How does the compulsory license guarantee that the "actual creator" gets the fees instead of the "large entities"? Wouldn't the fees go the rights holder, whoever that may be? Isn't that how it already works?
Also, I don't read the "right to an income" as a guarantee of income. It simply means that if there is income, then it goes by right to the right holder. Isn't that how it already works?
Looking at Rule G, it says: "When Publication Is Required. A judgment of forfeiture may be entered only if the government has published notice of the action within a reasonable time after filing the complaint or at a time the court orders." In other words, we're on the judge's timetable, exactly as I indicated above. Since the notice only has to be posted for short while, whether on the internet or in a newspaper, it's very likely that you will miss the notice unless you vigilantly look out for it.
How is that not censorship? Censorship is suppression of communication for particular reasons.
Hi Bas, Thanks for a great article.
If you're going to define "censorship" that broadly, then of course it would include the laws against piracy. Censorship is typically used more narrowly to mean blocking content because of the view or message being expressed. The fight against piracy is not censorship for the simple reason that the expression being blocked is not protected expression. Free speech means the right to express your own views, not the right to repeat the expression of others verbatim. You can, of course, repeat the ideas of others--nothing is stopping anyone from doing that--but to label copyright laws as "censorship" does a disservice to those who are actually being censored.
Worldwide Film Entertainment, LLC v. McDowell, 3:11-cv-00056-HEH, Henry E. Hudson, presiding, Date filed: 01/21/2011
Three filed for "The Steam Experiment."
One in Virgina:
West Bay One, Inc. v. Libic, 3:11-cv-00057-REP, Robert E. Payne, presiding, Date filed: 01/21/2011
And two in Minnesota.
West Bay One, Inc. v. Hansen, 0:11-cv-00116-DSD, David S. Doty, presiding, Date filed: 01/18/2011
West Bay One, Inc. v. Fandrich, 0:11-cv-00117-ADM, Ann D. Montgomery, presiding, Date filed: 01/18/2011
That's all I could find. By my count, that's nine total lawsuits filed in the past week, plus the two from the D.C. cases, for a total of ELEVEN named defendants in USCG cases.
I found some info for you about the notice issue that you're interested in. From forfeiture.gov:
On December 1, 2006, Rule G of the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions, part of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, became effective. This rule governs procedures for civil asset forfeiture actions in the federal courts. Subsection (4)(a) of Rule G prescribes the notice procedures applicable to civil judicial forfeiture actions, and specifically authorizes posting notice on an official internet government forfeiture site.
On December 1, 2009, Rule 32.2(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure went into effect. This rule incorporates for criminal judicial forfeitures, the notice procedures, including internet publication, that apply to civil judicial forfeitures found in Supplemental Rule G.
Notice of judicial forfeiture actions has traditionally been published in newspapers. As publication of both civil and criminal judicial forfeiture notices is now permitted on a government internet site, this site incorporates the forfeiture notices that have previously been published only in newspapers.
This website contains a comprehensive list of pending notices of civil and criminal forfeiture actions in United States District Courts around the country.
The Department of Justice contemplates that notices of administrative forfeiture actions processed by Department of Justice agencies and component agencies will eventually be published exclusively on this website in addition to the judicial forfeiture notices. While the administrative forfeiture notices will continue to be published in newspapers for the foreseeable future, the internet publication of administrative forfeiture notices will be phased in to overlap with newspaper publication until newspaper publication of those notices is discontinued.
Please note that Title 18, United States Code, Section 983(h)(1), permits a court to impose a civil fine on anyone asserting an interest in property which the court determines was frivolous.
You're making me hungry! I just called my crawfish guy, and live mudbugs are going for over $4/lb this early in the season. That might not sound like much, but we usually buy 40-80 pounds for our boils, depending on how many folks are coming over. It's be half that price in a month or two.
Call-to-arms words like "prior restraint" and "censorship" get thrown out by Mike a lot, for the obvious rhetorical reasons. Mike uses those terms interchangeably whether he's referring to situations where conduct and content is blocked because of the views being expressed (actual censorship), or where unprotected conduct and content is blocked in a copyright context (not censorship). Mike's really good at blending the two to further his agenda, I'll give him that.
Copyhype today has another outstanding piece called "Copyright and Censorship." Terry Hart refers to conduct such as Mike's as "First Amendment Opportunism." I love that! I highly recommend it: http://www.copyhype.com/2011/01/copyright-and-censorship/
I have yet to see that. I've seen morally bankrupt people like AJ claim otherwise, but the lawyers I know all are eagerly putting together the actual cases to show how things like COICA are clear prior restraint. And these are lawyers who know what they're talking about.
So now you're just going to call me names and try to discredit me? Wouldn't it be more productive to address any one of the points I've made in this thread on the merits? Several points were addressed directly to you to which you have not replied. Are you not up to debating me? And please, spare us the hearsay about all the lawyers you know who agree with you. Let them come on here and speak for themselves.
I'm at a loss. I guess I knew there were people so depraved out there, but I'm sort of shocked that you seem to admit it so nonchalantly, as if abusing people's fundamental rights are no problem to you, so long as a law has been passed.
I'm sorry. I'm truly sorry. I really hope that one day you will find some basic moral courage. Until then, I'm somewhat disgusted that you seem to feel that way. I honestly don't feel comfortable speaking to you any more.
LOL! I don't know who you are trying to sway with your rhetoric, but it just makes me laugh.
I'm not going to bother cutting and pasting at this point, so I'll address your points in order...
You say 60 days is not prompt by any standard. That's your opinion, and it's not based on legal standard that I can tell. If "prompt" is the requirement, you'd have to look up the caselaw that's controlling on the court that's being "prompt" to see what that actually means.
Nothing gets proven in an affidavit. Regardless, find me one place where it says the agent has to demonstrate that the defendant doesn't have safe harbor under 512. I think you just made that up.
Heller does not say "unless it's seized for evidence purposes, it's prior restraint." If that was the case, wouldn't agents just tell the judge "it's for evidence"?
That's right, I don't know what the time frame is for giving notice. That's a minor procedural point, and if I wanted to know, I'd look it up.
Torrent-finder will get their day in court, I have no concern that it will be otherwise.
A giant crayfish from Tennessee was recently spotted. It looks like a lobster and is about twice the size of a normal crayfish -- and it might be tasty with a bit of butter.
Butter on a crawfish? Gross. You're not from the Deep South are you? :)
Average Joe didn't use the word 'knowingly'. By his logic, the mailman did aid the bomber, and that someone can be liable for something that they didn't do is the entire point of this sub-thread.
Good point, Rose. Of course the accomplice has to be aware that he is being an accomplice. That's the mens rea part of it--the "criminal mind." I don't know if it's specifically "knowingly," as that's a term of art, but it's something along those lines.
On the post: Music Industry Trying To 'Store An Iceberg In The Sahara'
Also, I don't read the "right to an income" as a guarantee of income. It simply means that if there is income, then it goes by right to the right holder. Isn't that how it already works?
On the post: Karl's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re:
On the post: Tunisian State Secretary Says Censorship Is Fine Because The West Does It Too
Hi Bas, Thanks for a great article.
If you're going to define "censorship" that broadly, then of course it would include the laws against piracy. Censorship is typically used more narrowly to mean blocking content because of the view or message being expressed. The fight against piracy is not censorship for the simple reason that the expression being blocked is not protected expression. Free speech means the right to express your own views, not the right to repeat the expression of others verbatim. You can, of course, repeat the ideas of others--nothing is stopping anyone from doing that--but to label copyright laws as "censorship" does a disservice to those who are actually being censored.
On the post: US Copyright Group Finally Files Some Other Lawsuits... In Minnesota
Re: Re:
On the post: US Copyright Group Finally Files Some Other Lawsuits... In Minnesota
Re:
On the post: US Copyright Group Finally Files Some Other Lawsuits... In Minnesota
Worldwide Film Entertainment, LLC v. McDowell, 3:11-cv-00056-HEH, Henry E. Hudson, presiding, Date filed: 01/21/2011
Three filed for "The Steam Experiment."
One in Virgina:
West Bay One, Inc. v. Libic, 3:11-cv-00057-REP, Robert E. Payne, presiding, Date filed: 01/21/2011
And two in Minnesota.
West Bay One, Inc. v. Hansen, 0:11-cv-00116-DSD, David S. Doty, presiding, Date filed: 01/18/2011
West Bay One, Inc. v. Fandrich, 0:11-cv-00117-ADM, Ann D. Montgomery, presiding, Date filed: 01/18/2011
That's all I could find. By my count, that's nine total lawsuits filed in the past week, plus the two from the D.C. cases, for a total of ELEVEN named defendants in USCG cases.
On the post: US Copyright Group Finally Files Some Other Lawsuits... In Minnesota
Voltage Pictures, LLC v. Ball, 3:11-cv-00004-nkm, Norman K. Moon, presiding, Date filed: 01/21/2011
Voltage Pictures, LLC v. McPeak, 3:11-cv-00054-REP, Robert E. Payne, presiding, Date filed: 01/21/2011
On the post: US Copyright Group Finally Files Some Other Lawsuits... In Minnesota
Re: Fraudulent Reviews
On the post: US Copyright Group Finally Files Some Other Lawsuits... In Minnesota
Achte/Neunte Boll Kino Beteiligungs Gmbh & Co Kg v. Lucini, 8:11-cv-00213-RWT, Roger W. Titus, presiding, date filed: 01/25/2011
On the post: US Copyright Group Finally Files Some Other Lawsuits... In Minnesota
Achte/Neunte Boll Kino Beteiligungs Gmbh & Co Kg v. Peele, 3:11-cv-00055-HEH, Henry E. Hudson, presiding, date filed: 01/21/2011
How many have to get filed before it's agreed they weren't bluffing?
On the post: Karl's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re:
On the post: Karl's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
I found some info for you about the notice issue that you're interested in. From forfeiture.gov:
So you want to look at Rule 32.2(b)(6): http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/Rule32_2.htm
I hope that helps.
On the post: DailyDirt: Big Bugs And Old Dogs
Re: Re: Re:
I meant "It'll be." :)
On the post: DailyDirt: Big Bugs And Old Dogs
Re: Re:
And I think the best "crab boil" recipes are loaded with butter.... no?
Around New Orleans, everybody I know uses Zatarain's Crab Boil for their crawfish boils. http://farm1.static.flickr.com/41/122301858_99360aa592.jpg
You're making me hungry! I just called my crawfish guy, and live mudbugs are going for over $4/lb this early in the season. That might not sound like much, but we usually buy 40-80 pounds for our boils, depending on how many folks are coming over. It's be half that price in a month or two.
Mmmmmm.... crawfish. Quite possibly my favorite food! http://singlemindedwomen.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/crawfish-boil.jpg
On the post: Tunisian State Secretary Says Censorship Is Fine Because The West Does It Too
Re: Re:
Copyhype today has another outstanding piece called "Copyright and Censorship." Terry Hart refers to conduct such as Mike's as "First Amendment Opportunism." I love that! I highly recommend it: http://www.copyhype.com/2011/01/copyright-and-censorship/
On the post: Karl's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So now you're just going to call me names and try to discredit me? Wouldn't it be more productive to address any one of the points I've made in this thread on the merits? Several points were addressed directly to you to which you have not replied. Are you not up to debating me? And please, spare us the hearsay about all the lawyers you know who agree with you. Let them come on here and speak for themselves.
On the post: Karl's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm at a loss. I guess I knew there were people so depraved out there, but I'm sort of shocked that you seem to admit it so nonchalantly, as if abusing people's fundamental rights are no problem to you, so long as a law has been passed.
I'm sorry. I'm truly sorry. I really hope that one day you will find some basic moral courage. Until then, I'm somewhat disgusted that you seem to feel that way. I honestly don't feel comfortable speaking to you any more.
LOL! I don't know who you are trying to sway with your rhetoric, but it just makes me laugh.
On the post: Karl's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You say 60 days is not prompt by any standard. That's your opinion, and it's not based on legal standard that I can tell. If "prompt" is the requirement, you'd have to look up the caselaw that's controlling on the court that's being "prompt" to see what that actually means.
Nothing gets proven in an affidavit. Regardless, find me one place where it says the agent has to demonstrate that the defendant doesn't have safe harbor under 512. I think you just made that up.
Heller does not say "unless it's seized for evidence purposes, it's prior restraint." If that was the case, wouldn't agents just tell the judge "it's for evidence"?
That's right, I don't know what the time frame is for giving notice. That's a minor procedural point, and if I wanted to know, I'd look it up.
Torrent-finder will get their day in court, I have no concern that it will be otherwise.
On the post: DailyDirt: Big Bugs And Old Dogs
Butter on a crawfish? Gross. You're not from the Deep South are you? :)
On the post: Karl's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Good point, Rose. Of course the accomplice has to be aware that he is being an accomplice. That's the mens rea part of it--the "criminal mind." I don't know if it's specifically "knowingly," as that's a term of art, but it's something along those lines.
Next >>