I have no idea, btw, how the bill would deal with sites with multiple domain names in different jurisdictions. It seems to assume that 1 site = 1 domain name. It does say that "The term ??domain name?? has the meaning given that term in section 45 of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. 1127)) -- so maybe the answer is there? Or in some court precedent? Who knows....
Yeah the article doesn't quite follow the legal logic correctly. Here's the chain of definitions:
FOREIGN INTERNET SITE.?The term ??foreign Internet site?? means an Internet site that is not a domestic Internet site.
DOMESTIC INTERNET SITE.?The term ??domestic Internet site?? means an Internet site for which the corresponding domain name or, if there is no domain name, the corresponding Internet Protocol address, is a domestic domain name or domestic Internet Protocol address.
DOMESTIC DOMAIN NAME.?The term ??domestic domain name?? means a domain name that is registered or assigned by a domain name registrar, domain name registry, or other domain name registration authority, that is located within a judicial district of the United States.
And yes, section 102 (with the DNS blocking) only applies to "foreign internet sites." So TPB wouldn't be included.
Both sections 102 and 103 apply to "US-Directed sites" which *can* include domestic sites. The definition of "US-Directed" is a bit convoluted, but basically it comes down to sites which are designed to be accessible to residents of the US. Domestic sites definitely count as "US-directed"
"That means that thepiratebay.org -- the main website for The Pirate Bay... is actually immune from the two key parts of SOPA (sections 102 and 103, since both clearly state that they only cover "U.S.-directed sites"). "
Actually this is incorrect. Section 103 *does* apply to domestic sites. Read closer: 102 specifies only foreign internet sites that are us-directed, while 103 says just "us-directed." A site based in the US can easily be us-directed (meaning accessible to users in the us).
So TBP is immune from section 102's domain blocking, but it is NOT immune from section 103's other provisions (basically blocking of funds from ads or payment networks).
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Ken.
Re: Missing link
I have no idea, btw, how the bill would deal with sites with multiple domain names in different jurisdictions. It seems to assume that 1 site = 1 domain name. It does say that "The term ??domain name?? has the meaning given that term in section 45 of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. 1127)) -- so maybe the answer is there? Or in some court precedent? Who knows....
Re: Missing link
Yeah the article doesn't quite follow the legal logic correctly. Here's the chain of definitions:
FOREIGN INTERNET SITE.?The term ??foreign Internet site?? means an Internet site that is not a domestic Internet site.
DOMESTIC INTERNET SITE.?The term ??domestic Internet site?? means an Internet site for which the corresponding domain name or, if there is no domain name, the corresponding Internet Protocol address, is a domestic domain name or domestic Internet Protocol address.
DOMESTIC DOMAIN NAME.?The term ??domestic domain name?? means a domain name that is registered or assigned by a domain name registrar, domain name registry, or other domain name registration authority, that is located within a judicial district of the United States.
And yes, section 102 (with the DNS blocking) only applies to "foreign internet sites." So TPB wouldn't be included.
Both sections 102 and 103 apply to "US-Directed sites" which *can* include domestic sites. The definition of "US-Directed" is a bit convoluted, but basically it comes down to sites which are designed to be accessible to residents of the US. Domestic sites definitely count as "US-directed"
"That means that thepiratebay.org -- the main website for The Pirate Bay... is actually immune from the two key parts of SOPA (sections 102 and 103, since both clearly state that they only cover "U.S.-directed sites"). "
Actually this is incorrect. Section 103 *does* apply to domestic sites. Read closer: 102 specifies only foreign internet sites that are us-directed, while 103 says just "us-directed." A site based in the US can easily be us-directed (meaning accessible to users in the us).
So TBP is immune from section 102's domain blocking, but it is NOT immune from section 103's other provisions (basically blocking of funds from ads or payment networks).