The Rudy Syndrome: Recent Comments

Comment on Online copyright laws won't prevent a flourishing Internet

Atty Jones — Mon, 02 Jan 2012 23:23:05 GMT

Dear Alsee-

It seems maybe you are proposing a more fundamental change to the burden of proof in US courts? The standard in criminal cases (beyond a reasonable doubt) and civil cases (preponderance or clear & convincing, depending on the type of claim) have been developed over decades of jurisprudence. That is way out of our league to change and outside the scope of what we are talking about here.

There are thousands of examples of situations, based both on statutory law and procedural rules, where people can move a court to issue an order prior to a final adjudication of the underlying claims (in your example, a determination of actual infringement). This would include preliminary injunctions, temporary restraining orders, search warrants, pre-trial orders, various interlocutory orders, and many, many others. If you propose to change that fundamental principle of law in the US, you'll have to take it up with a higher power, like say, for example, the US Supreme Court.

Again, I will not be part of the efforts to further change SOPA as Go Daddy has withdrawn support for the bill and will no longer take a leadership role in proposing essential modifications to it. You may know we were able to significantly improve the bill, but did not get it to an acceptable version. So, I agree there are still improvements to be made, as we have said repeatedly. That's why I encourage you to present your concerns to your three elected officials (two Senators and one Congressman).

Still appreciate your involvement here. Please keep joining the conversation.

Happy New Year,

AttyJones

Comment on Predictions for 2012

Atty Jones — Mon, 02 Jan 2012 22:55:59 GMT

Dear @Zimmy21-

We have appended a few additional thoughts, just for you. But, we will conveniently leave those out of the 2012 score card as we do not have sufficient expertise to predict sports winners and losers.

Bring on steak night,

AttyJones

Comment on Predictions for 2012

Atty Jones — Mon, 02 Jan 2012 22:53:37 GMT

Dean Nima-

We try not to make predictions on topics where we have a hoped-for outcome. Seems like bad karma. But, yes, we do hope for another Yankees World Series title.

Keep the dream alive,

AttyJones

Comment on Predictions for 2012

Zimmy21 — Mon, 02 Jan 2012 20:30:43 GMT

As always, interesting Thoughts @AttyJones. Can you put a target on some of these predictions like the unemployment number you expect by 12/31/12 and the number of seats you see the Dems picking up at election time? I will give you some latitude when grading next year. How about a SuperBowl winner or at least who will be playing? Tebow?

Thank you,

@Zimmy21

Comment on Predictions for 2012

Nima Kelly — Mon, 02 Jan 2012 16:03:53 GMT

But will the New York Yankees win another World Series title?

Comment on Online copyright laws won't prevent a flourishing Internet

Alsee — Sun, 01 Jan 2012 21:39:27 GMT

"Perhaps it would relieve some of your concern to know that both SOPA and PIPA, as they currently exist, do require a court order"

No, not at all. You did not answer my objection in the slightest.
Perhaps I was unclear in my previous post, or perhaps you carelessly misread what I wrote. A third possibility, which I am reluctant to suggest, is that maybe I was clear and you did understand, and that you're hoping no one will notice that you didn't respond to what I actually said. As a programmer geek I find it hard not to analyze and list every alternative I can think of.

I said "the law operates without any court finding that there actually *is* any infringement at all". You said SOPA requiers a court order against a website. Those statements are both true. SOPA requires court orders against websites in the absense of any court case (and any defence) on whether there is in fact any infringment at all. My objection stands undiminished. As we've seen with the DMCA, an enormous amount of Fair Use or other non-infringing content is taken down. In many cases "good faith" accusations of infringment have taken down PUBLIC DOMAIN content.

SOPA operates in the absence of any court case over infringement itself, in the absence of any defense presented in court against false claims. Any law that operates in that manner will inevitably hit Fair Use or other non-infringing content, and even PUBLIC DOMAIN conent.

I understand copyright holders find it extremely inconvenient to have to take claims of infringement to court, but as you said yourself we cannot disregard the rule of law simply because it is inconvenient. Convenience is not a valid reason to carelessly infringe the rights of innocent people.

"And, there is no provision that makes it more difficult for law abiding people to find non-infringing material. Not sure what made you think that."

What makes me think that is reading the TEXT OF THE BILL currently sitting on the congressional website. Not only does it go after sites containing both infringing and non-infringing content, it will inevitably hit sites with no infringing content at all.

Furthermore the version on the congressional website contains a circumvention clause which means I can be imprisoned for publishing my own non-infringing speech. Note that as a programmer my speech is sometimes written in mathematical language or programming language. When I publish instructions informing people how to access non-infringing content, that speech may be deemed "offering a product" in violation of a circumvention injunction.

"But, to be productive, argument should be about fact, not fiction."

Great! I think it would be productive if you could directly answer "fact" or "fiction" to:
SOPA goes after sites in the absence of any court case (and the absence of any defense being made) to legally resolve whether unlawful infringement actually exists at all.

Comment on Update on SOPA

Atty Jones — Fri, 30 Dec 2011 23:59:29 GMT

Dear threexk-

Since Go Daddy withdrew its support for SOPA, we will not be taking a leadership role in the discussion any more.

As for whether we would support all future legislative efforts of the EFF, that is impossible to predict. We do frequently align with them on issues, and have worked alongside the EFF in the past on significant Internet policy initiatives. But, as with any policy making approach, we must analyze issues on a case by case basis, so I would not want to mislead you into thinking we would always stand with EFF on every issue because there is a possibility that is not true. And, despite what you may have read about me, I try to always speak the truth.

Thanks for the post,

AttyJones

Comment on Online copyright laws won't prevent a flourishing Internet

Atty Jones — Fri, 30 Dec 2011 23:53:09 GMT

Dear Frank-

As you've probably heard, Go Daddy withdrew its support for SOPA. So, it's not useful for me to discuss the specific language of the bill with you. But, it might make sense to go take a look at the current version of the definition to which you refer. It's possible you are looking at a version of the bill that was published before the manager's amendments clarified some of the definitional language.

Thanks for your post,

AttyJones

Comment on Online copyright laws won't prevent a flourishing Internet

Atty Jones — Fri, 30 Dec 2011 23:46:34 GMT

Dear James-

I'm not sure I follow your comment about Go Daddy fighting its customers. What I am sure about is that Go Daddy's customers expressed concerns over Go Daddy's position on SOPA and Go Daddy responded by withdrawing support for the bill.

You quoted one of the best examples of other people knowing what's in my head better than I do. Maybe we can reach out to that /. contributor and ask who I think will win the Super Bowl this year. They would probably know better than I.

Thanks again for the post,

AttyJones

Comment on Online copyright laws won't prevent a flourishing Internet

Atty Jones — Fri, 30 Dec 2011 23:35:26 GMT

Dear Rawrly-

While privacy policy restrictions prevent me from being specific about customer accounts, I can answer your question generically. We process many thousands of DMCA complaints each year. Those complaints go through a verification process to ensure they comply with the requirements set forth in the DMCA. It is not uncommon for us to go back to a rights holder to ask for more information to make the complaint complete, but it is not common at all for us to get blatantly false or abusive complaints. In fact, the number is so small it is not even a measurable percentage of the total complaints we get.

Since Go Daddy has withdrawn its support for SOPA, I will not engage in a discussion of its language with you. But, if you have specific concerns about it, I would encourage you to seek out your elected representatives and express your concerns to them. The best legislation is made when all voices are heard.

Thanks for your post,

AttyJones