I know how amateurish and uncontrolled the police can be here in the UK, but that page is so ridiculously badly worded that I'm struggling to believe it is genuine. If it is, the only explanation I can think of is that it has been written by an industry group which has used SOCA as a puppet for its operation.
Here's an idea - if, as a legislator, you want to ensure that there is healthy competition in the search market, you could start by not trying to pass legislation which would present such a massive barrier to entry into the market that somebody would be less likely to set up a new search engine in your country.
I'm thinking of the kind of law which would require a search engine to continual censor it's results in response to government demands.
"And if their whole operation was in Spain, I'd agree. But as it is, part of their operation, the domain names, were in the U.S."
That's entirely irrelevant.
The whole point of my comment was in relation to the Anonymous Coward above who said "Right, and the fact that their legality was questionable in Spain..."
I'm assuming you are a different Anonymous Coward.
"No one is objecting to the store next door that sells merchandise it created or purchased from someone who had the right to sell it."
Plenty of people would. They would use the same argument as those who argue copying is immoral. They would say that through the first person who opened the shop had an idea that there was a market for what they wanted to sell and did all the research to establish that. They would argue that the second person, opening a shop in direct competition, is a parasite, who, on seeing the success of the first person's idea, copied it, taking advantage of that first person's original idea and research without giving anything in return.
"A guy next door (or down the block or on the other side of the world) who selling goods I brought to market by the sweat of my brow and the force of my skill, is a parasite."
And of course, you could use the same argument to say that the person who sees you skilfully spot a gap in the market, watches you successfully fill it with your shop and then copies your idea and takes your customers, is a parasite.
Copyright is designed to allow creators rights to their work because whether a product is tangible or not, if it is your unique creation, it is natural to feel like it is yours. Have you ever been plagiarized? Have you ever had someone take credit for something you worked really hard on?
It's not a pleasant feeling. No one stole anything tangible from you. But you still feel cheated and ripped off.
It's a common argument, but it is a flawed one. Plagiarism is a completely separate issue to copyright. Most material that is copied is not mis-attributed and is therefore not plagiaristic. Appeals that rely on references to plagiarism are usually appeals to emotion which the person making knows wouldn't hold if the reference were to correctly attributed copying.
In any case, the feeling of being ripped off and it not being pleasant doesn't make a great basis for decisions. Somebody who opens a shop and then sees a competitor open next door might feel unhappy about it, but that hasn't lead to a ban on competing shops.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by plockett.
ridiculous
I know how amateurish and uncontrolled the police can be here in the UK, but that page is so ridiculously badly worded that I'm struggling to believe it is genuine. If it is, the only explanation I can think of is that it has been written by an industry group which has used SOCA as a puppet for its operation.
A suggestion
Here's an idea - if, as a legislator, you want to ensure that there is healthy competition in the search market, you could start by not trying to pass legislation which would present such a massive barrier to entry into the market that somebody would be less likely to set up a new search engine in your country.
I'm thinking of the kind of law which would require a search engine to continual censor it's results in response to government demands.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"And if their whole operation was in Spain, I'd agree. But as it is, part of their operation, the domain names, were in the U.S."
That's entirely irrelevant.
The whole point of my comment was in relation to the Anonymous Coward above who said "Right, and the fact that their legality was questionable in Spain..."
I'm assuming you are a different Anonymous Coward.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"This is a little different since it's ongoing."
Not really. In Spain, the actions have been determined to be legal twice, so the principle holds even more strongly.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"If there was no question about their legality, there wouldn't have been a trial to begin with. You follow?"
So, if somebody is charged with murder and found "not guilty," should we continue to regard their actions as legal questionable?
Re: Re: Re:
"When they registered in the U.S., they chose to subject the domain names to U.S. laws."
The issue appears to be that they aren't being subject to U.S. laws, but extra-judicial action by a state body operating outside the law.
Re: Re: Re: This site is just out of touch.
"No one is objecting to the store next door that sells merchandise it created or purchased from someone who had the right to sell it."
Plenty of people would. They would use the same argument as those who argue copying is immoral. They would say that through the first person who opened the shop had an idea that there was a market for what they wanted to sell and did all the research to establish that. They would argue that the second person, opening a shop in direct competition, is a parasite, who, on seeing the success of the first person's idea, copied it, taking advantage of that first person's original idea and research without giving anything in return.
"A guy next door (or down the block or on the other side of the world) who selling goods I brought to market by the sweat of my brow and the force of my skill, is a parasite."
And of course, you could use the same argument to say that the person who sees you skilfully spot a gap in the market, watches you successfully fill it with your shop and then copies your idea and takes your customers, is a parasite.
The two arguments stand or fall together.
Re: This site is just out of touch.
It's a common argument, but it is a flawed one. Plagiarism is a completely separate issue to copyright. Most material that is copied is not mis-attributed and is therefore not plagiaristic. Appeals that rely on references to plagiarism are usually appeals to emotion which the person making knows wouldn't hold if the reference were to correctly attributed copying.
In any case, the feeling of being ripped off and it not being pleasant doesn't make a great basis for decisions. Somebody who opens a shop and then sees a competitor open next door might feel unhappy about it, but that hasn't lead to a ban on competing shops.