Oh, come on! There are plenty of legitimate reasons to attack this AC. This is just lazy.
It is conceivable that the facts support seizing the entire domain name. He's perfectly within the bounds of logic to say that, since we know none of the salient facts.
Your "understanding" is wrong (and purposely so it seems since it has been explained to you over and over).
Please enlighten me as to how ICE could do this. So there's no misunderstanding: I'm not saying they can't. However, I don't see how the mechanics of a domain seizure were explained earlier and I'm curious. You can just copy and paste, if you like.
. If you can reasonably extend rulings about how to deal with seizures of real goods vis-a-vis obscenity law to seizures of internet sites vis-a-vis the *constitutionally protected* rights of the copyright holder, I believe it's probably reasonable to extend 18 U.S.C 2323 to the seizure of the criminally infringing files themselves.
*constitutionally protected* You keep using that phrase. I do not think it means what you think it means.
In this case, the question is whether a foreign-run website can prove that it both did not know and *should not know* that it was posting materials which infringed upon American copyrights.
The U.S. Copyright Office:
There is no such thing as an “international copyright” that will automatically protect an author’s writings throughout the world. Protection against unauthorized use in a particular country depends on the national laws of that country.
Copyright is not a constitutional right. Article I gives Congress the right to grant copyrights. So, while congress’ authority to grant copyrights is grounded in the Constitution, it is not a right guaranteed to the copyright holder by the Constitution. You can hardly equate free speech with copyright. Well, you can. But you’d be wrong.
You mean it transfers money to host communities from the surrounding areas. It's a broken windows fallacy to say that the same money wouldn't be spent elsewhere.
Your confusion is understandable. It's an American thing.
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniencies attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." -Thomas Jefferson-
Your point is well taken. However, whether the recordings were authorized or not, the domain seizure constitutes a restriction on speech. So once again, we’re back to the nature of the activity that drew the warrants: speech.
What I am saying is that that as an American, I would have liked to have seen people accused of unlawful activity have a chance to confront the charges before having property (real or otherwise) seized, or their businesses shut down. The fact that a law enforcement officer can attest to infringement, giving no specific details, and a judge will then sign an order to seize domains is troubling to me. It sounds as though you have no issue with that. At least, not as big an issue as with someone infringing on copyright.
You ignored what I wrote. If you can't grasp the concepts, just say so.
Anonymous, you ignored what I wrote. If you can't grasp the concepts, just say... Oh, wait. I'm sorry. I guess that more of a deflection than an argument.
One more time.
Please advise if you, in fact, see any way that someone accused of copyright infringement could be vindicated by a fair use claim. Please advise if you see any way that a charge of prostitution might be dismissed on free speech grounds alone.
If your answers to those two questions are the same, I congratulate you on ending this argument.
How would a Massage defense manifest any element of protected expression? There's an obvious difference between a defense that involves distributing information and one that involves refuting penetration?
But Arcara was only constitutional because "the sexual activity carried on in this case manifests absolutely no element of protected expression."
Are you saying the above is mischaracterization? That the court did not look at the type of charge and whether it was reasonably defensible under a free speech claim?
I really think that you're pretending not to see the obvious here. Fortunately, you aren't fooling anyone.
Please advise if you, in fact, see any way that someone accused of copyright infringement could be vindicated by a fair use claim. Please advise if you see any way that a charge of prostitution might be dismissed on free speech grounds alone.
If your answers to those two questions are the same, I congratulate you on ending this argument.
The "error rate" in the patent system is lower than the error rate for heart surgeons.
Factuality aside, how is that a logical argument? Should we not expect better outcomes? How are heart surgery and patent examining comparable? I'll let you count the ways.
Real property is real estate. Look at 18 U.S.C. 985(b)(1)(B) where it speaks of "the owners or occupants of the real property shall not be evicted . . . ."
Domain names are intangible, personal property. Google it.
Karl speaks to this possibility:
...So we're back where we started.
But even if you don't believe that domain names are "real property," RuleG(b) explicitly states this:
(b) Notice to Known Potential Claimants.
(i) Direct Notice Required. The government must send notice of the action and a copy of the complaint to any person who reasonably appears to be a potential claimant on the facts known to the government before the end of the time for filing a claim under Rule G(5)(a)(ii)(B).
And then AJ says…
The notice requirement is for after the forfeiture action has been filed. Your claim that this procedure "has not been followed" is simply wrong.
I need some help understanding this: “before the end of the time for filing a claim under Rule G(5)(a)(ii)(B).“ Does that leave open the possibility that the notice gets served after the property is seized?
If so, is there then some procedure that offers redress (this “claim under Rule G(5)(a)(ii)(B)”)?
Does Rule G even apply?
Somebody please help. (An answer of RTFM is, admittedly, valid.)
Ok. So going back to Karl's comment: What does your response have to do with whether or not one can claim fair use as a defense? You're acknowledging that fair use exists, and you're acknowledging that it's not infringement. Why is that not a defense.
Maybe I’m missing something…
I’m going to go find out what "manifests an element" means.
It sure is. However, in America, we have trials to determine if that's what happened. To put it another way, alleged copyright infringement is not any kind of crime.
Presumption of innocence is not a sometimes food; you cannot cast it off whenever you find it inconvenient.
"If it was, then every criminal would make sure to include some example of legitimate speech in the commission of his crime, so he could say 'sorry, you can't bust me because you'll be violating my first amendment rights.'"
That's a cute little straw baby you've got there. Watch this...
If it was, then every criminal would make sure to include some example of legitimate speech in the commission of his crime, so he could say "sorry, you can't just seize the instruments of my speech without arresting me or offering me an adversarial hearing before a court, or you'll be violating my first amendment rights.
There. Fixed it for you.
It’s almost as though you manufacture these silly arguments on purpose to avoid a real discussion. Weird...
On the post: ICE Finally Admits It Totally Screwed Up; Next Time, Perhaps It'll Try Due Process
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It is conceivable that the facts support seizing the entire domain name. He's perfectly within the bounds of logic to say that, since we know none of the salient facts.
Please enlighten me as to how ICE could do this. So there's no misunderstanding: I'm not saying they can't. However, I don't see how the mechanics of a domain seizure were explained earlier and I'm curious. You can just copy and paste, if you like.
On the post: Once Again, Why Homeland Security's Domain Name Seizures Are Almost Certainly Not Legal
*constitutionally protected*
You keep using that phrase. I do not think it means what you think it means.
On the post: Once Again, Why Homeland Security's Domain Name Seizures Are Almost Certainly Not Legal
Re: A Response
The U.S. Copyright Office:
On the post: Once Again, Why Homeland Security's Domain Name Seizures Are Almost Certainly Not Legal
Re: A Response
On the post: Can Someone Explain How Sponsoring NASCAR Is A Good Use Of Taxpayer Funds, If Funding Sesame Street Is Not?
Re: Re: Psh, easy.
On the post: Can Someone Explain How Sponsoring NASCAR Is A Good Use Of Taxpayer Funds, If Funding Sesame Street Is Not?
Re: Nascar VS. PBS
On the post: Can Someone Explain How Sponsoring NASCAR Is A Good Use Of Taxpayer Funds, If Funding Sesame Street Is Not?
Re: Psh, easy.
On the post: James Earl Jones Reciting Justin Bieber Lyrics On TV... Copyright Infringement Or Not?
On the post: ICE Finally Admits It Totally Screwed Up; Next Time, Perhaps It'll Try Due Process
Re: Re: Re:
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniencies attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." -Thomas Jefferson-
On the post: Once Again, Why Homeland Security's Domain Name Seizures Are Almost Certainly Not Legal
Re:
On the post: Once Again, Why Homeland Security's Domain Name Seizures Are Almost Certainly Not Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What I am saying is that that as an American, I would have liked to have seen people accused of unlawful activity have a chance to confront the charges before having property (real or otherwise) seized, or their businesses shut down. The fact that a law enforcement officer can attest to infringement, giving no specific details, and a judge will then sign an order to seize domains is troubling to me. It sounds as though you have no issue with that. At least, not as big an issue as with someone infringing on copyright.
On the post: Once Again, Why Homeland Security's Domain Name Seizures Are Almost Certainly Not Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Danke Shoen
Anonymous, you ignored what I wrote. If you can't grasp the concepts, just say... Oh, wait. I'm sorry. I guess that more of a deflection than an argument.
One more time.
Please advise if you, in fact, see any way that someone accused of copyright infringement could be vindicated by a fair use claim. Please advise if you see any way that a charge of prostitution might be dismissed on free speech grounds alone.
If your answers to those two questions are the same, I congratulate you on ending this argument.
On the post: Multiple Lawsuits From Multiple People Who All Say They Came Up With Kung Fu Panda
This is theft! And murder! And genocide!
Anyone who disagrees is simply a denier, and should be ashamed of himself.
On the post: Once Again, Why Homeland Security's Domain Name Seizures Are Almost Certainly Not Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Danke Shoen
I really think that you're pretending not to see the obvious here. Fortunately, you aren't fooling anyone.
Please advise if you, in fact, see any way that someone accused of copyright infringement could be vindicated by a fair use claim. Please advise if you see any way that a charge of prostitution might be dismissed on free speech grounds alone.
If your answers to those two questions are the same, I congratulate you on ending this argument.
On the post: Once Again, Why Homeland Security's Domain Name Seizures Are Almost Certainly Not Legal
Re: Re: Re: Where are all the lawyers?
On the post: Fark Points Out That Even Though It Doesn't Come Close To Infringing On Patent, It Still Has To Go To Court
Re:
Factuality aside, how is that a logical argument? Should we not expect better outcomes? How are heart surgery and patent examining comparable? I'll let you count the ways.
On the post: Once Again, Why Homeland Security's Domain Name Seizures Are Almost Certainly Not Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Danke Shoen
Karl speaks to this possibility: And then AJ says… I need some help understanding this: “before the end of the time for filing a claim under Rule G(5)(a)(ii)(B).“
Does that leave open the possibility that the notice gets served after the property is seized?
If so, is there then some procedure that offers redress (this “claim under Rule G(5)(a)(ii)(B)”)?
Does Rule G even apply?
Somebody please help.
(An answer of RTFM is, admittedly, valid.)
On the post: Once Again, Why Homeland Security's Domain Name Seizures Are Almost Certainly Not Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Danke Shoen
Maybe I’m missing something…
I’m going to go find out what "manifests an element" means.
On the post: Once Again, Why Homeland Security's Domain Name Seizures Are Almost Certainly Not Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Presumption of innocence is not a sometimes food; you cannot cast it off whenever you find it inconvenient.
On the post: Once Again, Why Homeland Security's Domain Name Seizures Are Almost Certainly Not Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's a cute little straw baby you've got there. Watch this...
If it was, then every criminal would make sure to include some example of legitimate speech in the commission of his crime, so he could say "sorry, you can't just seize the instruments of my speech without arresting me or offering me an adversarial hearing before a court, or you'll be violating my first amendment rights.
There. Fixed it for you.
It’s almost as though you manufacture these silly arguments on purpose to avoid a real discussion. Weird...
Next >>