Skip to main content

View Diary: What the Hell Is Wrong With Al Franken? (326 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The law is written narrowly (0+ / 0-)

    This is from PROTECT-IP (the Senate bill):

    (7) the term ‘Internet site dedicated to infringing activities’ means an Internet site that--

    (A) has no significant use other than engaging in, enabling, or facilitating the--

    (i) reproduction, distribution, or public performance of copyrighted works, in complete or substantially complete form, in a manner that constitutes copyright infringement undersection 501 of title 17, United States Code;

    (ii) violation ofsection 1201 of title 17, United States Code; or

    (iii) sale, distribution, or promotion of goods, services, or materials bearing a counterfeit mark, as that term is defined in section 34(d) of the Lanham Act; or

    (B) is designed, operated, or marketed by its operator or persons operating in concert with the operator, and facts or circumstances suggest is used, primarily as a means for engaging in, enabling, or facilitating the activities described under clauses (i), (ii), or (iii) of subparagraph (A);

    How in the world would "limited instances of violation" turn a web site into one that "has no significant use" other than copyright infringement?

    Really, the level of obfuscation and hyperbole in the opposition to this bill has been very high. One can present the actual language of the bill, and in the end the final punt will be: well, I just know those fascist SOBs will do whatever they want because they are in thrall to their masters.

    It reminds me of basic libertarian argumentation where basically any law is painted as totalitarian and/or impossible to administer fairly based on infinite semantic decomposition.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site