”When incidental examples of protected speech are affected in the midst of illegal activity, it does not constitute a First Amendment violation.”
Do you mean alleged illegal activity, or are trials and stuff just silly annoyances to you?
“No. The First Amendment does not trump copyright law.”
Why would it? If the framers had wanted it to have some power they would have given it a higher number, like, say, 52. Surely the first amendment can’t be as strong a force as a reluctantly included clause. That would just be whacked!
“When political candidates try to use music for their campaign themes without permission, they are sued and forced to stop.”
I haven’t been around that long so I may lack the historical perspective needed to see your point; has a political candidate ever defended the use of a song as necessary to some political commentary. I don’t recall Bob Dole saying anything substantive about “I’m a Dole Man.” You might as well have said, “When proprietors of drinking establishments try to play unlicensed music for customers, they are sued and forced to stop.”
"And btw, there is no fair use in the act of copyright infringement, so using that example isn't such a good idea. I'm aware it's been tried before, but so has 'the dog ate my homework.'"
Does that mean that fair use does not infringe copyrights?
Thank you so much, Sir. I didn't realize that this entire discussion up until now was compeletely unnecessary. If I may be so bold, Sir, you could have saved everyone here from a fair amount of repetetive stress by simply letting us know that there was no room for interpretation. I will dust off my sandwhich and sit down and shut up...with the Court's permission, of course.
By your leave, Sire
(Bow, step backwards, Bow, step backwards, Bow, step backwards)
[And......scene!]
"As commercial speech and speech that infringes copyright or trademark is not subject to prior restraint, much of it is moot. The 1st amendment "free speech" cannot be invoked for illegal speech, such as violating copyright or trademark for commercial purposes. So really, there isn't much place to hide on this one."
So you say. However you seem to have found a particularly cozy hole in which to hide when you conveniently ignore the clearly non-infringing speech affected by the seizures. This really irks me. You seem to want to have an argument in which you’re decidedly right instead of the argument that’s being offered. Leave your straw men at the door.
Secondly, who has determined that there is infringement going on? You don’t cite any statutes that deal with allegedly infringing speech. We have courts for just this purpose and I see the government’s desire to circumvent due process as troubling.
Lastly, I think that using quotations for emphasis is silly. Or maybe you put “free speech” in quotations because you don’t actually believe that the first amendment contains that guarantee.
"You seem to think that seizures must be for the purpose of preserving evidence. Again, this is not correct. Things that are themselves illegal, i.e., contraband, may be seized. So may the fruits of criminal enterprise. And lastly, the situation we have here, the instrumentalities of crime may be seized."
While circumstances exist under which illegal things can be seized, isn't there a different test for search warrants to preserve evidence? You say, "You seem to think that seizures must be for the purpose of preserving evidence. Again, this is not correct." but you then go into great detail about The Kimbrough case, which involves a search warrant to gather and preserve evidence.
"Kimbrough's reliance on cases involving obscenity is misplaced. The determination of which presumptively protected materials are obscene is a legal one and, therefore, not to be left to the discretion of the executing officers. Identification of visual depictions of minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct, in comparison, is a factual determination that leaves little latitude to the officers."
This part, though I suspect it's irrelevant, seems to argue against you. They’re saying that child porn is easy to spot and different from obscenity. Are you saying that infringement is easier to judge than obscenity? Anyway, it’s a red herring because their talking about seizing evidence here, aren’t they?
“Wholesale copying is also a factual determination that can be made by agents. It does not take a judge to determine that a website offering entire copies of the latest Harry Potter movie is probably doing so illegally. There is no First Amendment determination that has to be made as in an obscenity case.”
Based on the inaccuracies in the affidavits from ICE, I’d say that it apparently does take a judge.
To recap:
Are you saying that the test is the same when seizing evidence as it is when silencing speech?
Are you saying that we can trust ICE to know what activity applies to what law? (‘cause we kind of can’t)
"Authorities removed the sign with the name of the park."
As pointed out by others in another thread, the "Authorities" did WAY more than that. In the style of the Ministry of Information, they reprinted all the maps and directories that referenced the park. They included a message from the state saying that directions to the park would no longer be available.
It's never a big deal until Big Brother steps on YOUR toes.
"Disprove US law with an international decision? That's a pretty bad argument."
Is this a stalling tactic? Your prose is so eloquent that I must believe it to be so. You are not that obtuse.
For anyone who may have legitimately missed it, when vivaelamor said:
It was brought up to disprove wilful infringement. Perhaps you should reread that bit...
...he was talking about how you couldn't expect Rojadirecta to disregard the rulings of its own countries courts when reviewing its activities. If you really thought that he was saying he could disprove the concept of willful infringement, then I congratulate you on your exemplary writing ability in the face of your developmental disability.
"So you're saying that if something is mostly free speech it cannot be prosecuted?"
Disingenuous again, eh. Well, go with what you know. What most of us are saying is that by all means it can be prosecuted. In one of those places where there's a judge and maybe some regular Joe's and you have to BE THERE. You know, Due Process. That think you want to doodoo all over. And I believe you KNOW that's what most of us are saying.
Your straw men are packed in too close and it's a fire hazard. Feigned ignorance is the worst kind, because it's worn by choice and no one should be ignorant on purpose.
"- commercial violations of copyright and trademark have been found exempt from prior restraint restrictions, and
- illegal or unprotected speech is not covered by the first amendment.
Those are two facts. Not opinion.
So while Mike may have had a lawyer friendly to the cause "vet" his opinion, they appear to have done a Masnick Effect on the two basic facts above."
Yes, those two are facts. However, your Masnickal musings aside, it is also fact that a process exists for removing whatever items exist on the site that offend the copyright owner. And I'll match you another fact in the fact that seizing a site's entire domain casts a wide net that (AS IT HAS BEEN POINTED OUT PREVIOUSLY) takes down plenty of legitimate speech with it. It's THAT speech that warrants protection and you conveniently ignore that.
"Further, the courts have found that even some protected speech can be blocked without issue if illegal speech is stopped."
Or maybe you're alluding to that here... I would assume that "even some protected speech" is something a court would have to evaluate. Or can it be blocked wholesale? How is "illegal speech" established in such cases? In an adversarial hearing?
"The soap box was not removed. The megaphone not seized. The park was not closed. Authorities removed the sign with the name of the park. If that by itself is enough to create prior restraint, then almost any act by government at all could be considered likewise."
Are you saying ICE does not accomplish its goal of censoring these sites? That ICE wasted its efforts and the court's time? Are you saying that they were not able to cause harm to these sites?
I don't think you believe any of those things. Rather, it sounds like the schoolyard bully who, after tripping a kid, stepping on his sandwhich, and kicking dirt in his face, will help his victim up and ,with grinning, jovial condescention, say "You're OK, kid! Go rinse your sandwhich off and don't be a big baby about a little joke." Either ICE did (and continues to do) these things to put a stop to infringement, or they're simply harassing websites that anger their corporate owners.
So which is it? Does ICE accomplish their goal of censoring speech, or are they really wasting the court’s time and our taxes?
"I mean, you don't like the comments/articles here people, GO SOMEWHERE ELSE!"
The opinions aren't the problem; rather, they're welcome and they're the purpose for these discussions. The trolling's the problem.
What I find maddening is that soon after the junior high ***tard lobbers lose interest and let a real discussion occur, everyone else loses interest too. Then we start all over at the next article.
I think you replied to the wrong post, Joe. There's a comment right above yours in which Mike points out that lots of other technologies have been accused of being "primarily used to infringe." Check it out.
True enough, but the fact that our government and their corporate masters will always try to steal our freedoms does not dictate that we should ever have to accept it.
"Without patent or copyright, people would simply copy someone else's idea, and wouldn't have the need to be creative, original or innovative."
I think you place yourself in a very tiny minority when you say that creativity does not happen without intellectual property. Are you alleging that the creative human spirit that powered ancient times and the renaissance has been killed off by patents and copyright? How, in your opinion, has human nature changed since then?
"This is the simplest concept in the world, yet you people want to ignore it. Because you somehow think piracy will be saved if you can just get rid of copyright."
Again, I think that even most supporters of the current IP system would disagree with your assertion that people "wouldn't have the need to be creative, original or innovative..." if we didn't have patents or copyright, so I hardly think that it's "the simplest concept in the world." Rather, the simplicity lies, most likely, in your understanding of the subject. Since the vast majority of recorded history disagrees with you, you might want to revise that statement so that we can begin a substantive discussion.
Are there any other IP supporters who want to express their support for such a simple truth?
Your point is that progress can still occur in presence of a patent regime. I can't think of anyone who would dispute that. However, I seen many comments here implying that IP law is the source of all creativity. Would you agree that innovation occurs both before and after the adoption of a patent system?
On the post: Once Again, Why Homeland Security's Domain Name Seizures Are Almost Certainly Not Legal
Re: Re: Re:
Do you mean alleged illegal activity, or are trials and stuff just silly annoyances to you?
“No. The First Amendment does not trump copyright law.”
Why would it? If the framers had wanted it to have some power they would have given it a higher number, like, say, 52. Surely the first amendment can’t be as strong a force as a reluctantly included clause. That would just be whacked!
“When political candidates try to use music for their campaign themes without permission, they are sued and forced to stop.”
I haven’t been around that long so I may lack the historical perspective needed to see your point; has a political candidate ever defended the use of a song as necessary to some political commentary. I don’t recall Bob Dole saying anything substantive about “I’m a Dole Man.” You might as well have said, “When proprietors of drinking establishments try to play unlicensed music for customers, they are sued and forced to stop.”
On the post: Once Again, Why Homeland Security's Domain Name Seizures Are Almost Certainly Not Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Danke Shoen
Does that mean that fair use does not infringe copyrights?
Or, are you saying that fair use does not exist?
On the post: Once Again, Why Homeland Security's Domain Name Seizures Are Almost Certainly Not Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
By your leave, Sire
(Bow, step backwards, Bow, step backwards, Bow, step backwards)
[And......scene!]
On the post: Evidence Suggests Major Film Studios Uploading Movie Clips To YouTube... Pretending To Be Pirated
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Once Again, Why Homeland Security's Domain Name Seizures Are Almost Certainly Not Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The discussion is about the legality of the order, not whether it happened. It's about what constitutes adequate due process.
On the post: Once Again, Why Homeland Security's Domain Name Seizures Are Almost Certainly Not Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Danke Shoen
So you say. However you seem to have found a particularly cozy hole in which to hide when you conveniently ignore the clearly non-infringing speech affected by the seizures. This really irks me. You seem to want to have an argument in which you’re decidedly right instead of the argument that’s being offered. Leave your straw men at the door.
Secondly, who has determined that there is infringement going on? You don’t cite any statutes that deal with allegedly infringing speech. We have courts for just this purpose and I see the government’s desire to circumvent due process as troubling.
Lastly, I think that using quotations for emphasis is silly. Or maybe you put “free speech” in quotations because you don’t actually believe that the first amendment contains that guarantee.
On the post: Once Again, Why Homeland Security's Domain Name Seizures Are Almost Certainly Not Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Danke Shoen
While circumstances exist under which illegal things can be seized, isn't there a different test for search warrants to preserve evidence? You say, "You seem to think that seizures must be for the purpose of preserving evidence. Again, this is not correct." but you then go into great detail about The Kimbrough case, which involves a search warrant to gather and preserve evidence.
"Kimbrough's reliance on cases involving obscenity is misplaced. The determination of which presumptively protected materials are obscene is a legal one and, therefore, not to be left to the discretion of the executing officers. Identification of visual depictions of minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct, in comparison, is a factual determination that leaves little latitude to the officers."
This part, though I suspect it's irrelevant, seems to argue against you. They’re saying that child porn is easy to spot and different from obscenity. Are you saying that infringement is easier to judge than obscenity? Anyway, it’s a red herring because their talking about seizing evidence here, aren’t they?
“Wholesale copying is also a factual determination that can be made by agents. It does not take a judge to determine that a website offering entire copies of the latest Harry Potter movie is probably doing so illegally. There is no First Amendment determination that has to be made as in an obscenity case.”
Based on the inaccuracies in the affidavits from ICE, I’d say that it apparently does take a judge.
To recap:
Are you saying that the test is the same when seizing evidence as it is when silencing speech?
Are you saying that we can trust ICE to know what activity applies to what law? (‘cause we kind of can’t)
On the post: Once Again, Why Homeland Security's Domain Name Seizures Are Almost Certainly Not Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As pointed out by others in another thread, the "Authorities" did WAY more than that. In the style of the Ministry of Information, they reprinted all the maps and directories that referenced the park. They included a message from the state saying that directions to the park would no longer be available.
It's never a big deal until Big Brother steps on YOUR toes.
On the post: Once Again, Why Homeland Security's Domain Name Seizures Are Almost Certainly Not Legal
Re: Re: Re:
Is this a stalling tactic? Your prose is so eloquent that I must believe it to be so. You are not that obtuse.
For anyone who may have legitimately missed it, when vivaelamor said:
It was brought up to disprove wilful infringement. Perhaps you should reread that bit...
...he was talking about how you couldn't expect Rojadirecta to disregard the rulings of its own countries courts when reviewing its activities. If you really thought that he was saying he could disprove the concept of willful infringement, then I congratulate you on your exemplary writing ability in the face of your developmental disability.
"So you're saying that if something is mostly free speech it cannot be prosecuted?"
Disingenuous again, eh. Well, go with what you know. What most of us are saying is that by all means it can be prosecuted. In one of those places where there's a judge and maybe some regular Joe's and you have to BE THERE. You know, Due Process. That think you want to doodoo all over. And I believe you KNOW that's what most of us are saying.
Your straw men are packed in too close and it's a fire hazard. Feigned ignorance is the worst kind, because it's worn by choice and no one should be ignorant on purpose.
On the post: Once Again, Why Homeland Security's Domain Name Seizures Are Almost Certainly Not Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
- illegal or unprotected speech is not covered by the first amendment.
Those are two facts. Not opinion.
So while Mike may have had a lawyer friendly to the cause "vet" his opinion, they appear to have done a Masnick Effect on the two basic facts above."
Yes, those two are facts. However, your Masnickal musings aside, it is also fact that a process exists for removing whatever items exist on the site that offend the copyright owner. And I'll match you another fact in the fact that seizing a site's entire domain casts a wide net that (AS IT HAS BEEN POINTED OUT PREVIOUSLY) takes down plenty of legitimate speech with it. It's THAT speech that warrants protection and you conveniently ignore that.
"Further, the courts have found that even some protected speech can be blocked without issue if illegal speech is stopped."
Or maybe you're alluding to that here... I would assume that "even some protected speech" is something a court would have to evaluate. Or can it be blocked wholesale? How is "illegal speech" established in such cases? In an adversarial hearing?
On the post: Once Again, Why Homeland Security's Domain Name Seizures Are Almost Certainly Not Legal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Are you saying ICE does not accomplish its goal of censoring these sites? That ICE wasted its efforts and the court's time? Are you saying that they were not able to cause harm to these sites?
I don't think you believe any of those things. Rather, it sounds like the schoolyard bully who, after tripping a kid, stepping on his sandwhich, and kicking dirt in his face, will help his victim up and ,with grinning, jovial condescention, say "You're OK, kid! Go rinse your sandwhich off and don't be a big baby about a little joke." Either ICE did (and continues to do) these things to put a stop to infringement, or they're simply harassing websites that anger their corporate owners.
So which is it? Does ICE accomplish their goal of censoring speech, or are they really wasting the court’s time and our taxes?
On the post: Once Again, Why Homeland Security's Domain Name Seizures Are Almost Certainly Not Legal
Re: Re: Re: Good God....
On the post: Once Again, Why Homeland Security's Domain Name Seizures Are Almost Certainly Not Legal
Re: Good God....
The opinions aren't the problem; rather, they're welcome and they're the purpose for these discussions. The trolling's the problem.
What I find maddening is that soon after the junior high ***tard lobbers lose interest and let a real discussion occur, everyone else loses interest too. Then we start all over at the next article.
On the post: The Return Of COICA; Because Censorship Is Cool Again
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: The Return Of COICA; Because Censorship Is Cool Again
Re: Crooks
On the post: US Chamber Of Commerce Wants More Censorship, More IP Protectionism
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think you place yourself in a very tiny minority when you say that creativity does not happen without intellectual property. Are you alleging that the creative human spirit that powered ancient times and the renaissance has been killed off by patents and copyright? How, in your opinion, has human nature changed since then?
"This is the simplest concept in the world, yet you people want to ignore it. Because you somehow think piracy will be saved if you can just get rid of copyright."
Again, I think that even most supporters of the current IP system would disagree with your assertion that people "wouldn't have the need to be creative, original or innovative..." if we didn't have patents or copyright, so I hardly think that it's "the simplest concept in the world." Rather, the simplicity lies, most likely, in your understanding of the subject. Since the vast majority of recorded history disagrees with you, you might want to revise that statement so that we can begin a substantive discussion.
Are there any other IP supporters who want to express their support for such a simple truth?
On the post: US Chamber Of Commerce Wants More Censorship, More IP Protectionism
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: US Chamber Of Commerce Wants More Censorship, More IP Protectionism
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: US Chamber Of Commerce Wants More Censorship, More IP Protectionism
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why wouldn't stupidity excuse ignorance?
I'd hate to be your kid. What a hard-ass.
On the post: US Chamber Of Commerce Wants More Censorship, More IP Protectionism
Re: Re:
Next >>