That’s somewhat narrower than COICA’s terminology, which is here:įor purposes of this section, an Internet site is ‘dedicated to infringing activities’ if such enabling or facilitating sale, distribution, or promotion of goods, services or materials bearing a counterfeit market, as that term is defined in section 34(d) of the Lanham Act.enabling or facilitating the reproduction, distribution, or performance of copyright works, in complete or substantially complete form, in a manner that constitutes copyright infringement under section 501 of title 17, or offering goods or services in violation of section 1201 of title 17 or.The term “Internet site dedicated to infringing activities” means an Internet site accessed through a specific domain name that has no use other than, or is designed, operated, or marketed by its operator persons operating in concert with the operator, primarily as a means for. On the “limit” to the definition of what sites qualify, it’s still incredibly broad: When you dig into the actual text, nearly all of these “good” changes are either not really true, or are greatly limited by other aspects. Finally, it attempts to narrow the scope of what qualifies as being covered by the act under the phrase “dedicated to infringing material.” On top of that, PROTECT IP no longer includes the ability to go to domain registers and registrars and require them to remove domains or hand them over to the government. Today, with domain seizures, it takes weeks or sometimes months for site owners to be given notice. In addition, the bill would require that the Attorney General (or the copyright holder) send notice to those impacted “upon commencement” of such actions. The bill also attempts to make it clear that, officially, PROTECT IP does not expand secondary liability. This could, in theory, provide more due process for those running such sites. While COICA clearly focused on the domain names as the party, PROTECT IP also recognizes that regular lawsuits should be brought against those responsible, rather than just focusing on taking down the site (in legal terms, it requires an “in personam action” - against the person - be filed before an “in rem action” - against the property). Officially, the bill limits the “definition” of what constitutes a site dedicated to infringing activities.
#Usher you got it bad mp3 download skull free
It looks like the drafters clearly heard some of the complaints that many have raised concerning the attacks on due process and free speech and have scaled some of them back (though, not as much as they want you to believe - but we’ll get to that). Let’s break it down into the good, the bad and the horribly ugly.
#Usher you got it bad mp3 download skull full
Thankfully, the folks over at Don’t Censor the Internet have the full text of the PROTECT IP Act, which I’ve embedded below as well.
It looked bad, but some people complained that we were jumping ahead without the actual text of the bill, even if the summary document was pretty straightforward and was put together by the same people creating the bill. Yesterday, we got our hands on a leaked copy of the “summary” document put together by those writing the new version of COICA, now renamed the much more media friendly PROTECT IP Act. Wed, May 11th 2011 08:11am - Mike Masnick
0 kommentar(er)
