3 ms·
I decided to read S. 3804 to understand the technical implications therein, and I am not a lawyer, but here was my basic understanding: If a website's primary
by brandon 16y ago
I decided to read S. 3804 to understand the technical implications therein, and I am not a lawyer, but here was my basic understanding:
If a website's primary purpose is copyright infringement or counterfeiting, and if your domain was registered domestically, then the Attorney General can take it away. If your domain name was registered non-domestically, the following will happen:
- Domestic ISPs will be required to DNS blacklist your domain name.
- Domestic payment processing and advertising companies will be forbidden from doing business with you.
Again, IANAL, so if someone else has a more insightful reading please let me know. I couldn't find a lay explanation anywhere.
- gasull 16y agoCopyright infringement has nothing to do with counterfeiting. It seems to me that politicians are bundling them together in their newspeak, like in the infamous Anti-"Counterfeiting" Trade Agreement (ACTA https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Anti-Counterfeiting_Trade_Agreement https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Anti-Counterf...), to make anti-piracy more palatable to the public. Yes, I know it sounds conspiracy-theorish, but remember they have been negotiating the ACTA with all the secrecy.
- metageek 16y ago>Copyright infringement has nothing to do with counterfeiting. That's not really true. Counterfeit goods often involve copyright violations. The bit that raises the conspiracy hackles is that, if you say "counterfeiting", you're conflating counterfeit goods and counterfeit money.
- gasull 16y agoCounterfeit goods often involve copyright violations. OK, but that's just tangential.
- InclinedPlane 16y agoThis would seem to violate due process. The US already has a legal system and the capability to issue injunctions against ISPs and hosting companies to take down sites that have been found, in court, to violate the law.