No, what average_joe is saying is that every website must be held accountable to US law. Duh. Only the US matters obviously.
Are you saying that websites can do whatever they want, and as long as the operators are not located in the U.S., they aren't subject to U.S. law?
Here's a little caselaw:
In Dow Jones & Co. v. Gutnick, the High Court of Australia subjected Dow Jones to suit in Australia for defamation over a posting made on Dow Jones's U.S.-based server.
In Playboy Entertainment v. Chuckleberry Publishing, a U.S. District Court held that Italian website infringing on Playboy's trademark was subject to jurisdiction in New York.
I'm arguing based on an understanding of the law. What are you basing your arguments on, your gut feeling?
That means the NY Times website would be required to fire all of their female employees because under Sharia law, women are only allowed to work in specific industries.
Of course, this would conflict with US civil rights laws. So which set of laws take precedence?
The laws where the server is located. And now you're back to square one.
If an Iranian court ordered the NYT to fire all female employees, I can't imagine that order would be enforceable in the U.S., so I don't see your point.
If I run a website that violates Iranian criminal law, and my domain name is managed in Iran, I would fully expect my domain name to be subject to orders from Iranian courts. That's the point.
One, they have been threw trial and the website has been deemed legal.
Legal in Spain, sure. Legal in the U.S., not necessarily.
Two, didn't we already go over how this is not a seizure that happens during an investigation. This is outside of search and seizure laws and is probably illegal. Plus, there isn't an investigation.
There is an investigation. ICE investigates these sites and determines that there is probable cause that they are being used to commit crimes. The agent presents this evidence to a judge who signs off on the warrant. I have no idea how you think there is no investigation.
Seizures are supposed to be to prevent evidence from being destroyed, not to stop a business from operating.
The statute that provides for these seizures (18 U.S.C. 2323) says nothing of a requirement of preserving evidence.
Just seizing the domain name is like telling a restaurant to remove the sign off the door but it can continue to serve food. If there was just cause that pointed to food prep issues then they can use procedures to lock the doors (by revoking your license that you pre-agreed to), but that isn't trivial to accomplish.
If the restaurant was suspected of money laundering then the authorities could raid and take all the machines and books to prevent evidence from being destroyed. but the owners could open the next day as a cash only service.
I agree with your analogy that the domain name is like the sign on the door. The "restaurant" is the server, and if the server isn't in the U.S., there isn't much the U.S. can do about that. They're seizing the only thing they can.
I see. And by this reasoning, the entire internet should run under the most draconian laws possible. We should allow Iran and China to determine what websites can exist, huh?
Whether or not the sites were randomly declared illegal under US law has no bearing on whether or not they are legal under Spanish law.
Agreed, but the point is moot.
The US was tasked to manage some non-country-specific TLDs and they failed to remain impartial. Result? They will be stripped of any similar responsibilities in the future, along with any benefits such responsibility will have bestowed.
A judge issued a warrant to seize property located in the U.S. What specific international duty does that violate? None that I know of.
So, by that logic, every website must be held accountable to every nation's law?
Sure, if it's effects are felt there. Are you suggesting that it doesn't matter where a website's effects are felt, and all that matters is where the operator is located?
That's quite true. An entity cannot be found legally liable for copyright inducement without a trial. Is that clear now?
Just because they haven't been found liable at trial does not mean that the purported instrumentalities of their crimes can't be seized first. Such seizures happen all of the time.
Except that minimization isn't possible. At all. Any effort on his part to retrieve even his own posts is going to result in more publicity of this code, not less.
Thus showing that this judge, like many judges, does not understand the Internet.
Which is the point.
Even if having him go through the motions accomplishes next to nothing in keeping the code from being spread, it's the principle of it that matters.
Well, as you know, it's not likely we're going to agree on the underlying issues either. I still believe that this order suggests the judge doesn't understand the technology. But even putting that aside, I don't think it makes any sense for it to be illegal to modify a device you own, or for a tool to be considered illegal independently of how it is used.
I mean, if the defendant is liable for creating code that makes piracy possible, isn't Sony equally liable for creating the devices and software that made this code possible? Perhaps the game companies should sue Sony for distributing a platform on which piracy is possible.
Really? No offense, but that's a pretty silly argument. I suppose that would make women liable for their own rape if they wear sexy clothes. And convenience stores would be liable for their own robbery because they keep cash in the drawer.
Did he really send out subpoenas without leave of the court to do so? That's incredibly stupid on his part, if true.
I love the part you quoted: "Subsequent to Plaintiff’s filing of said Discovery Motion, the Court appointed attorneys ad litem for the Defense. Rather than choosing competent local counsel experienced in intellectual property law, the Court appointed a trio of attorneys renowned for defending internet piracy and renowned for their general disregard for intellectual property law."
I almost spit out my coffee when I read that this morning. :)
The fact that such material would still be readily available would seem to defeat the point of ordering copies to be retrieved in the first place, particularly when it isn't difficult for others to continue distributing the material.
The point would be to order Hotz to minimize the damage that he's caused as best he can. Seems perfectly logical to me.
On the post: Homeland Security Seizes Spanish Domain Name That Had Already Been Declared Legal
Re: Re: Re:
Are you saying that websites can do whatever they want, and as long as the operators are not located in the U.S., they aren't subject to U.S. law?
Here's a little caselaw:
In Dow Jones & Co. v. Gutnick, the High Court of Australia subjected Dow Jones to suit in Australia for defamation over a posting made on Dow Jones's U.S.-based server.
In Playboy Entertainment v. Chuckleberry Publishing, a U.S. District Court held that Italian website infringing on Playboy's trademark was subject to jurisdiction in New York.
I'm arguing based on an understanding of the law. What are you basing your arguments on, your gut feeling?
On the post: Homeland Security Seizes Spanish Domain Name That Had Already Been Declared Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Homeland Security Seizes Spanish Domain Name That Had Already Been Declared Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Of course, this would conflict with US civil rights laws. So which set of laws take precedence?
The laws where the server is located. And now you're back to square one.
If an Iranian court ordered the NYT to fire all female employees, I can't imagine that order would be enforceable in the U.S., so I don't see your point.
If I run a website that violates Iranian criminal law, and my domain name is managed in Iran, I would fully expect my domain name to be subject to orders from Iranian courts. That's the point.
On the post: Homeland Security Seizes Spanish Domain Name That Had Already Been Declared Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Legal in Spain, sure. Legal in the U.S., not necessarily.
Two, didn't we already go over how this is not a seizure that happens during an investigation. This is outside of search and seizure laws and is probably illegal. Plus, there isn't an investigation.
There is an investigation. ICE investigates these sites and determines that there is probable cause that they are being used to commit crimes. The agent presents this evidence to a judge who signs off on the warrant. I have no idea how you think there is no investigation.
On the post: Homeland Security Seizes Spanish Domain Name That Had Already Been Declared Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The statute that provides for these seizures (18 U.S.C. 2323) says nothing of a requirement of preserving evidence.
Just seizing the domain name is like telling a restaurant to remove the sign off the door but it can continue to serve food. If there was just cause that pointed to food prep issues then they can use procedures to lock the doors (by revoking your license that you pre-agreed to), but that isn't trivial to accomplish.
If the restaurant was suspected of money laundering then the authorities could raid and take all the machines and books to prevent evidence from being destroyed. but the owners could open the next day as a cash only service.
I agree with your analogy that the domain name is like the sign on the door. The "restaurant" is the server, and if the server isn't in the U.S., there isn't much the U.S. can do about that. They're seizing the only thing they can.
On the post: Homeland Security Seizes Spanish Domain Name That Had Already Been Declared Legal
Re: Re:
They already do that in their own countries.
On the post: Homeland Security Seizes Spanish Domain Name That Had Already Been Declared Legal
Re: Re:
Agreed, but the point is moot.
The US was tasked to manage some non-country-specific TLDs and they failed to remain impartial. Result? They will be stripped of any similar responsibilities in the future, along with any benefits such responsibility will have bestowed.
A judge issued a warrant to seize property located in the U.S. What specific international duty does that violate? None that I know of.
On the post: Homeland Security Seizes Spanish Domain Name That Had Already Been Declared Legal
Re: Re:
Maybe so. I don't know anything about Sharia law though, so I can't really comment.
On the post: Homeland Security Seizes Spanish Domain Name That Had Already Been Declared Legal
Re: Re:
Sure, if it's effects are felt there. Are you suggesting that it doesn't matter where a website's effects are felt, and all that matters is where the operator is located?
On the post: Mass Copyright Lawsuit Lawyer Petulantly Drops Lawsuit After Called Out For Apparent Ethics Violations
Re: Evan Stone is a porn actor himself
On the post: Homeland Security Seizes Spanish Domain Name That Had Already Been Declared Legal
Re: Re:
Just because they haven't been found liable at trial does not mean that the purported instrumentalities of their crimes can't be seized first. Such seizures happen all of the time.
On the post: Homeland Security Seizes Spanish Domain Name That Had Already Been Declared Legal
On the post: Just Under 100,000 Sued In Mass Copyright Infringement Suits Since Start Of 2010
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Mass Copyright Lawsuit Lawyer Petulantly Drops Lawsuit After Called Out For Apparent Ethics Violations
Re: Re: Re:
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:
Thus showing that this judge, like many judges, does not understand the Internet.
Which is the point.
Even if having him go through the motions accomplishes next to nothing in keeping the code from being spread, it's the principle of it that matters.
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:
I mean, if the defendant is liable for creating code that makes piracy possible, isn't Sony equally liable for creating the devices and software that made this code possible? Perhaps the game companies should sue Sony for distributing a platform on which piracy is possible.
Really? No offense, but that's a pretty silly argument. I suppose that would make women liable for their own rape if they wear sexy clothes. And convenience stores would be liable for their own robbery because they keep cash in the drawer.
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:
In which case was there not such evidence?
Indeed it can. Mass lawsuits are completely the wrong way to go about that, however.
Maybe so, maybe not. We'll see.
On the post: Mass Copyright Lawsuit Lawyer Petulantly Drops Lawsuit After Called Out For Apparent Ethics Violations
Re:
On the post: Mass Copyright Lawsuit Lawyer Petulantly Drops Lawsuit After Called Out For Apparent Ethics Violations
I love the part you quoted: "Subsequent to Plaintiff’s filing of said Discovery Motion, the Court appointed attorneys ad litem for the Defense. Rather than choosing competent local counsel experienced in intellectual property law, the Court appointed a trio of attorneys renowned for defending internet piracy and renowned for their general disregard for intellectual property law."
I almost spit out my coffee when I read that this morning. :)
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:
The point would be to order Hotz to minimize the damage that he's caused as best he can. Seems perfectly logical to me.
Next >>