Did you give anyone a chance or just assume they were all criminals? Also this does not address the many innocent people who had their speech squelched by over zealous agents following questionable logic and legalities.
Due process is a very important part of our rights. If they had actually followed the laws we currently have on the books a more just and correct result would have happened. The infringing/rogue/disagreeable/illegal sites not online and no trampling of anyone's free speech rights.
Prior restraint is not as you characterize..... the many thousands of sites taken down wrongly were the problem. You must always consider what your actions create. If your logic were taken to a logical extreme then if a person was murdered in a ball park it would ok to hold everyone with no trial, time before a judge, and no defenses allowed for as long as the authorities felt necessary. This is the opposite of what our laws dictate.
I know it was an extreme example but no more out of touch than saying that it is ok to seize the property and prevent the speech of 84,000+ people for the sake of censoring less than one one thousandth of that population.
It does not matter what is easy, only what is just. If we follow your example of taking the easy route there will be many unintended consequences and I am quite sure a great many of even your rights broken.
You can indeed control subdomains through existing law. If you were to present the writ from the judge to the mooo.com orders to stop sites dedicated to CP I am quite sure those domains would be down.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Because it's not-- it's about stopping piracy
In some cases you can say the last word (closest to present time) in the Constitution is the most correct since it was amending the original document. You don't believe that the correct version of a document is the first draft? No, that is not how it works. An amendment is to add or correct portions of the original document. You could almost look at it as a document in a configuration management system, when you look at the document you see the current version. If you want you may see the way it has changed, this is to promote understanding and explanations of how we got to where we are.
So to put it simply, first is not the trump card some people want it to be.
I do not think it is a collapse of journalism, just a collapse of the NIAA (News Industry Association of America) and the middlemen. The internet is the great equalizer where there is less need for a whole organization to sponge off the working masses to get the content out. News is a content industry like the rest. They over value their content and want to be paid in a time when anyone can run a successful news outlet in their basement. This is just an extension of the shift away from gatekeepers of content and data. This is a symptom of the whole of society being enabled to do differently than before and actually compensate the sources that matter to them.
In a truly free market this would let the best rise to the top and make a good living while the bad, unusable, unwanted, and unresponsive sources get forced out of the markets.
I welcome them floundering and trying stupid things to hang on as it will make sure the anchor around their neck is their end. It will hide the fact of the changing world from them until they are no longer relevant in the world. It will be a long fall, but they are doing their best to ensure they fail.
So it was non-obvious 2 years prior in 1993? I am sure it was not new or original then. I believe I played a game in 1991 that did exactly what this patent describes when it allowed me to select which music track to accompany the game......
I need to try and find my copy and send it to spotify as prior art.
Is any of that "novel" or non-obvious? Sounds like a simple explanation of streaming used by many different providers and systems to me. There is no specific machine mentioned, there is no part of that I couldn't do with many different assorted devices and methods and have that be a completely accurate description of. So I fail to see how it is not generic.
It doesn't take any actual downloads, just accusations and as they are a business and thus an individual (thanks for that gem SCOTUS) they can be disconnected from the internet.
I also wonder if SOUNDEX collecting fees for music they don't represent falls afoul of the "Rogue Sites" definition they are attempting to put into law? That seems to be diverting monies from the rightful owners of the music......
The current level of piracy is about on par with having armed gang members in every store, 50% of the time taking the money from your sale or just giving your product away for fun. It isn't a tolerable business environment. Building business models based on it may be a functional short term way to keep from sinking your business, but this level of laying down with the dogs doesn't do anyone good over time... except perhaps the dogs.
Really? Piracy must have sprung up a lot recently.....