Section 105 itself does not mention court orders either. In fact here is the part of section 105 mentioning sections 102 and 103:
"for taking the actions described in section 102(c)(2) or section 103(c)(2) with respect to an Internet site, acting in good faith and based on credible evidence"
Notice the part I put in bold, that's the part we're having a problem with. Instead of saying 'based on a court order' like sections 102 and 103 it instead says 'acting in good faith and based on credible evidence'. The legal experts that Mike mentioned in the article are concerned about this difference in phrasing. Their interpretation is that it does not require a court order. One of the main points of the Polis amendment was if section 105 really does require a court order, why not make that more clear? Why leave it phrased in such a way that legal experts, with far more experience than anyone on this site, interpret it in a way so different than you and other SOPA supporters are interpreting it?
Would it help to know which law he was cited for? According to the updated thread that Jackalope has up it is:
22-209. (b) REAR LAMPS - Rear clearance lamps, identification lamps, and those marker lamps and reflectors mounted on the rear or on the sides near the rear of the vehicle shall display or reflect a red color. (An. Code 1957,art 66 1/2 ss12-209; 1977 ch.14 ss 2.)
You don't do very well on reading comprehension do you?
If you look at my post again you'll notice I said "their toys." And since English doesn't seem to be your strong point, "their" is the possessive form of "they" (dictionary.com) that in this case means the toys belong to the subject of the statement (the RIAA and MPAA). And whether or not they own the toys doesn't change the fact they continue to act like a petulant child by constantly demanding that the government bend to their will.
"the minority is often like a whiny child, screaming at the top of their lungs until the majority gives in a little to make them shut up. it doesnt make them right, it just makes them annoying."
You do know that your statement perfectly describes the RIAA and the MPAA, right? They whine and complain that things aren't fair. And that if they don't get their way they'll take their toys and go home.
"In the end, there is that third force: publishing a patent (and more so if it is put into service) may encourage others to want a piece of that market, and they then have to actually innovate to come up with a different (and usually improved) way to accomplish this same thing."
Okay. Let's say that there are three forces here. Then what evidence can you provide that proves that this third force is stronger than the other two? What evidence can you provide that counters the evidence for the "limiting" force? These are "please provide proof" questions that pro-ip advocates like Quinn don't answer, except with responses similar to "everybody knows" and "100% true".
This is similar to what I've seen you do many times here. You make claims, then provide no solid evidence to back it up. Then when asked for evidence, you either ignore them or you start making other claims. With that behavior, it's not unexpected that :Lobo Santo has taken to calling you Igtor (ignorant troll).
"We're talking specifically about where the money from the increased subscriptions is going."
Your original post was a little vague on that "from the increased subscriptions" part. You said "It's pretty clear that the money isn't going to Sony." Which did not specify the money from the increased subscriptions. Now your being more specific, and as such yes there are more reasonable explanations. I was actually trying to be sarcastic with the part you quoted, sorry if you didn't catch that.
"Is the extra money going straight into the pockets of Sony? Mike says yes, "
Where does Mike say it is? The only spot I see would be "At least Sony Music is happy." Well, they're still getting their license payments according to their contracts so why wouldn't they be happy. After that Sony isn't even mentioned. Unless you can point to much more specific quote from Mike, I think your seeing opinions that aren't there.
"...in the imaginations of a few disgruntled ex-customers."
Actually, I've never used eMusic. I prefer streaming services, or listening to a radio stations web feed. Again I was trying to be sarcastic with that part of my post. Next time I'll make sure to include a sarcasm tag for you.
"I am thinking next time they would use naming that could lead to this (rather obvious) lawsuit."
First, I'm going to assume you meant "couldn't lead". Second, why is this a "rather obvious" lawsuit? That would imply that it has a chance of winning, which you agreed before that they have no legal leg to stand on. And yet you seem to contend that Google should just give in, why? Why should they give in instead of fight back? Why should the Dick estate be rewarded for filing a lawsuit that we both seem to agree is completely baseless legally? Why should they take an action that would encourage others to file ridiculous lawsuits because if Google will pay up why won't *Company X*?
"* Well no, they aren't articles, it's a personal blog with pretensions of being a genuine news outlet."
This has been said previously on many occasions. Techdirt is not a news outlet, and has never claimed to be. I recall previous posts from Mike that clearly say that he is not reporting news, but that he is giving us his opinion on topics.
"Did you even read the original article in it's entirety? It's pretty clear that the money isn't going to Sony."
I did read the original article, and I have to say that there is money going to Sony Music. How else do you think eMusic was able to license Sony's music library? With kind words? Maybe candy? A one-time payment that gives them permanent access to the Sony Music library? Without knowing any of the particulars of the deal, I'd bet that Sony would insist on continuing payments to keep the Sony library available.
"Honey, you are the stupidest person here; if google did C&D, there would be no case against them and no claim for money which by the way is actually the way almost all C&D cases resolve."
Really? Did you even read anything? The Dick estate does not have a trademark on "Nexus", "Nexus One", or "Nexus 6." And the cease & desist claims trademark infringement. So I ask the same question I asked of The Anti-Mike: how how can you claim trademark infringement on a trademark that does not exist?
So, your saying they should just sign a license deal? Why? Because a dead author's daughter is complaining?
And what possible legal ground do you really think she has? The Philip K. Dick estate does not a trademark for "Nexus", "Nexus One", or "Nexus 6." So now my very serious question: how can you claim trademark infringement on a trademark that does not exist?
"If you're putting somebody else's copyrighted content onto your webpage (which is your creative copyrighted work) without their permission, then you are infringing their copyright."
You know, i just did a Google search for "block hotlinking" and got 179 thousand results. And each of the relevant results I checked on the first page of results says basically the same thing. That you add some code to the .htaccess file for the site that denies permission when a site other than your own asks for an image. Without adding that code (or similar) the server automatically grants the request. Since it appears that the HTTP protocols have it so you have to explicitly deny permission, wouldn't that mean that permission is implicitly given unless otherwise stated?
I still fail to see how blocking service to 4500 websites makes sense.
If they are doing something illegal (which might be impersonating a government official), why not block them at their webhost. Because it isn't like a webhost doesn't know what websites it's hosting. And with a court order it would be easy for them to take an entire website offline, or delete it completely.
Instead, they chose to stop providing routing for a block of IP addresses that contains 4500 websites that have no connection to the Yes Men. I'm guessing they had to field calls from pissed off website owners about how their website was blocked for no reason.
"Radio stations give away tickets with permission"
So, if I have tickets for a game, I can't give them away because I don't have permission? /sarcasm
And you didn't answer my earlier questions. Why, if they are describing the tickets, are they disallowed from using the names of the teams or the sports league? Is using those names in a descriptive manner somehow an infringement of trademark? And if it is infringement, I guess all media coverage should stop because they're using the names descriptively too, right?
"If B&D gave away major league event tickets they wouldn't have an issue."
Last time I checked, that's what you do in a "giveaway", you give away something (like major league event tickets).
"Using the team name and such implies a relationship which is not there."
Some one else asked this earlier and you didn't respond, so I will ask again. If they are describing what the tickets are for, why should they avoid naming the teams or the league involved? Are we not allowed to even mention the names of the teams or the league anymore?
"Taking a half a dozen teachers away from advanced science and moving them help the lowest achievers in the end is good for everyone. School isn't just for the top 5% of the students, it is for everyone."
I completely agree with the second sentence, but disagree with the first. How is encouraging mediocrity good for everyone? By removing 'advanced' education classes you are holding back students that could easily learn so much more. And if a student can't read and write at a 9th grade level, why should they be allowed in the 9th grade?
"As for sports, well, let's just say that physical activity is part and parcel of being healthy enough to learn, unless you want them to contribute to a whole new generation of couch potatoes..."
That's a very nice sentiment, but there is a problem. The "sports" your referring to are mainly played by a small subset of students, and usually those students are already in above average physical shape. A better program to make sure that students get "that physical activity" and are "healthy enough to learn" would be physical education classes that all students must take. Unfortunately, for many years school districts have been sacrificing physical education classes in order to help fund sports programs.
Oh, you mean the person that always posts something trying to disagree with Mike no matter the topic? The person who actually manages to agree with Mike even though he's trying to disagree? The person who's arguments rarely stand up to any logical reasoning? You mean him?