Easily. Each section, including the one you use to support your own argument, is prepended by some variation of "the Internet site or portion thereof."
Portion is not defined, and last I checked, any portion, however small, is still a portion. Including a single, user-generated post.
A court does NOT have to agree that the site is dedicated to infringement, just that the belief that such was true was "reasonable".
The same court system that has repeatedly agreed that "someone told me it was true" is all the reasoning needed to make obvious lies NOT libel (see Tabloids V. Anyone).
You don't have to be convicted of a crime for your arrest to be legit.
Sect. 101(23) : U.S.-DIRECTED SITE- The term `U.S.-directed site' means an Internet site or portion thereof that is used to conduct business directed to residents of the United States, or that otherwise demonstrates the existence of minimum contacts sufficient for the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the owner or operator of the Internet site consistent with the Constitution of the United States, based on relevant evidence that may include whether--
(A) the Internet site is used to provide goods or services to users located in the United States;
(B) there is evidence that the Internet site or portion thereof is intended to offer or provide--
(i) such goods and services,
(ii) access to such goods and services, or
(iii) delivery of such goods and services,
to users located in the United States;
(C) the Internet site or portion thereof does not contain reasonable measures to prevent such goods and services from being obtained in or delivered to the United States; and
(D) any prices for goods and services are indicated or billed in the currency of the United States.
Sect. 103(a)(1): DEDICATED TO THEFT OF U.S. PROPERTY- An `Internet site is dedicated to theft of U.S. property' if--
(A) it is an Internet site, or a portion thereof, that is a U.S.-directed site and is used by users within the United States; and
(B) either--
(i) the U.S.-directed site is primarily designed or operated for the purpose of, has only limited purpose or use other than, or is marketed by its operator or another acting in concert with that operator for use in, offering goods or services in a manner that engages in, enables, or facilitates--
(I) a violation of section 501 of title 17, United States Code;
(II) a violation of section 1201 of title 17, United States Code; or
(III) the sale, distribution, or promotion of goods, services, or materials bearing a counterfeit mark, as that term is defined in section 34(d) of the Lanham Act or section 2320 of title 18, United States Code; or
(ii) the operator of the U.S.-directed site--
(I) is taking, or has taken, deliberate actions to avoid confirming a high probability of the use of the U.S.-directed site to carry out acts that constitute a violation of section 501 or 1201 of title 17, United States Code; or
(II) operates the U.S.-directed site with the object of promoting, or has promoted, its use to carry out acts that constitute a violation of section 501 or 1201 of title 17, United States Code, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement.
Sect. 104: IMMUNITY FOR TAKING VOLUNTARY ACTION AGAINST SITES DEDICATED TO THEFT OF U.S. PROPERTY.
No cause of action shall lie in any Federal or State court or administrative agency against, no person may rely in any claim or cause of action against, and no liability for damages to any person shall be granted against, a service provider, payment network provider, Internet advertising service, advertiser, Internet search engine, domain name registry, or domain name registrar for taking any action described in section 102(c)(2), section 103(d)(2), or section 103(b) with respect to an Internet site, or otherwise voluntarily blocking access to or ending financial affiliation with an Internet site, in the reasonable belief that--
(1) the Internet site is a foreign infringing site or is an Internet site dedicated to theft of U.S. property; and
(2) the action is consistent with the entity's terms of service or other contractual rights.
Translation:
Sect. 101(23) establishes a separate group of sites SOPA applies to: US-Directed sites. A site only has to be ACCESSIBLE in the US to qualify under this section. There are NO, I repeat, NO exceptions for sites that are based in the US.
Sect. 103(a)(1) defines a "Site Dedicated to Theft of US Property."
Sect. 104 COMPLETELY PREVENTS any legal redress for a site operator or anyone, for that matter, if the people who shut you down can say their belief was "reasonable." It also allows private action against "foreign infringing sites" OR any site "dedicated to theft of US property."
Taken together: ANY site accessible in the US can be shut down via extrajudicial, PRIVATE action, and NO legal action is possible if the parties responsible can prove their belief was "reasonable."
Wikipedia has many, many copyrighted images on their site. This law will completely apply to them. Especially since they "encourage" users to update pictures and wiki pages.
Agreed, but the problem carries over. In my hometown, an auto shop was sued out of existence by a flower shop (I kid you not) because their logos were too similar.
1: The store names were very generic (they were both named Rick's, or something)
2: The auto shop was about 2 years older than the flower shop, but they had finally started doing well enough to get a new sign.
Apparently a generic flowing script font was questionable enough for the judge to let it rock on for long enough that the auto shop went bankrupt.
Sure, they weren't a very good mechanic, but that's not what put them out of business. It was a ridiculous copyright claim that those other jackasses never would have had the balls to file against anyone who WAS doing well. It was so stupid. They weren't even in competition.
The only reason libraries exist right now is because A: courts have repeatedly enforced their right to exist, and B: if they REALLY tried to get the shut down, their would probably be literal riots that would end in one or more major studios burned to the ground.
Also, isn't there a "Minimum Value" function? Like, the seller sets a price below which the auction is invalidated?
I believe it is separate from the starting bid. I dunno. I've only ever bought stuff.
I use Ebay regularly to buy retired Lego sets. For some of them, I am willing to pay $50. If at all possible, though, I WANT to pay less.
I have a lot of free time, so I just bid the minimum amount to qualify for one of the sets. If I get outbid, I bid again. Y'know. Like an auction. Amazing, really.
Sorry. I didn't realize that by allowing others access to my property, I relinquish ownership of said property. It all makes sense now. He didn't steal my bike. I gave it away when I told him he could ride it...
I would have thought the distinction was quite easy to see. The owner is the person who funds an endeavor, and sets it's goals and direction. The manager is the person (or in this case, group) who decides the best way to achieve those goals, and takes responsibility for such. That's why, when someone decides to do it all themselves, they are an "owner/manager."
before the crazy guy (AC#3) comes back, I'd like to issue a correction.
This song is under the "Aftermath Entertainment" label, not "Interscope."
While a petty correction, as Aftermath is also a subsidiary of UMG, my getting the label wrong will probably be used to somehow "disprove" my own, and others', actual point.
I hate to break it to you, but 50 cent's official youtube channel exists at the behest of Universal - or at least his label, which represents Universal.
Please explain to us how, if this video is official, it can be unauthorized, ever? Because while UMG might have the ultimate ownership, their subsidiary, Interscope, has management of it.
Once again, just because you don't like the use of a thing, doesn't mean you necessarily have a right to prevent it.
Yes it is. Because it means that, in the end, the opinions of the customers counted for more than the opinions of the shareholders. How often does that happen anymore?
Plus, once again: free speech does not guarantee consequence-free speech.
You are allowed to talk shit about your employer - but you may end up fired. Is that a chilling effect?
You can express your doubts as to the sanity, faithfulness, hygiene, etc., of your spouse - but you may end up divorced. Is that a chilling effect?
I was going to post some other stuff in response to you & your ilk, but I just deleted it all in favor of this:
It seems to me, it could be more useful to leave them as-is (with redirects), and collect that data for market research. Along the lines of "how much marketing power does Borders still have, x amount of time after they folded, and can we monetize the brand again?"
Or, a quick redirect page, along the lines of:
"Sorry, Borders went out of business!
However, Barnes and Noble is still doing great, so we'll redirect you there in *countdown* seconds!"
On the post: Yet More Collateral Damage From SOPA/PIPA: Activism Through Satire
Re:
Decisions, decisions...
On the post: Lamar Smith & MPAA Brush Off Wikipedia Blackout As Just A Publicity Stunt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Portion is not defined, and last I checked, any portion, however small, is still a portion. Including a single, user-generated post.
On the post: Lamar Smith & MPAA Brush Off Wikipedia Blackout As Just A Publicity Stunt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The same court system that has repeatedly agreed that "someone told me it was true" is all the reasoning needed to make obvious lies NOT libel (see Tabloids V. Anyone).
You don't have to be convicted of a crime for your arrest to be legit.
On the post: Lamar Smith & MPAA Brush Off Wikipedia Blackout As Just A Publicity Stunt
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sect. 101(23) : U.S.-DIRECTED SITE- The term `U.S.-directed site' means an Internet site or portion thereof that is used to conduct business directed to residents of the United States, or that otherwise demonstrates the existence of minimum contacts sufficient for the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the owner or operator of the Internet site consistent with the Constitution of the United States, based on relevant evidence that may include whether--
(A) the Internet site is used to provide goods or services to users located in the United States;
(B) there is evidence that the Internet site or portion thereof is intended to offer or provide--
(i) such goods and services,
(ii) access to such goods and services, or
(iii) delivery of such goods and services,
to users located in the United States;
(C) the Internet site or portion thereof does not contain reasonable measures to prevent such goods and services from being obtained in or delivered to the United States; and
(D) any prices for goods and services are indicated or billed in the currency of the United States.
Sect. 103(a)(1): DEDICATED TO THEFT OF U.S. PROPERTY- An `Internet site is dedicated to theft of U.S. property' if--
(A) it is an Internet site, or a portion thereof, that is a U.S.-directed site and is used by users within the United States; and
(B) either--
(i) the U.S.-directed site is primarily designed or operated for the purpose of, has only limited purpose or use other than, or is marketed by its operator or another acting in concert with that operator for use in, offering goods or services in a manner that engages in, enables, or facilitates--
(I) a violation of section 501 of title 17, United States Code;
(II) a violation of section 1201 of title 17, United States Code; or
(III) the sale, distribution, or promotion of goods, services, or materials bearing a counterfeit mark, as that term is defined in section 34(d) of the Lanham Act or section 2320 of title 18, United States Code; or
(ii) the operator of the U.S.-directed site--
(I) is taking, or has taken, deliberate actions to avoid confirming a high probability of the use of the U.S.-directed site to carry out acts that constitute a violation of section 501 or 1201 of title 17, United States Code; or
(II) operates the U.S.-directed site with the object of promoting, or has promoted, its use to carry out acts that constitute a violation of section 501 or 1201 of title 17, United States Code, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement.
Sect. 104: IMMUNITY FOR TAKING VOLUNTARY ACTION AGAINST SITES DEDICATED TO THEFT OF U.S. PROPERTY.
No cause of action shall lie in any Federal or State court or administrative agency against, no person may rely in any claim or cause of action against, and no liability for damages to any person shall be granted against, a service provider, payment network provider, Internet advertising service, advertiser, Internet search engine, domain name registry, or domain name registrar for taking any action described in section 102(c)(2), section 103(d)(2), or section 103(b) with respect to an Internet site, or otherwise voluntarily blocking access to or ending financial affiliation with an Internet site, in the reasonable belief that--
(1) the Internet site is a foreign infringing site or is an Internet site dedicated to theft of U.S. property; and
(2) the action is consistent with the entity's terms of service or other contractual rights.
Translation:
Sect. 101(23) establishes a separate group of sites SOPA applies to: US-Directed sites. A site only has to be ACCESSIBLE in the US to qualify under this section. There are NO, I repeat, NO exceptions for sites that are based in the US.
Sect. 103(a)(1) defines a "Site Dedicated to Theft of US Property."
Sect. 104 COMPLETELY PREVENTS any legal redress for a site operator or anyone, for that matter, if the people who shut you down can say their belief was "reasonable." It also allows private action against "foreign infringing sites" OR any site "dedicated to theft of US property."
Taken together: ANY site accessible in the US can be shut down via extrajudicial, PRIVATE action, and NO legal action is possible if the parties responsible can prove their belief was "reasonable."
Wikipedia has many, many copyrighted images on their site. This law will completely apply to them. Especially since they "encourage" users to update pictures and wiki pages.
On the post: Is America Losing Its Startup Edge?
Re: Startups aren't just tech companies
1: The store names were very generic (they were both named Rick's, or something)
2: The auto shop was about 2 years older than the flower shop, but they had finally started doing well enough to get a new sign.
Apparently a generic flowing script font was questionable enough for the judge to let it rock on for long enough that the auto shop went bankrupt.
Sure, they weren't a very good mechanic, but that's not what put them out of business. It was a ridiculous copyright claim that those other jackasses never would have had the balls to file against anyone who WAS doing well. It was so stupid. They weren't even in competition.
On the post: WB, HBO Continue To Suck At Economics; New Policies Encourage Piracy
Re: Re: Re:
The only reason libraries exist right now is because A: courts have repeatedly enforced their right to exist, and B: if they REALLY tried to get the shut down, their would probably be literal riots that would end in one or more major studios burned to the ground.
On the post: Class Action Lawsuit Filed Against eBay Because Of The Way Its Auctions Work
Re: Re: The Case of the Clueless Seller
I believe it is separate from the starting bid. I dunno. I've only ever bought stuff.
On the post: Class Action Lawsuit Filed Against eBay Because Of The Way Its Auctions Work
Re:
On the post: Class Action Lawsuit Filed Against eBay Because Of The Way Its Auctions Work
Re: Re: Isn't this the whole point of an auction?
I have a lot of free time, so I just bid the minimum amount to qualify for one of the sets. If I get outbid, I bid again. Y'know. Like an auction. Amazing, really.
On the post: Will The Food Industry Ever Swallow Transparency's Bitter Pill?
I don't think this is going to happen.
"We thought it was a little boring, so we jazzed it up a little with a bit of crude oil."
"Pbbbthhbth! What?! Really?! It doesn't say that on the label!"
"Oh yeah, it does. It's right there, see? 'Natural flavors.'"
On the post: Can A Company Keep An Employee's LinkedIn Account After They're No Longer Employed?
Re:
On the post: Universal Music Takes Down 50 Cent's Official YouTube Video
Re: Re: Re: Maybe you're thinking of the RIAA?
On the post: Universal Music Takes Down 50 Cent's Official YouTube Video
Re: Re: Re: Re:
This song is under the "Aftermath Entertainment" label, not "Interscope."
While a petty correction, as Aftermath is also a subsidiary of UMG, my getting the label wrong will probably be used to somehow "disprove" my own, and others', actual point.
On the post: Universal Music Takes Down 50 Cent's Official YouTube Video
Re:
I hate to break it to you, but 50 cent's official youtube channel exists at the behest of Universal - or at least his label, which represents Universal.
On the post: Universal Music Takes Down 50 Cent's Official YouTube Video
Re: Maybe you're thinking of the RIAA?
Please explain to us how, if this video is official, it can be unauthorized, ever? Because while UMG might have the ultimate ownership, their subsidiary, Interscope, has management of it.
Once again, just because you don't like the use of a thing, doesn't mean you necessarily have a right to prevent it.
On the post: GoDaddy Says It Doesn't Support PIPA Either, As Domains Keep Transferring Away
Re: Re: Re:
Plus, once again: free speech does not guarantee consequence-free speech.
You are allowed to talk shit about your employer - but you may end up fired. Is that a chilling effect?
You can express your doubts as to the sanity, faithfulness, hygiene, etc., of your spouse - but you may end up divorced. Is that a chilling effect?
I was going to post some other stuff in response to you & your ilk, but I just deleted it all in favor of this:
Since when are boycotts bad?
On the post: Barnes & Noble Going Around Asking Everyone To Change All Links From Borders To B&N
Re: SEO
Or, a quick redirect page, along the lines of:
"Sorry, Borders went out of business!
However, Barnes and Noble is still doing great, so we'll redirect you there in *countdown* seconds!"
On the post: Law Firms Removing Their Name From SOPA Supporters' List; SOPA 'Support' Crumbling
Re: Re: Supporters list
As far as I can tell, the links are identical. But mine no longer functions...
On the post: Law Firms Removing Their Name From SOPA Supporters' List; SOPA 'Support' Crumbling
Re: Re:
This is the House Judiciary Commitee version.
Again, a PDF.
On the post: Law Firms Removing Their Name From SOPA Supporters' List; SOPA 'Support' Crumbling
Re:
It's a PDF.
Next >>