Re: Re: Re: Re: COICA is not Censoring the internet
There is due process *for some* parts of the bill, not for all.
What parts are lacking due process?
Furthermore, even the process you describe above almost certainly violates the First Amendment and the concept of "prior restraint" in that it takes down an entire website, rather than narrowly targeting specifically infringing works.
You may want to look up the meaning of "prior." A "prior restraint" stops speech before it is made. And copyright infringement is not protected by the First Amendment. This bill is limited to domains where the entire site is dedicated to infringement.
Determination, not trial. I know you know that, but it's not clear from the way you stated it.
There is due process. The AG has to serve notice to the person who registered the site and serve notice by publication when it initiates the in rem proceeding. Then, it has to go through court, where anyone with an interest in the domain name can make an appearance. The bill also provides for an administrative appeal procedure.
Only after a judicial determination can the domain name be seized or an injunction be issued.
Cool. This seems like a good time to point out that you need to update your story on Valdosta University, as the article stating that the school was going to report P2P users to the police was entirely incorrect. :)
It's "assumed" that authors do not create value in a vaccuum. Is there less creation now then at some time before? Are musicians making less than before? Is the movie industry making less than before? How has increased copyright duration effected this? Has there been a noticeable dropoff in creativity since the CTEA? Have we seen less new works, or less revenues since the Sonny Bono Act?
According to one of the sources in the Wikipedia article, "Disney would not have lost the right to use Mickey Mouse, would not have lost any rights in the modern Mickey Mouse, and would not have lost any of its trademark rights to control the commercial use Mickey Mouse."
First of all, there's a distinction between "real property" and "personal property". "Real property" is land. Second of all, if you're only talking about tangible property, that's great, but there's no such distinction at law, and hasn't been for hundreds of years.
Second of all, tenure and licenses are most certainly treated as property in certain contexts. You're mistaken in that "property" must mean the same thing in every context it's applied.
Finally, "you cannot plug the analog hole" is flawed, if by that you mean "we shouldn't recognize property rights in something that can be accessed by defeating limits on that access." Every safe can be cracked, every lock can be broken. But we still recognize the property relationship between the 'things' under the lock and the person who controls the lock. It is no different conceptually from recognizing the property interest between the thing protected by 'DRM' and the person who made the DRM.