Kirk 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (105) comment rss

  • On the post: Once Again, Why Homeland Security's Domain Name Seizures Are Almost Certainly Not Legal

    Kirk ( profile ), 21 Feb, 2011 @ 08:41pm


    . If you can reasonably extend rulings about how to deal with seizures of real goods vis-a-vis obscenity law to seizures of internet sites vis-a-vis the *constitutionally protected* rights of the copyright holder, I believe it's probably reasonable to extend 18 U.S.C 2323 to the seizure of the criminally infringing files themselves.

    *constitutionally protected*
    You keep using that phrase. I do not think it means what you think it means.

  • On the post: Once Again, Why Homeland Security's Domain Name Seizures Are Almost Certainly Not Legal

    Kirk ( profile ), 21 Feb, 2011 @ 08:12pm

    Re: A Response

    In this case, the question is whether a foreign-run website can prove that it both did not know and *should not know* that it was posting materials which infringed upon American copyrights.


    The U.S. Copyright Office:

    There is no such thing as an ?international copyright? that will automatically protect an author?s writings throughout the world. Protection against unauthorized use in a particular country depends on the national laws of that country.

  • On the post: Once Again, Why Homeland Security's Domain Name Seizures Are Almost Certainly Not Legal

    Kirk ( profile ), 21 Feb, 2011 @ 03:26pm

    Re: A Response

    Copyright is not a constitutional right. Article I gives Congress the right to grant copyrights. So, while congress? authority to grant copyrights is grounded in the Constitution, it is not a right guaranteed to the copyright holder by the Constitution. You can hardly equate free speech with copyright. Well, you can. But you?d be wrong.

  • On the post: Can Someone Explain How Sponsoring NASCAR Is A Good Use Of Taxpayer Funds, If Funding Sesame Street Is Not?

    Kirk ( profile ), 21 Feb, 2011 @ 03:07pm

    Re: Re: Psh, easy.

    However, if your argument is that the expense is an effective use of their advertising budget, I agree.

  • On the post: Can Someone Explain How Sponsoring NASCAR Is A Good Use Of Taxpayer Funds, If Funding Sesame Street Is Not?

    Kirk ( profile ), 21 Feb, 2011 @ 03:01pm

    Re: Nascar VS. PBS

    It would be worth it if the Army's car had a gunner.

  • On the post: Can Someone Explain How Sponsoring NASCAR Is A Good Use Of Taxpayer Funds, If Funding Sesame Street Is Not?

    Kirk ( profile ), 21 Feb, 2011 @ 02:56pm

    Re: Psh, easy.

    You mean it transfers money to host communities from the surrounding areas. It's a broken windows fallacy to say that the same money wouldn't be spent elsewhere.

  • On the post: James Earl Jones Reciting Justin Bieber Lyrics On TV… Copyright Infringement Or Not?

    Kirk ( profile ), 21 Feb, 2011 @ 01:45pm

    He truly has gone over to the Dark Side.

  • On the post: ICE Finally Admits It Totally Screwed Up; Next Time, Perhaps It'll Try Due Process

    Kirk ( profile ), 21 Feb, 2011 @ 12:54pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Your confusion is understandable. It's an American thing.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniencies attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." -Thomas Jefferson-

  • On the post: Once Again, Why Homeland Security's Domain Name Seizures Are Almost Certainly Not Legal

    Kirk ( profile ), 21 Feb, 2011 @ 10:20am

    Re:

    Your point is well taken. However, whether the recordings were authorized or not, the domain seizure constitutes a restriction on speech. So once again, we?re back to the nature of the activity that drew the warrants: speech.

  • On the post: Once Again, Why Homeland Security's Domain Name Seizures Are Almost Certainly Not Legal

    Kirk ( profile ), 21 Feb, 2011 @ 09:48am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    For what it?s worth: I marked this as funny.

    What I am saying is that that as an American, I would have liked to have seen people accused of unlawful activity have a chance to confront the charges before having property (real or otherwise) seized, or their businesses shut down. The fact that a law enforcement officer can attest to infringement, giving no specific details, and a judge will then sign an order to seize domains is troubling to me. It sounds as though you have no issue with that. At least, not as big an issue as with someone infringing on copyright.

  • On the post: Once Again, Why Homeland Security's Domain Name Seizures Are Almost Certainly Not Legal

    Kirk ( profile ), 21 Feb, 2011 @ 08:15am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Danke Shoen

    You ignored what I wrote. If you can't grasp the concepts, just say so.


    Anonymous, you ignored what I wrote. If you can't grasp the concepts, just say... Oh, wait. I'm sorry. I guess that more of a deflection than an argument.

    One more time.

    Please advise if you, in fact, see any way that someone accused of copyright infringement could be vindicated by a fair use claim. Please advise if you see any way that a charge of prostitution might be dismissed on free speech grounds alone.

    If your answers to those two questions are the same, I congratulate you on ending this argument.

  • On the post: Multiple Lawsuits From Multiple People Who All Say They Came Up With Kung Fu Panda

    Kirk ( profile ), 21 Feb, 2011 @ 07:23am

    These thieves should all be ashamed of themselves for stealing each other?s ideas.

    This is theft! And murder! And genocide!

    Anyone who disagrees is simply a denier, and should be ashamed of himself.

  • On the post: Once Again, Why Homeland Security's Domain Name Seizures Are Almost Certainly Not Legal

    Kirk ( profile ), 18 Feb, 2011 @ 11:48am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Danke Shoen

    How would a Massage defense manifest any element of protected expression? There's an obvious difference between a defense that involves distributing information and one that involves refuting penetration?

    But Arcara was only constitutional because "the sexual activity carried on in this case manifests absolutely no element of protected expression."
    Are you saying the above is mischaracterization? That the court did not look at the type of charge and whether it was reasonably defensible under a free speech claim?

    I really think that you're pretending not to see the obvious here. Fortunately, you aren't fooling anyone.

    Please advise if you, in fact, see any way that someone accused of copyright infringement could be vindicated by a fair use claim. Please advise if you see any way that a charge of prostitution might be dismissed on free speech grounds alone.

    If your answers to those two questions are the same, I congratulate you on ending this argument.

  • On the post: Once Again, Why Homeland Security's Domain Name Seizures Are Almost Certainly Not Legal

    Kirk ( profile ), 18 Feb, 2011 @ 11:05am

    Re: Re: Re: Where are all the lawyers?

    It's AJ's guarantee of quality: Personal attacks every 10 posts, or your pizza's free.

  • On the post: Fark Points Out That Even Though It Doesn't Come Close To Infringing On Patent, It Still Has To Go To Court

    Kirk ( profile ), 18 Feb, 2011 @ 09:47am

    Re:

    The "error rate" in the patent system is lower than the error rate for heart surgeons.


    Factuality aside, how is that a logical argument? Should we not expect better outcomes? How are heart surgery and patent examining comparable? I'll let you count the ways.

  • On the post: Once Again, Why Homeland Security's Domain Name Seizures Are Almost Certainly Not Legal

    Kirk ( profile ), 18 Feb, 2011 @ 09:07am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Danke Shoen

    AJ says:

    Real property is real estate. Look at 18 U.S.C. 985(b)(1)(B) where it speaks of "the owners or occupants of the real property shall not be evicted . . . ."
    Domain names are intangible, personal property. Google it.

    Karl speaks to this possibility:
    ...So we're back where we started. But even if you don't believe that domain names are "real property," RuleG(b) explicitly states this: (b) Notice to Known Potential Claimants. (i) Direct Notice Required. The government must send notice of the action and a copy of the complaint to any person who reasonably appears to be a potential claimant on the facts known to the government before the end of the time for filing a claim under Rule G(5)(a)(ii)(B).
    And then AJ says?
    The notice requirement is for after the forfeiture action has been filed. Your claim that this procedure "has not been followed" is simply wrong.
    I need some help understanding this: ?before the end of the time for filing a claim under Rule G(5)(a)(ii)(B).?
    Does that leave open the possibility that the notice gets served after the property is seized?
    If so, is there then some procedure that offers redress (this ?claim under Rule G(5)(a)(ii)(B)?)?
    Does Rule G even apply?
    Somebody please help.
    (An answer of RTFM is, admittedly, valid.)

  • On the post: Once Again, Why Homeland Security's Domain Name Seizures Are Almost Certainly Not Legal

    Kirk ( profile ), 17 Feb, 2011 @ 03:25pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Danke Shoen

    Ok. So going back to Karl's comment: What does your response have to do with whether or not one can claim fair use as a defense? You're acknowledging that fair use exists, and you're acknowledging that it's not infringement. Why is that not a defense.

    Maybe I?m missing something?
    I?m going to go find out what "manifests an element" means.

  • On the post: Once Again, Why Homeland Security's Domain Name Seizures Are Almost Certainly Not Legal

    Kirk ( profile ), 17 Feb, 2011 @ 02:40pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    It sure is. However, in America, we have trials to determine if that's what happened. To put it another way, alleged copyright infringement is not any kind of crime.

    Presumption of innocence is not a sometimes food; you cannot cast it off whenever you find it inconvenient.

  • On the post: Once Again, Why Homeland Security's Domain Name Seizures Are Almost Certainly Not Legal

    Kirk ( profile ), 17 Feb, 2011 @ 02:16pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "If it was, then every criminal would make sure to include some example of legitimate speech in the commission of his crime, so he could say 'sorry, you can't bust me because you'll be violating my first amendment rights.'"

    That's a cute little straw baby you've got there. Watch this...

    If it was, then every criminal would make sure to include some example of legitimate speech in the commission of his crime, so he could say "sorry, you can't just seize the instruments of my speech without arresting me or offering me an adversarial hearing before a court, or you'll be violating my first amendment rights.

    There. Fixed it for you.

    It?s almost as though you manufacture these silly arguments on purpose to avoid a real discussion. Weird...

  • On the post: Once Again, Why Homeland Security's Domain Name Seizures Are Almost Certainly Not Legal

    Kirk ( profile ), 17 Feb, 2011 @ 02:06pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    ?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.?

Next >>