Suggested Bill Edits by: David M.

David M. has not suggested any bill edits.

Comments by: David M.

  • Allowing the commission to investigate and potentially issue directives of law without an adversarial hearing is contrary to current United States code. This provision should be struck, as a central component of copyright infringement at either a civil or criminal level requires proof of damages.
    David M.    Dec 9th, 2011 2:26 am
    0 Likes, 0 Dislikes
  • Why does this provision exist? If a legal order to suspend service to the internet site is issued legally, why would a 'may intervene' clause be necessary? This appears to be an intent to suspend financial streams based on an accusation, not a judgement.
    David M.    Dec 9th, 2011 3:03 am
    0 Likes, 0 Dislikes
  • The statement "reasonably believes" implies that there is a lack of adversarial hearing involved with this order. Issuance of Measures Described (2) based on a lack of said hearing and judgement, but just upon a complainant requesting a judgement, strikes me as a presumption of guilty.
    David M.    Dec 9th, 2011 3:38 am
    0 Likes, 0 Dislikes
  • By adding provisions for injunctive relief due to a complaint, as opposed to a judgement, this bill expands civil copyright liability to an area it currently does not. This is also a third-party liability end run around the safe harbors provision in the DCMA, which belies the statement in (1).
    David M.    Dec 9th, 2011 3:50 am
    0 Likes, 0 Dislikes
  • "Commercially reasonable" is undefined, and not defined as reasonable to which party.
    David M.    Dec 9th, 2011 3:32 am
    0 Likes, 0 Dislikes
  • "Reasonable measures" and "expeditiously as reasonable" are ambiguous and subject to interpretation. The ambiguity invites unequal application of the action based on subjective criteria.
    David M.    Dec 9th, 2011 3:31 am
    0 Likes, 0 Dislikes
  • Basing the order upon the domain name, as opposed to the underlying entity responsible for the content of the domain name (such as the owner or operator), allows the operator to terminate the domain name and vacate the judgement. Once the judgement is vacated, they can re-register the domain, with no judgement in force.
    David M.    Dec 9th, 2011 3:19 am
    0 Likes, 0 Dislikes
  • If the Lanham Act is digitized, why can't this information be linked? This applies to all referenced information in this bill - could the information be presented so as to understand the scope of the reference?
    David M.    Dec 9th, 2011 3:05 am
    0 Likes, 0 Dislikes