There seems a lot of confusion in this thread about what is going on here.
Puerto 80 are running two separate cases. The first case under seizure law is to apply to have their domains returned. The second case is about how they are a lawful Spanish business and these domains should not have been seized in the first place.
Puerto 80 lost their first case where the "substantial hardship" aspect was the sticking point. They have now appealed this ruling and are trying again. Under seizure law they are in a weak position and are giving it their best shot.
They are of course arguing that this seizure is a First Amendment violation. If this is, or not, is besides the point when there needs to be a court case first to prove if it is or not. The claim then is that ICE have violated prior restraint by seizing this domain causing a First Amendment violation before their right to protect their speech has been heard in court.
The problem here (and what Puerto 80 are missing) is that the release of seized goods need to be returned based on seizure law. That is what the judge is there for. So their only hope is to argue that this violation of the First Amendment and lack of prior restraint creates a "substantial hardship". Then even if they did the judge could simply rule that this is not what they were thinking about when this law was made.
So their easy domain return is unlikely to happen and they can next plead all the First Amendment violations and lack of prior restraint in their main case. They are just fighting and even if battle is lost it is important that the War is won.
On the post: Universal Music Issues Questionable Takedown On Megaupload Video That Featured Their Artists [Updated]
Celebraties
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jffi6wSWsTQ
MegaUpload turned these clips into a song which obviously UMG would not like due to their belief they own these musicians and their music.
There is no copyright or contract violation.
On the post: Universal Music Issues Questionable Takedown On Megaupload Video That Featured Their Artists [Updated]
Contracts
Contracts are about their singing. In this Mega Song video they are often talking and not singing.
No contract agreement can ever remove a person's right to free speech.
On the post: Puerto 80 Makes Its Argument For Why The Seizure Of Rojadirecta Was Unconstitutional
Clarification
Puerto 80 are running two separate cases. The first case under seizure law is to apply to have their domains returned. The second case is about how they are a lawful Spanish business and these domains should not have been seized in the first place.
Puerto 80 lost their first case where the "substantial hardship" aspect was the sticking point. They have now appealed this ruling and are trying again. Under seizure law they are in a weak position and are giving it their best shot.
They are of course arguing that this seizure is a First Amendment violation. If this is, or not, is besides the point when there needs to be a court case first to prove if it is or not. The claim then is that ICE have violated prior restraint by seizing this domain causing a First Amendment violation before their right to protect their speech has been heard in court.
The problem here (and what Puerto 80 are missing) is that the release of seized goods need to be returned based on seizure law. That is what the judge is there for. So their only hope is to argue that this violation of the First Amendment and lack of prior restraint creates a "substantial hardship". Then even if they did the judge could simply rule that this is not what they were thinking about when this law was made.
So their easy domain return is unlikely to happen and they can next plead all the First Amendment violations and lack of prior restraint in their main case. They are just fighting and even if battle is lost it is important that the War is won.
Next >>