Most downloads don't originate in the US. They originate in places where media is priced too high. So... Name two technologies where people can watch American shows without the problem of regionalization, geoblocking, or other artificial scarcities.
What, no other comments such as about the article here and the similarities of what the RIAA and MPAA want, and the government's to try to silence Wikileaks?
The DMCA isn't a shield to those who knowingly induce, assist, facilitate, aid, and abet infringement. You can't set up a site dedicated to infringement and then escape all liability by responding to takedown notices.
"The DMCA safe harbors don't apply because no court found you liable?"
"In the Puerto 80 case, Puerto 80 is the petitioner, meaning they consented to jurisdiction in S.D.N.Y. when they filed their petition there"
But the government has been stalling, and the NY branch are the ones that took it. Isn't it kind of a catch-22 that they don't have the jurisdiction, have been leading ALL sites on a merry goose chase, then saying they're liable for the infringement without any type of argument in a court of law beforehand?
They were seized due to prior restraint. As Karl put it, they are the "very definition of prior restraint". There was a one sided distinction that these sites could be seized, without any site being able to face the government in court and show their side of the story. As has been explained to you multiple times, prior restraint is unconstitutional, except in extreme circumstances.
NY Times v United States was allowed a court date to find the validity of the government censure. None of the sites to date were able to get a court date because our US government was stalling. Of course, for most of the sites, I've shown the timeline, which you never responded to.
So, were the seizures a prior restraint on speech? Yes, that's confirmed based on the evidence presented. Could this have been handled differently? By following the 5th amendment and making procedures that allow the courts to hear both sides.
But we already know you're twirling your mustache as you show us your Card of Evil. No need to get your knickers in a twist as well.
Funny how looking at the incentives of politicians and those hiding under the guise of democracy can't connect the dots and look at their behavior as wrong.
On the post: Up Is Down, Night Is Day, US Pretends Protectionist, Anti-Free Trade Agreements Are 'Historic Free Trade' Treaties
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Up Is Down, Night Is Day, US Pretends Protectionist, Anti-Free Trade Agreements Are 'Historic Free Trade' Treaties
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Most downloads don't originate in the US. They originate in places where media is priced too high. So... Name two technologies where people can watch American shows without the problem of regionalization, geoblocking, or other artificial scarcities.
Expecting crickets in 3... 2...
On the post: Up Is Down, Night Is Day, US Pretends Protectionist, Anti-Free Trade Agreements Are 'Historic Free Trade' Treaties
Re:
On the post: Up Is Down, Night Is Day, US Pretends Protectionist, Anti-Free Trade Agreements Are 'Historic Free Trade' Treaties
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: CreativeAmerica: When Major Hollywood Studios Set Up Bogus 'Grassroots' Campaigns
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Most Americans are Creative Americans
On the post: The Connection Between Wikileaks Censorship And PROTECT IP: Censorship Through Cutting Off Service Providers
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: The Connection Between Wikileaks Censorship And PROTECT IP: Censorship Through Cutting Off Service Providers
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: The Connection Between Wikileaks Censorship And PROTECT IP: Censorship Through Cutting Off Service Providers
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: The Connection Between Wikileaks Censorship And PROTECT IP: Censorship Through Cutting Off Service Providers
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: The Connection Between Wikileaks Censorship And PROTECT IP: Censorship Through Cutting Off Service Providers
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: CreativeAmerica: When Major Hollywood Studios Set Up Bogus 'Grassroots' Campaigns
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: More astroturfing for Big Search.
On the post: The Connection Between Wikileaks Censorship And PROTECT IP: Censorship Through Cutting Off Service Providers
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: The Connection Between Wikileaks Censorship And PROTECT IP: Censorship Through Cutting Off Service Providers
Re: Re: Connecting the dots
What, no other comments such as about the article here and the similarities of what the RIAA and MPAA want, and the government's to try to silence Wikileaks?
On the post: The Connection Between Wikileaks Censorship And PROTECT IP: Censorship Through Cutting Off Service Providers
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"The DMCA safe harbors don't apply because no court found you liable?"
"In the Puerto 80 case, Puerto 80 is the petitioner, meaning they consented to jurisdiction in S.D.N.Y. when they filed their petition there"
But the government has been stalling, and the NY branch are the ones that took it. Isn't it kind of a catch-22 that they don't have the jurisdiction, have been leading ALL sites on a merry goose chase, then saying they're liable for the infringement without any type of argument in a court of law beforehand?
On the post: CreativeAmerica: When Major Hollywood Studios Set Up Bogus 'Grassroots' Campaigns
Re: Re: Re: More astroturfing for Big Search.
The same people that advocate civil liberties are paid by Google to have their voice?
Funny...
On the post: The Connection Between Wikileaks Censorship And PROTECT IP: Censorship Through Cutting Off Service Providers
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
*ahem*
Yes, I was an English major before. The fact that English is spoken works worldwide is because of the (now) UK and it's globalistic tendencies.
On the post: 'British Cinema's Golden Age Is Now': So Where's The 'Serious Problem' Of Copyright Infringement?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
They were seized due to prior restraint. As Karl put it, they are the "very definition of prior restraint". There was a one sided distinction that these sites could be seized, without any site being able to face the government in court and show their side of the story. As has been explained to you multiple times, prior restraint is unconstitutional, except in extreme circumstances.
NY Times v United States was allowed a court date to find the validity of the government censure. None of the sites to date were able to get a court date because our US government was stalling. Of course, for most of the sites, I've shown the timeline, which you never responded to.
So, were the seizures a prior restraint on speech? Yes, that's confirmed based on the evidence presented. Could this have been handled differently? By following the 5th amendment and making procedures that allow the courts to hear both sides.
But we already know you're twirling your mustache as you show us your Card of Evil. No need to get your knickers in a twist as well.
On the post: The Connection Between Wikileaks Censorship And PROTECT IP: Censorship Through Cutting Off Service Providers
Connecting the dots
Funny how looking at the incentives of politicians and those hiding under the guise of democracy can't connect the dots and look at their behavior as wrong.
On the post: State Department Pulls Top Secret Security Clearance From Diplomat Who Linked To Publicly Available Info
Re: Re: Re: He Broke the Rules
On the post: Valve Exec Explains How To Compete With Piracy
Re: Re: What's really interesting...
Next >>