Counsel for the websites that were seized are not being entirely forthcoming. When a site is seized (or anything else for that matter), the property owner is entitled by law to promptly file a motion with the court for return of the property. This is by definition an adversarial proceeding.
Yet, we learn from the experience of Dajaz1.com that such proceedings won't happen. They will be blocked from seeing any docket information. They will be given the run around for a full year before anything concrete happens.
The more I think about this comment the more I am convinced that it is satire. I honestly can't believe that anyone would be able to spew forth this crap with a straight face and an honest mind.
Of course I have seen my share of nutters in comments around the internet. One in particular claimed to only buy games that HAD DRM in order to support developers that cared about copyright.
According to you, we have here a Dutch collection agency that should not be held accountable for the infringement done by its employees using company resources.
Yet with the same breath, the SOPA supporting groups and people claim that Youtube, Flicker, Facebook, Twitter etc should be held accountable for the infringement done by their users?
That would not be effective. If Wikipedia would blackout itself for everyone, you will immediately have every person in high school and college become aware of the issue. You will also have all their teachers and parents and friends.
If you were to only block out Congress, then they can write it off as no one outside the Wikipedia community and Congress would have know it happened.
Well, that's the first sensible thing you have said this conversation. Thank You.
Personally, I am a fan of scrapping SOPA as it is. I am currently looking at Wyden's OPEN act that he proposed as an alternative to SOPA. So far, it seems far more reasonable.
Wow. Only a day and you already forgot about Dajaz1. Dajaz1 spent an entire year in legal limbo because ICE could not figure out just how it was infringing. Eventually, ICE had to relent and give them back their domain name.
I think you forgot about a certain part of copyright law called "fair use"
Under that aspect of copyright law, someone can use parts and in some cases whole copyrighted content and not be found liable for copyright infringement.
Because the targets of SOPA's notices are entire websites. That is why. If one targets a website that has considerable non-infringing uses, that is too high a price (Universal v Betamax)
You will notice the order of the sentence structure. The penalty of perjury only applies to the section stating the signatory is an authorized agent. There is no penalty of perjury pertaining to the accuracy of the request.
That is why I said the DCMA would seem to be Constitutional. It still have several weaknesses that raise Constitutional concerns such as the takedown of fair use content.
But with SOPA and PIPA, as others have already said, constitute prior restraint on and entire site. To say that the removal of revenue from a website's operation would not result on the site being taken down is disingenuous.
And yet you admit that Netflix and Spotify are viable business models. But they aren't? I am confused. How can something be successful and not at the same time?
Under the DMCA, the notice and takedown is for a specific piece of content. A single Video. A single song. A single file.
Under SOPA/PIPA, the notice and takedown is for an entire site, no matter what the ratio of legal to illegal content is.
That is why DMCA can be seen as constitutional, although it does have its issues with its notice, takedown, counter notice, restoration procedure. That is why SOPA/PIPA is unconstitutional because it unfairly effects legal speech in its attempts to block illegal speech.
On the post: RIAA Boss Tries To Defend SOPA & PIPA To The NY Times
Re:
Yet, we learn from the experience of Dajaz1.com that such proceedings won't happen. They will be blocked from seeing any docket information. They will be given the run around for a full year before anything concrete happens.
Under SOPA, that will simply get worse.
On the post: Humble Indie Bundle Well On Its Way To Break Sales Record
Re: no name games
Of course I have seen my share of nutters in comments around the internet. One in particular claimed to only buy games that HAD DRM in order to support developers that cared about copyright.
On the post: Humble Indie Bundle Well On Its Way To Break Sales Record
Re: EFF, not Red Cross
https://twitter.com/#!/humble/status/146655575290286080
So this was a developer choice. But if you want to support the EFF, you can still do that directly.
https://supporters.eff.org/donate
On the post: Louis CK: Connecting With Fans & Giving Them A Reason To Buy By Being Polite, Awesome & Human
Re:
1) The work is of a high quality
2) The creators respect the choices of their fans
3) The works are actually creative
On the post: Dutch Collection Society Found To Be Source Of Infringing Content
Re:
According to you, we have here a Dutch collection agency that should not be held accountable for the infringement done by its employees using company resources.
Yet with the same breath, the SOPA supporting groups and people claim that Youtube, Flicker, Facebook, Twitter etc should be held accountable for the infringement done by their users?
Hows does that make sense?
On the post: Wikipedia Considers Blackout To Protest SOPA
Re:
If you were to only block out Congress, then they can write it off as no one outside the Wikipedia community and Congress would have know it happened.
On the post: What Other Websites Is The US Government Secretly Censoring?
Re:
The US Government Is Secretly Censoring Websites.
On the post: 96% of Congressmen Agree: Bad Legislation Is Easier To Craft In Secret
Re: Re: Chilling effects
On the post: Constitutional Scholars Explain Why SOPA & PROTECT IP Do Not Pass First Amendment Scrutiny
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Personally, I am a fan of scrapping SOPA as it is. I am currently looking at Wyden's OPEN act that he proposed as an alternative to SOPA. So far, it seems far more reasonable.
On the post: MPAA Boss: If The Chinese Censor The Internet Without A Problem, Why Can't The US?
Re:
However, trying to programatically decide what content is infringing is far more difficult than trying to decide what content is pornographic.
On the post: Constitutional Scholars Explain Why SOPA & PROTECT IP Do Not Pass First Amendment Scrutiny
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Constitutional Scholars Explain Why SOPA & PROTECT IP Do Not Pass First Amendment Scrutiny
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Constitutional Scholars Explain Why SOPA & PROTECT IP Do Not Pass First Amendment Scrutiny
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Under that aspect of copyright law, someone can use parts and in some cases whole copyrighted content and not be found liable for copyright infringement.
SOPA makes no exceptions for Fair Use.
On the post: MPAA Boss: If The Chinese Censor The Internet Without A Problem, Why Can't The US?
Re:
In the US, DNS systems are controlled by neutral parties.
In China, DNS systems are controlled by the government.
In the US, all outbound pipes (internet connections to other nations) are controlled by neutral parties.
In China, all outbound pipes are controlled by the government.
Now, to say that because China can do it is a farce. China can do it because the government controls all aspects of the internet.
Why would you want a government controlled internet in the US?
On the post: Constitutional Scholars Explain Why SOPA & PROTECT IP Do Not Pass First Amendment Scrutiny
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Constitutional Scholars Explain Why SOPA & PROTECT IP Do Not Pass First Amendment Scrutiny
Re:
On the post: Constitutional Scholars Explain Why SOPA & PROTECT IP Do Not Pass First Amendment Scrutiny
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Constitutional Scholars Explain Why SOPA & PROTECT IP Do Not Pass First Amendment Scrutiny
Re: Re: Re:
But with SOPA and PIPA, as others have already said, constitute prior restraint on and entire site. To say that the removal of revenue from a website's operation would not result on the site being taken down is disingenuous.
On the post: Paul Vixie: SOPA/PIPA Would Be Good For My Business, But I'm Still Against It
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Constitutional Scholars Explain Why SOPA & PROTECT IP Do Not Pass First Amendment Scrutiny
Re:
Under SOPA/PIPA, the notice and takedown is for an entire site, no matter what the ratio of legal to illegal content is.
That is why DMCA can be seen as constitutional, although it does have its issues with its notice, takedown, counter notice, restoration procedure. That is why SOPA/PIPA is unconstitutional because it unfairly effects legal speech in its attempts to block illegal speech.
Next >>