay. How difficult is it for you to separate the messenger from what's happening? It's a little scary.
Piracy's not OK, yet you defend it every single chance you get. Do you think your readers are stupid?
Look, Mike, you can put this to rest right now. Prove right here, right now that these seizures violate due process.
On the post: Woman Hits Back At Liberty Media; Asks For Dismissal From P2P Shakedown Saying She Never Downloaded Gay Porn
Re: Our comment on the suit
And no response from Mike. Really classy, Mike. Real classy. Another POS hit piece from techdirt.
On the post: Homeland Security Seizes Another 18 Domain Names, With No Adversarial Hearings Or Due Process
And what exactly are these "serious questions about the legality" in these counterfeit goods cases? I understand that you don't like the seizures in general, but what specifically is illegal about them? Please cite the precise legal source for your claim that an adversary hearing is necessary before the domain name of a site that sells counterfeited goods may be seized. Your unsupported, conclusory claims of "no due process" are getting rather old. I know you can't prove there is "no due process" in these in rem forfeiture actions because you are simply wrong. But rather than learn and understand what the law actually is, you just keep saying that it's illegal. Your mind is so completely closed that you can't accept the fact that seizing property under a court order that is used to commit crime is completely legal and completely comports with due process. How you can claim to have an open mind defies all logic.
I don't know if this is the case or not, but how does ICE know that these sites did not believe they were selling legitimate products?
Really? Is that the best you can do? Whether or not the site operators believed that they were not breaking the law is irrelevant to the legality of the seizures. Besides, do you think the guy selling $20 "Rolexx" watches from China is somehow a victim of fraud himself? Your need to defend these pirates is absolutely disgusting. I expect no less from you, though. Anything to defend the pirates, right? Somehow "piracy is not OK," yet you will go to great lengths to defend it using arguments that make no sense, all the while ignoring all other arguments to the contrary. The depth of your hypocrisy is for all practical purposes bottomless, and your denial of being a pirate apologist is a ridiculous lie that everyone who looks at can see right through.
We all know that you do not think that "piracy is not OK." Why not just fess up?
On the post: Expendables Producers Begin Process Of Shaking Down Thousands For Cash
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
More bullshit. Sure, you might help some people make money, but that's not the point. You consistently admonish anyone who doesn't embrace your alternative business models. If you've got something that works for some people, then great, but don't pretend like you don't celebrate the demise of anyone who doesn't agree with your alternative views. We can all tell how so very excited you get when someone fails using business methods that differ from your own.
On the post: Expendables Producers Begin Process Of Shaking Down Thousands For Cash
Re: Re:
You want them to roll over and just let anyone and everyone stomp all over their rights. You have absolutely no respect for other people's choices of how to run their business. Trying to say that you're concerned about the "expensive cost" of these lawsuits is absolutely hollow bullshit. Your claim they provide "almost no benefit" is similar bullshit. Why don't you respect how other people decide to run their business? Your business models aren't the only ones that matter.
You aren't concerned for their business, Mike, you're just concerned that someone is doing something about piracy. It's hilarious what a two-faced liar you are. Piracy's not OK, but no one should ever do anything about it, right? It's not OK, but we should embrace it with open arms. It's not OK, but you always side with the pirates in any lawsuit that may be brought against them. Do you really think people don't notice your lies?
Shocking how "telling" it is that I hope businesses succeed.
Praytell, AJ, how is that evil?
Lots and lots and lots of businesses do just fine, and they aren't following your business models. Explain that. You only want to defend piracy. That's all this is about. Trying to pretend like you're concerned for their business is absolutely bullshit. My God... Do you actually believe what you write, or are you just evil? I don't know which is scarier.
On the post: Judge Admits She Was Wrong To Order Playstation Jailbreaker To 'Retrieve' Code From Elsewhere
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Can A Contract Remove Fair Use Rights?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Judge Admits She Was Wrong To Order Playstation Jailbreaker To 'Retrieve' Code From Elsewhere
You certainly are being vindicated here. I'm happy to admit it: I was wrong. I apologize for calling it FUD.
On the post: Can A Contract Remove Fair Use Rights?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You know, I go to school in Louisiana, and we have our own civil law tradition that differs from the other 49 states. To us, the requirements for a valid contract are: (1) capacity, (2) consent, (3) cause, and (4) object. Offer and acceptance fall under consent. What's interesting is that consideration is not necessary for a contract to be binding in my state. We're also the only state not to adopt Article II of the UCC.
On the post: Can A Contract Remove Fair Use Rights?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Can A Contract Remove Fair Use Rights?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Did The Record Labels Kill The Golden Goose In Music Video Games?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
From now on when Mike claims he's not lying, I'll just assume he's still intentionally misrepresenting the truth.
On the post: Can A Contract Remove Fair Use Rights?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Is there not privity between the right holder and the licensee? Can you explain what you mean? Thanks.
On the post: Can A Contract Remove Fair Use Rights?
Re: Re:
Next >>