Philip Loenneker wrote:
I have a tongue-in-cheek question... if the documentation provided by
the plaintiff to the court, and/or the court documentation including
the final ruling, includes the specific URLs to the websites to
block, does that constitute transmitting links to illegal content?
org
Subject: Re: Court orders for blocking of streaming services
Mel Beckman wrote:
You are confusing "illegal" and "guilty".
The first party publicly transmitting illegal contents or links to the contents
are guilty, which means the links themselves are illegal.
But, DM
Mel Beckman wrote:
You are confusing "illegal" and "guilty".
The first party publicly transmitting illegal contents
or links to the contents are guilty, which means the
links themselves are illegal.
But, DMCA makes some third party providers providing
illegal contents or illegal links guilty on
A point of order:
> The plaintiff’s won a default judgement, because the defendants didn’t show
> up in court. But they could not have shown up in court, because they were
> only listed as “John Does” in the lawsuit.
It's actually a lawsuit against "Does 1-10 DBA Isreal.tv", so the defendants
Masataka,
You’re incorrect about the DMCA when you say “DMCA treats ‘linking’ to illegal
contents as illegal as the contents themselves”. You must knowingly link to
works that clearly infringe somebody’s copyright. A link to the Israel.TV
websites themselves is not to a specific work, so it’s
First, I have NOT read this order, however:
> As the order is to those "having actual knowledge of this Default
> Judgment and Permanent Injunction Order
This tells me all that I need to know in terms of the scope of it. A default
judgement means that the defendant never responded. That means
Mel Beckman wrote:
But the phrase "or linking to the domain" Includes hundreds, possibly
thousands, of unwitting certain parties:
DMCA treats "linking" to illegal contents as illegal as the
contents themselves, which is why I wrote:
: In addition, it seems to me that name server operators "ha
Masataka,
But the phrase “or linking to the domain” Includes hundreds, possibly
thousands, of unwitting certain parties: anyone who operates search services,
or permits people to post links in discussion groups, for example, would be
included.
I think I am simply right.
The lawsuit is contr
Mel Beckman wrote:
The plaintiff’s won a default judgement, because the defendants
didn’t show up in court. But they could not have shown up in court,
because they were only listed as "John Does" in the lawsuit. Thus no
defendant could have "actual knowledge" that they were sued,
As the defend
On Sun, 2022-05-08 at 12:01 +, Mel Beckman wrote:
> The plaintiff’s won a default judgement, because the defendants didn’t show
> up in court. But they could not have shown up in court, because they were
> only listed as “John Does” in the lawsuit. Thus no defendant could have
> “actual kno
The plaintiff’s won a default judgement, because the defendants didn’t show up
in court. But they could not have shown up in court, because they were only
listed as “John Does” in the lawsuit. Thus no defendant could have “actual
knowledge” that they were sued, let alone be serviced with litiga
John Levine wrote:
I agree that the rest of the language demanding that every ISP,
hosting provider, credit union, bank, and presumably nail salon and
coin laundry in the US stop serving the defendants is nuts.
As the order is to those "having actual knowledge of this Default
Judgment and Perm
It appears that Joe Greco said:
>While the issue of domains being confiscated and being handed over to a
>prevailing plaintiff for an international domain with no obvious nexus
>to the United States ...
Most of the domains do have US nexus. Two are in .TV, one in .COM,
both run by Verisign, one i
On 5/5/22 6:07 AM, Joe Greco wrote:
Greetings -
Hello,
Aside: Any greeting more cheerful / up beat seems ... misplaced.
Recently, a court issued a troubling set of rulings in a default decision
against "Israel.TV" and some other sites.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.n
On 5 May 2022, at 7:12 AM, William Herrin
mailto:b...@herrin.us>> wrote:
On Thu, May 5, 2022 at 3:09 AM Joe Greco
mailto:jgr...@ns.sol.net>> wrote:
It seems to me like the court overstepped here and issued a ruling
that contained a lot of wishful thinking that doesn't reflect the
ability of mi
On Thu, May 5, 2022 at 3:09 AM Joe Greco wrote:
> It seems to me like the court overstepped here and issued a ruling
> that contained a lot of wishful thinking that doesn't reflect the
> ability of miscreants on the Internet to just rapidly register a new
> domain name with a new fake credit card.
Joe -
All excellent questions. The Internet is a relatively new phenomenon when it
comes to the US court system and thus there has always been an ongoing risk of
“interesting” court orders that are shaped by primarily by the plaintiffs
understanding of the Internet (rather than being shaped a
17 matches
Mail list logo
