1oz61wa

Recommendations

Info

Civil Remedies 188. A technical overview is available here: http://www.securityweek.com/dnssecs-time-here-sopa-presentschallenges; see also Steve Crocker, et al., “Security and Other Technical Concerns Raised by the DNS Filtering Requirements in the PROTECT IP Bill,” CircleID (May 2011) (available at http://www.circleid.com/pdf/ PROTECT-IP-Technical-Whitepaper-Final.pdf). 189. E.g., United States Olympic Committee v. 2000Olympic.com, No. 1:00-cv-1018-A (E.D. Va. 2000) (in rem action against 1,800 foreign domain names under Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, 15 U.S.C.§1125(d)). For example, bodog.com was registered with a Canadian company but seized by U.S. authorities because VeriSign is U.S.-based. See David Kravets, “Uncle Sam: If It Ends in .Com, It’s .Seizable,” (Mar. 6, 2012) (available at http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/feds-seize-foreign-sites/); see also Mike Masnick, “Homeland Security Seizes Spanish Domain Name That Had Already Been Declared Legal,” TechDirt (Feb. 1, 2011) (available at http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110201/10252412910/homeland-security-seizesspanish-domain-name-that-had-already-been-declared-legal.shtml); Terry Hart, “Rojadirecta Seeks Return of Seized Domain Names,” Copyhype (July 13, 2011) (available at http://www.copyhype.com/2011/07/rojadirectaseeks-return-of-seized-domain-names/); Mike Masnick, “US Government Admits It Has Seized Hundreds Of Domains Registered Outside The US,” TechDirt (Mar. 9, 2011) (available at http://www.techdirt.com/articles/ 20120309/04064518045/us-government-admits-it-has-seized-hundreds-domains-registered-outside-us.shtml). For a list of .org domains seized by the U.S. government, see http://pir.org/policies/takedown-policy/ takedown_notices/. 190. See, e.g., Press Release, “Operation In Our Sites protects American online shoppers, cracks down on counterfeiters: ICE-led IPR Center seizes 150 website domains selling counterfeit and pirated merchandise,” ICE (Nov. 28, 2011) (available at http://www.ice.gov/news/releases/1111/111128washingtondc.htm). 191. Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (“ACPA”), 15 U.S.C. §1125(d)(2)(A) (1999). 192. Hermès Int’l et al. v. John Doe et al., No. 12 Civ. 1623, at 10 (S.D.N.Y., April 30, 2012) (default judgment and permanent injunction). 193. “In computing, a blacklist or block list is a basic access control mechanism that allows everyone access, except for the members of the black list (i.e. list of denied accesses).” Wikipedia, Blacklist (computing) (available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blacklist_(computing)). 194. Testimony of Thomas M. Dailey, Vice President and Deputy General Counsel, Verizon, before the Judiciary Committee, S. Hr’g Tr. 112-47 at 10 (Feb. 16, 2011) (available at http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/pdf/ 11-2-16%20Adams%20Testimony.pdf) (“First, we appreciate the fact that the Committee has included in the legislation provisions that appropriately limit the bill’s impact on Internet service providers, such as not requiring a service provider to modify its network or facilities to comply with a judicial order. Second, we think the limitation that ISPs will be required to take action only pursuant to a judicial order issued in a lawsuit filed by the Department of Justice will help ensure COICA is narrowly invoked.”). 195. 17 U.S.C. §512(j) (the DMCA) sets forth conditions under which a court may grant injunctive relief against service providers that are not subject to monetary remedies because they qualify for one or more DMCA “safe harbors”. In the case of ISPs, §512(j)(1)(B)(ii) expressly allows issuance of “an order restraining the [ISP] from providing access, by taking reasonable steps specified in the order to block access, to a specific, identified, online location outside the United States.” Although this section might seem to make the site-blocking provisions of COICA, PIPA and SOPA redundant, this is almost certainly not correct. Although §512(j) is largely unlitigated, it seems clear that, unlike the three recent bills, a plaintiff seeking a site-blocking injunction under §512(j) has to first establish that the ISP is itself liable for direct or secondary copyright infringement with respect to the “specific, identified, online location outside the United States”, and the ISP must then establish its eligibility for a “safe harbor” under §512(a) of the DMCA, before a court is permitted to issue a site-blocking injunction under §512(j). By contrast, of course, COICA, PIPA and SOPA provided for “no-fault” injunctions against ISPs, once the liability of the foreign site sought to be blocked was established. In sum, the three recent bills made obtaining a site-blocking injunction against Predatory Foreign Websites far easier than existing law does. 196. Josh Halliday, “Pirate Bay blockade begins with Virgin Media,” The Guardian (UK) (May 2, 2012) (available at http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/may/02/pirate-bay-block-virgin-media). 197. Wikipedia, Cleanfeed (content blocking system) (available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Cleanfeed_%28content_blocking_system%29). 198. TorrentFreak.com, “Censoring the Pirate Bay is Useless, Research Shows” (Apr. 13, 2012) (available at http://torrentfreak.com/censoring-the-pirate-bay-is-useless-research-shows-120413/). 199. David Sohn, “Copyright Bill Advances, But Draws Plenty of Criticism,” CDT (May 26, 2011) 45
Chapter 2 (available at http://www.cdt.org/blogs/david-sohn/copyright-bill-advances-draws-plenty-criticism); see also David Sohn & Mark Stanley, “The Open Internet Fights Back,” CDT (Jan. 16, 2012) (available at http://cdt.org/ blogs/161open-internet-fights-back); Eric Engleman & Chiara Remondini, “Google Plans Home Page Protest Against U.S. Piracy Measures,” Business Week (Jan. 18, 2012) (available at http://www.businessweek.com/ news/2012-01-18/google-plans-home-page-protest-against-u-s-piracy-measures.html); David Lee, “Sopa and Pipa protests not over, says Wikipedia,” BBC News (Jan. 19, 2012) (available at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/ technology-16628143); “Support wanes in US Congress for anti-piracy bill,” BBC News (Jan. 19, 2012) (available at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16623831). 200. Press Release, “Smith to Remove DNS Blocking from SOPA” (Jan. 13, 2012) (available at http:// judiciary.house.gov/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=1B599847-E075-63F8-612A-C2537551E11B). 201. Hermès Int’l et al. v. John Doe et al., No. 12 Civ. 1623, at 10 (S.D.N.Y., April 30, 2012) (default judgment and permanent injunction). 202. See also Mike Masnick, “The Sky is Rising,” TechDirt (2012) (available at http://www.techdirt.com/ skyisrising/). 203. RIAA Press Release, “Recording Industry To Begin Collecting Evidence And Preparing Lawsuits Against File Sharers,” RIAA (June 25, 2003) (available at https://www.riaa.org/ newsitem.php?content_selector=newsandviews&news_month_filter=6&news_year_filter=2003&id=2B9DA905- 4A0D-8439-7EE1-EC9953A22DB9). 204. David Kravetz, “Copyright Lawsuits Plummet in Aftermath of RIAA Campaign,” Threat Level Blog (May 18, 2010) (available at http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/05/riaa-bump/). 205. Id.; see also Electronic Frontier Foundation, “RIAA v. The People: Five Years Later” (Sept. 30, 2008) (available at https://www.eff.org/wp/riaa-v-people-five-years-later). 206. Electronic Frontier Foundation, “MPAA v. the People” (available at https://w2.eff.org/IP/P2P/ MPAA_v_ThePeople/) (detailing the MPAA’s enforcement campaign). 207. Erika Morphy, “A Timely Reminder that MPAA and RIAA Shouldn’t Be Trusted with Too Much Enforcement Power.” Forbes (Jan. 13, 2012) (available at http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikamorphy/2012/01/23/ a-timely-reminder-that-mpaa-and-riaa-shouldnt-be-trusted-with-too-much-enforcement-power/2/). 208. Office of the U.S. Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator, 2011 IPEC Annual Report on Intellectual Property Enforcement (available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/IPEC/ ipec_annual_report_mar2012.pdf). 46
Page 1 and 2:
A Section White Paper: A Call for A
Page 3 and 4:
The views expressed herein represen
Page 5 and 6:
Call for Action for Online Piracy a
Page 7 and 8:
Call for Action for Online Piracy a
Page 10 and 11:
INTRODUCTION: BALANCING THE INTERES
Page 12 and 13: Introduction found in national laws
Page 14 and 15: Introduction There are also many si
Page 16: Introduction 12. “Medicines: spur
Page 19 and 20: Chapter 1 adjudication of extra-ter
Page 21 and 22: Chapter 1 law and the broadest pote
Page 24 and 25: Chapter 2 CIVIL REMEDIES I. SECTION
Page 26 and 27: Civil Remedies By way of further cl
Page 28 and 29: Civil Remedies ad revenue, payment
Page 30 and 31: Civil Remedies Whether the Predator
Page 32 and 33: Civil Remedies Knowledge. The “kn
Page 34 and 35: Civil Remedies ISPs and web hosting
Page 36 and 37: Civil Remedies . . . . However, thi
Page 38 and 39: Civil Remedies trademark owner, Tif
Page 40 and 41: Civil Remedies Finally, the alterna
Page 42 and 43: Civil Remedies Legislative revision
Page 44 and 45: Civil Remedies Most intermediaries
Page 46 and 47: Civil Remedies of foreign sites who
Page 48 and 49: Civil Remedies the RIAA initiated l
Page 50 and 51: Civil Remedies employ DNSSEC, which
Page 52 and 53: Civil Remedies 25. See BAE Systems
Page 54 and 55: Civil Remedies 121, 134-35 (2d Cir.
Page 56 and 57: Civil Remedies 84. Id. at 1169. 85.
Page 58 and 59: Civil Remedies 124. Id. at 5. 125.
Page 60 and 61: Civil Remedies at *10-*11, *24-*25
Page 64 and 65: Chapter 3 PRIVATE ENFORCEMENT ACTIO
Page 66 and 67: Private Enforcement Actions labeled
Page 68: Private Enforcement Actions interme
Page 71 and 72: Chapter 4 the Civil Remedies chapte
Page 73 and 74: Chapter 4 These complaints, while b
Page 75 and 76: Chapter 4 The Act would not have es
Page 77 and 78: Chapter 4 Evoking by far the most i
Page 79 and 80: Chapter 4 States Interests at Home
Page 81 and 82: Chapter 4 47. Combating Online Infr
Page 84 and 85: Chapter 5 VOLUNTARY ACTION I. SECTI
Page 86 and 87: Voluntary Action it timely responde
Page 88 and 89: Voluntary Action Content owners may
Page 90 and 91: Voluntary Action various ISPs and m
Page 92 and 93: Voluntary Action Partnerships, such
Page 94 and 95: Voluntary Action (1) Google Play Fo
Page 96 and 97: Voluntary Action Other registrars,
Page 98 and 99: Voluntary Action Notes 1. Preventin
Page 100 and 101: Voluntary Action websites. eBay rec
Page 102 and 103: Voluntary Action 80. See “What is
Page 104 and 105: Voluntary Action 116. See “Report
Page 106 and 107: Chapter 6 SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS Th
Page 108: Summary of Conclusions • Encourag
Page 111 and 112: Appendix summaries provided below o
Page 113 and 114:
Appendix from the Senate bill. In m
Page 115 and 116:
Appendix It appears that this bill
Page 117 and 118:
Appendix b) Statements in Oppositio
Page 119 and 120:
Appendix 4. Miscellaneous Provision
Page 121 and 122:
Appendix As of December 15, 2011, a
Page 123 and 124:
Appendix 106 C. Online Protection a
Page 125 and 126:
Appendix • Finally, costs to proc
Page 127 and 128:
Appendix plenty-criticism); see als
Page 129 and 130:
Appendix 49. Art Brodsky, “Public
Page 132:
About the ABA Section of Intellectu
show all

1oz61wa

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?