I refuse to use Paypal. EVER. The fact that they close accounts arbitrarily and are one of the worst processors out there in terms of service makes them more trouble than they're worth.
Because often times, there is no time to do so. TRO's are reserved for emergencies only, and when valuable property rights are at stake, the rights holders want to act immediately to avoid future loss.
400 domain seizures have been enacted. Are you telling me that all of them are emergencies? They're all locked up behind the screen where no one can review them for a future court date that has been undecided. Judging from the fact that copyright holders are making out like bandits based on economic evidence, I find your claims of loss to be highly dubious.
If a property holder recognizes that harm is being done to him/her, then I do not see why the holder has to go through a waiting period to have his/her legitimate rights vindicated while the harm continues.
By all means, they should be able to present evidence of economic hardship before the site is taken down. But no harm has been shown so far
So, if the case warrants it, the judge issues the TRO, schedules a preliminary injunction hearing, and provides notice to all parties involved.
Judging from how the domain seizures have occurred, there is nothing showing actual economic evidence of wrongdoing. Where is your proof that a website's existence is harming a copyright owner?
Nevermind the notion that most artists have adapted where labels have not... No, we're going to just believe that copying should be banned because labels make no money from people hearing songs and buying other products that an artist does have cantrol over.
I find it questionable that someone can say they "read the bill" but ignore the 5 day turnaround clause of sopa/pipa from American processors or the immunity clause.
Title I – “Combating Online Piracy:”
Sec. 101 lays out definitions of certain terms used throughout the bill.
Sec. 102 deals with actions against foreign infringing sites initiated by the attorney general. This section is discussed in more detail in the next section, “Sections 102 , 103, and 201.”
Sec. 103 deals with actions against foreign infringing sites initiated by copyright holders. This section is discussed in more detail in the next section, “Sections 102 , 103, and 201.”
Sec. 104 grants immunity to anyone - payment provider, advertising service, domain name registry, etc. – who voluntarily takes steps detailed in sections 102 and 103 to block access or end financial affiliation with a site believed to be a foreign infringing site.
Sec. 105 grants similar immunity for taking action against sites offering counterfeit drugs, or offering drugs without requiring a prescription.
Sec. 106 is bureaucratic – it orders that the Attorney General should develop an official process for taking the actions described in the bill, and declares that the Register of Copyrights should perform a study to determine the effectiveness of the bill, including recommendations on provisions that may need to be amended to deal with ‘emerging technologies.’
Sec. 107 declares that the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator (an office which already exists today) should conduct an analysis of ‘notorious foreign infringers,’ and submit the findings to the Committees on the Judiciary of the House and Senate. The study and analysis of these infringers is the extent of this section.
Title II – “Additional Enhancements to Combat Intellectual Property Theft:”
Sec. 201 deals with streaming of copyrighted works. This section is discussed in more detail in the next section, “Sections 102 , 103, and 201.”
Sec. 202 details increased penalties, including fines and jail time, for trafficking counterfeit goods and pharmaceuticals, and further increased penalties for goods distributed to military and law enforcement agencies.
Sec. 203 increases penalties, again including fines and jail time, for economic espionage, for example stealing trade secrets.
Sec. 204 declares that the United States Sentencing Commission, which establishes sentencing policies and practices for federal courts, should “review, and if appropriate, amend Federal Sentencing Guidelines and policy statements” regarding offenses dealt with by the bill.
Sec. 205 is concerned mostly with bureaucracy of matters dealing with copyright and infringement. For example, it declares that intellectual property attaches be appointed for each of six defined geographical regions. Nothing in this section relates specifically to enforcement of copyright laws.
Sections 102 , 103, and 201
Sections 102 and 103 both deal with foreign infringing sites, and the actions that internet service providers, search engines, payment network providers, and internet advertising services must take against these sites upon being notified of their infringing status. While section 102 deals with actions brought by the attorney general, section 103 describes methods by which copyright holders can protect their copyrights against foreign infringing sites without necessarily having to enter legal proceedings.
Section 102 contains provisions for the Attorney General to deal with foreign infringing sites. First, for a site to be determined to be a ‘foreign infringing site,’ the site must, in general, satisfy the following requirements – It must:
be intended for consumption by U.S. citizens
be used by users in the U.S.
be in violation of certain statutes of the United States Code – generally, copyright infringement
if it were a domestic site, be subject to seizure (presumably based on the above violations)
Once a site is determined to be a foreign infringing site, the Attorney General will issue court orders to various entities to attempt prevent the site from continuing to do business with users in the United States:
Internet Service Providers will be ordered to take ‘technically feasible and reasonable measures’ to prevent its U.S. customers from accessing the infringing site that is subject to the order, ‘including measures designed to prevent the domain name … from resolving’ to the correct IP address.
Internet search engines will be ordered to prevent the site from appearing in search results as a direct hypertext link.
Payment network providers, which according to the bill’s broad definition could include anyone involved in a site’s payment process, must take measures to discontinue and prevent processing of payments between the infringing site and U.S. users.
Advertising services must take steps to prevent their services from providing advertisements to, and making advertisements available for, the infringing site. Advertising services must also cease providing or receiving any compensation relation to any such advertisements.
Notably, the latter two of these four sections include a clause that specifically states that the service has no duty to monitor the infringing site beyond the initial steps to dissociate from the site. No such clause is included for the sections regarding service providers or search engines.
Section 102 then includes a broad immunity clause with two distinct parts: first, it states that "no cause of action shall lie in any Federal or State court...for any act reasonably designed to comply with this subsection or reasonably arising from such order." Second, it states that "inability to restrict access ... in spite of good faith efforts" shall not be used in any claim or cause of action against an entity ordered to restrict access against a foreign infringing site. That is, if complying with an order under this section causes harm to the blocked site, the entity doing the blocking shall not be accountable in any U.S. court.
Section 103, speaking in general terms, has the same goal as section 102: to handle foreign sites participating in copyright infringement by preventing them from doing business with U.S. users. However, there is a big difference in how section 103 allows that to be done, section 103’s methods are unique to (as opposed to PROTECT IP) SOPA: while Sec. 102 covered the power of the Attorney General over infringing sites, Sec. 103 now specifies that a ‘qualifying plaintiff,’ that is, a copyright holder being harmed by the activities of a site, can call for some of the same actions to be taken. Specifically, the section states that a qualifying plaintiff can send notice to a payment and/or advertising provider calling for the provider to discontinue associating with the site in question, much like an order sent by the Attorney General for section 102. The payment/advertising provider then has 5 days to comply with the request. If the infringing site files a counter-notice, then the provider, caught in the middle, has immunity whether it chooses to comply with the request or not. However, if a counter-notice is not filed, the bill only specifies immunity for the provider if it complies. So it may be unsafe for a payment/advertising provider to continue to do business with a site, if that side does not decide to take on the responsibility that comes with counter-notification. (which is mainly that the site consents to U.S. jurisdiction, and then presumably must bear the cost of fighting its case that it is in the clear for whatever accusations of infringement have been made) This, compared to current law, seems to be a significant shift of the burden from the plaintiff to the potentially infringing site.
Finally, section 201 of SOPA is a broadly written section that seems to be intended to codify the illegality of streaming copyrighted works. However, the way it is written, it could easily be interpreted by a plaintiff who so desired, to mean that streaming video of someone singing someone else's song, or using a copyrighted computer program is criminal infringement. This section, unlike 102 and 103, does not prescribe technical solutions for blocking, etc., as the section assumes a domestic infringer.
I doubt you have anything substantial to add. But here is the arguments in plain English. Though I doubt this will cause you to suddenly debate anything with your cryptic non-answers.
True, but you can't knock the man's hustle. He understands the internet, owns champions, and effectively shows how the digital economy is running circles around those that won't adapt.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not that I disagree with Randazza
I believe Average got a following a while back from "ioe" who would constantly call him out or undermine the points he made. I forget why exactly but let's just say "joe" had a reputation before.
Given that Isaac Newton fought to control Calculus and its principles from Gottfried Leibniz and how he persecuted Leibniz while the president, I believe the idea of controlling a work hasn't changed all that much in the interim of 300 years.
I think that's dangerous though. This doesn't look into the gerrymandering nor the problems of our voting system. Rick Boucher was elected out of office because sentiments ran against the Democrats from the financial meltdown. Instead, we need to have these people have Instant Runoff Elections or a dismantling of the electoral system. Further, getting money out of politics would work to make the system better.
What VOID's main purpose is to have a fresh change in the politics every few years. This can't happen with fresh faces. What will you do with the lobbyists or members that bribe the new batch of politicians? While voting out incumbents works on a small level, the better result is to change the entire political system.
Has the Red Cross thought about a few games that have a different thought process to them, thereby respecting the Geneva Conventions by showing them?
Warco happens to be one of those games. Instead of a gun, you have a camera. Instead of killing, your job is to document. Perhaps the Red Cross should look into making these unique ideas of storytelling instead of trying to enforce others to do the same.
I wonder what's going to happen when Egypt's new democracy has a word with India's texting censorship and "review" of indecent materials against American social media groups.
On the post: PayPal Acts As Grinch Over Money Raised For Charity Using 'Wrong Button'; Finally Bows To Internet Pressure
Re:
On the post: As Expected, SOPA Supporters Hate More Reasonable Alternative
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Why Adversarial Hearings Are Important: Rulings Change When The Other Side Is Heard
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Justice Delayed = Justice Denied
400 domain seizures have been enacted. Are you telling me that all of them are emergencies? They're all locked up behind the screen where no one can review them for a future court date that has been undecided. Judging from the fact that copyright holders are making out like bandits based on economic evidence, I find your claims of loss to be highly dubious.
If a property holder recognizes that harm is being done to him/her, then I do not see why the holder has to go through a waiting period to have his/her legitimate rights vindicated while the harm continues.
By all means, they should be able to present evidence of economic hardship before the site is taken down. But no harm has been shown so far
So, if the case warrants it, the judge issues the TRO, schedules a preliminary injunction hearing, and provides notice to all parties involved.
Judging from how the domain seizures have occurred, there is nothing showing actual economic evidence of wrongdoing. Where is your proof that a website's existence is harming a copyright owner?
On the post: Why Adversarial Hearings Are Important: Rulings Change When The Other Side Is Heard
...
Not at the same time. Or are you ignoring the fact that the recent ruling overrules the first?
Chitika failed to show up.
And you have no guess as to why that is?
On the post: Why Adversarial Hearings Are Important: Rulings Change When The Other Side Is Heard
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Justice Delayed = Justice Denied
On the post: Swiss Government Says File Sharing Isn't A Big Deal; Artist Are Fine, Industry Should Adapt
Re:
On the post: Swiss Government Says File Sharing Isn't A Big Deal; Artist Are Fine, Industry Should Adapt
Re:
On the post: Why Adversarial Hearings Are Important: Rulings Change When The Other Side Is Heard
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Justice Delayed = Justice Denied
On the post: Why Adversarial Hearings Are Important: Rulings Change When The Other Side Is Heard
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Justice Delayed = Justice Denied
On the post: Why Adversarial Hearings Are Important: Rulings Change When The Other Side Is Heard
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Justice Delayed = Justice Denied
On the post: More Collateral Damage From SOPA: People With Print Disabilities And Human Rights Groups
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: The Value Is In The Relationship, Not The MP3 File
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As found here
I doubt you have anything substantial to add. But here is the arguments in plain English. Though I doubt this will cause you to suddenly debate anything with your cryptic non-answers.
On the post: The Book World Is Changing: Mark Cuban Creates A Best Seller Out Of Some Blog Posts
Re:
On the post: RIAA Really Planning To Join Righthaven Fight
Re:
Please help Righthaven out of their debacle as much as possible.
Sincerely,
Jay
On the post: RIAA Really Planning To Join Righthaven Fight
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not that I disagree with Randazza
On the post: Internal Fight Within The ABA Over Position On SOPA
Re: SOPA disappears in a puff of logic
On the post: Royal Society Claims 1671 Copyright On Newton Letter (Copyright Law Born 29 Years Later)
Re: Re: Re: the English language
On the post: Some Data On How Much The Big Media Firms Are Donating To SOPA/PIPA Sponsors
Re: controlling the internet
What VOID's main purpose is to have a fresh change in the politics every few years. This can't happen with fresh faces. What will you do with the lobbyists or members that bribe the new batch of politicians? While voting out incumbents works on a small level, the better result is to change the entire political system.
On the post: Red Cross Wants Real Life Laws Enforced Within Virtual Worlds
Just a thought
Warco happens to be one of those games. Instead of a gun, you have a camera. Instead of killing, your job is to document. Perhaps the Red Cross should look into making these unique ideas of storytelling instead of trying to enforce others to do the same.
On the post: India Says Google & Facebook Should Prescreen All User Generated Content To Stop Jerks
Small disparity
Next >>