I appreciate the wonderful comment and I applaud someone talking about something related to this case that actually matters. I'm not up-to-speed on the case just yet, so I can't answer your questions intelligently. When I get caught up, hopefully tonight, I'll get back you...
Prima facie, maybe, IANAL and all. But, evidence that conclusively pinpoints an individual, let alone proves guilt? Never.
Prima facie means "first face." It only means that at first blush it looks like the defendant did it. The plaintiff doesn't have to prove his case conclusively just to bring the case in the first place.
The key word there is "managed". The US government was never given any more authority over the internet than any other country. That this service was handed to them for safe-keeping does not implicitly authorize them to meddle with it!
And with that said, if Spain or any other country were to erase US domains from the entire internet, US politicians will be hollering from the roofs.
If U.S.-owned property that resides in Spain is ordered seized by a Spanish court as part of a criminal investigation, I doubt very much U.S. politicians would be "hollering from the roof." Pure FUD.
Re: Portrait of the young average joe as a downhill bicycle race
average_joe used to claim Real Human status, though. He/she/it said he/her/they were a law student, and that his/her/its motivation was a Love of The Law.
I think we've seen enough to judge this a false claim, however. The real love here goes to Strict Authority. And with that, Away with Real Human Status, and welcome to Trolldom!
How many countries do you see seizing assets from companies of other countries?
I reckon that foreign-owned property used to commit crimes gets seized with regularity. I don't even understand the argument that somehow because this property is foreign-owned it can't be touched by the government. If that was the case, criminals would always use foreign-owned instrumentalities to commit their crimes with. That way, the government could never touch them. The idea is absurd.
This is exactly what I was wondering. How can they do this if the servers are not even on their continent ?????
The simple reason is that since it is property that is purportedly being used to break U.S. criminal laws, and it is property that resides in the U.S., such property can be seized. It doesn't matter if the property is owned by foreigners.
Lots of the domain names that have already been seized involved operators that were foreign-based. This one isn't any more special because a foreign court applying foreign laws said it's not illegal.
I see, so you're arguing that they should if they can.
So, might makes right, huh? I guess that for authoritarian fascists that makes perfect sense.
Why, yes, I am. But then again, I'm not a might-makes-right authoritarian, fascist kind of person either. You and I would probably disagree on a lot
I'm just explaining what I think the law is regarding these issues. I'm sorry you have to call me names for doing so. I never said they "should if they can." But hey, if pretending I did makes you feel good, go ahead. I'm used to the abuse on techdirt.
Well here is another question, since when does a Spanish company that has nothing in the US need to obey US laws when they have no real ties to the US. its not like a US company with offices in Spain or a Spain company with offices in the US. its all in Spain.
The U.S. government can seize property that is used to break U.S. criminal laws if that property is in the U.S. It doesn't matter if that property is foreign-owned.
I think you got the point, it's more interesting to make fun of the judge than to deal with the actual decision, because the actual decision sets an important precedent that most TD readers (and leadership) do not like.
Simple reality, in a combination of hardware and software you buy together (as a unit) you own the hardware, but you only license the software, which can be modified from time to time, especially for security issues.
It's a major decision.
I got the point alright. Rather than focus on the underlying issues, let's call the judge dumb!
and you wonder why people think you're close-minded. Let's see, arrogance, name-calling, very selective and biased presentation of the law...
Huh! It's a mystery!
Since when did I ever say I wonder why people think I'm close-minded? Nice strawman. As to the rest of your nonsense, get back to me with specific examples that I can respond to. Otherwise, go fly a kite.
Yes, but they don't have the power or authority to shut down websites owned by US companies. By seizing this website, we have ignored the sovereignty of Spain, effectively bullying them.
By your logic, if techdirt.com was declared illegal by the Spanish authorities, they could shut it down without a trial or anything. How is this right? What happened to due process? I really hope the Spanish authorities raise hell over this.
If the techdirt domain name was managed in Spain, and a Spanish court ordered it seized, it could/would be seized. Such a seizure would not violate U.S. sovereignty just because Mike lives in California.
Typical average_joe. Non-Muslim religious websites run afoul of the law in certain Muslim countries. So they should be able to get those domains seized too, huh?
If a non-Muslim website's domain name is managed in a Muslim country, and that website breaks the law, I should think that website's domain name would be subject to the laws of that Muslim country. Are you arguing otherwise?
On the post: The PS3 Hack Injunction Shows The Problems Of Judges Who Don't Understand Technology
Re: Re:
On the post: Just Under 100,000 Sued In Mass Copyright Infringement Suits Since Start Of 2010
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Prima facie means "first face." It only means that at first blush it looks like the defendant did it. The plaintiff doesn't have to prove his case conclusively just to bring the case in the first place.
On the post: Homeland Security Seizes Spanish Domain Name That Had Already Been Declared Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And with that said, if Spain or any other country were to erase US domains from the entire internet, US politicians will be hollering from the roofs.
If U.S.-owned property that resides in Spain is ordered seized by a Spanish court as part of a criminal investigation, I doubt very much U.S. politicians would be "hollering from the roof." Pure FUD.
On the post: Homeland Security Seizes Spanish Domain Name That Had Already Been Declared Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The point is moot because the legality of the site Spain is not an issue. The issue is the legality in the U.S.
.us is located in the US.
.com means "company" (duh!) and it's an international address.
.com means that property is in the U.S. and subject to orders from a U.S. court.
On the post: Homeland Security Seizes Spanish Domain Name That Had Already Been Declared Legal
Re: Portrait of the young average joe as a downhill bicycle race
I think we've seen enough to judge this a false claim, however. The real love here goes to Strict Authority. And with that, Away with Real Human Status, and welcome to Trolldom!
LOL! You are one strange cat.
On the post: Homeland Security Seizes Spanish Domain Name That Had Already Been Declared Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I reckon that foreign-owned property used to commit crimes gets seized with regularity. I don't even understand the argument that somehow because this property is foreign-owned it can't be touched by the government. If that was the case, criminals would always use foreign-owned instrumentalities to commit their crimes with. That way, the government could never touch them. The idea is absurd.
On the post: Homeland Security Seizes Spanish Domain Name That Had Already Been Declared Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
LOL! Only facetiously, by my read.
On the post: Homeland Security Seizes Spanish Domain Name That Had Already Been Declared Legal
Re: Re: Re:Exactly
The simple reason is that since it is property that is purportedly being used to break U.S. criminal laws, and it is property that resides in the U.S., such property can be seized. It doesn't matter if the property is owned by foreigners.
Lots of the domain names that have already been seized involved operators that were foreign-based. This one isn't any more special because a foreign court applying foreign laws said it's not illegal.
On the post: Homeland Security Seizes Spanish Domain Name That Had Already Been Declared Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So, might makes right, huh? I guess that for authoritarian fascists that makes perfect sense.
Why, yes, I am. But then again, I'm not a might-makes-right authoritarian, fascist kind of person either. You and I would probably disagree on a lot
I'm just explaining what I think the law is regarding these issues. I'm sorry you have to call me names for doing so. I never said they "should if they can." But hey, if pretending I did makes you feel good, go ahead. I'm used to the abuse on techdirt.
On the post: Mass Copyright Lawsuit Lawyer Petulantly Drops Lawsuit After Called Out For Apparent Ethics Violations
Re: Wrong Stone - redux
On the post: Mass Copyright Lawsuit Lawyer Petulantly Drops Lawsuit After Called Out For Apparent Ethics Violations
Re: Wrong Stone - redux
http://www.wolfe-stone.com/
My bad. Thanks for the link.
On the post: Homeland Security Seizes Spanish Domain Name That Had Already Been Declared Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The U.S. government can seize property that is used to break U.S. criminal laws if that property is in the U.S. It doesn't matter if that property is foreign-owned.
On the post: The PS3 Hack Injunction Shows The Problems Of Judges Who Don't Understand Technology
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Simple reality, in a combination of hardware and software you buy together (as a unit) you own the hardware, but you only license the software, which can be modified from time to time, especially for security issues.
It's a major decision.
I got the point alright. Rather than focus on the underlying issues, let's call the judge dumb!
On the post: The PS3 Hack Injunction Shows The Problems Of Judges Who Don't Understand Technology
Re:
On the post: Homeland Security Seizes Spanish Domain Name That Had Already Been Declared Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
A judge signed the seizure warrant in all of these seizures. How was there not a judge involved?
On the post: The PS3 Hack Injunction Shows The Problems Of Judges Who Don't Understand Technology
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Huh! It's a mystery!
Since when did I ever say I wonder why people think I'm close-minded? Nice strawman. As to the rest of your nonsense, get back to me with specific examples that I can respond to. Otherwise, go fly a kite.
On the post: The PS3 Hack Injunction Shows The Problems Of Judges Who Don't Understand Technology
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, Marcus, you're piercing insight slays me. Not.
On the post: Mass Copyright Lawsuit Lawyer Petulantly Drops Lawsuit After Called Out For Apparent Ethics Violations
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It will probably help the judge make up his mind about whether or not to impose sanctions. :)
On the post: Homeland Security Seizes Spanish Domain Name That Had Already Been Declared Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re:
By your logic, if techdirt.com was declared illegal by the Spanish authorities, they could shut it down without a trial or anything. How is this right? What happened to due process? I really hope the Spanish authorities raise hell over this.
If the techdirt domain name was managed in Spain, and a Spanish court ordered it seized, it could/would be seized. Such a seizure would not violate U.S. sovereignty just because Mike lives in California.
On the post: Homeland Security Seizes Spanish Domain Name That Had Already Been Declared Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If a non-Muslim website's domain name is managed in a Muslim country, and that website breaks the law, I should think that website's domain name would be subject to the laws of that Muslim country. Are you arguing otherwise?
Next >>