[vox] What's On the Blacklist? Three Sites That S OPA Could Put at Risk [EFF]

[timriley at appahost.com]

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [vox] What's On the Blacklist? Three Sites That SOPA Could
> Put at Risk [EFF]
> From: Eric Rasmussen <ericrasmussen at gmail.com>
> Date: Thu, December 01, 2011 1:24 pm
> To: "LUGOD's general discussion mailing list" <vox at lists.lugod.org>
> 
> 
> In the PDF see "SEC. 103. MARKET-BASED SYSTEM TO PROTECT U.S.
> CUSTOMERS AND PREVENT U.S. FUNDING OF SITES DEDICATED TO THEFT OF U.S.
> PROPERTY."
> 
> I have no specialized legal knowledge so I'm relying on the EFF
> interpretation, but these points support their claim. Under
> DEFINITIONS it says:
> 
> "Internet site is dedicated to theft of U.S. property if --
> 
>     (A) it is an Internet site, or a portion thereof, that is a
> U.S.-directed site and is used by users within the United States; and
> 
>     (B) either—
>       (i) the U.S.-directed site is primarily designed or operated for
> the purpose of, has only limited purpose or use other than, or is
> marketed by its operator or another acting in concert with that
> operator for use in, offering goods or services in a manner that
> engages in, enables, or facilitates—
>          (I) a violation of section 501 of title 17, United States Code;"
> 
> In the event an Etsy user posts copyright-infringing materials (that's
> Section 501 of title 17), Etsy meets the above requirements and under
> the law may now be deemed an Internet site dedicated to theft of U.S.
> property. The next part says a qualifying plaintiff may be defined as
> "a holder of an intellectual property right harmed by the activities
> described in paragraph (1) occurring on that Internet site or portion
> thereof".
> 
> Continuing the previous made-up example, this means Acme can be a
> qualifying plaintiff against Etsy if a portion of Etsy's site contains
> any of Acme's copyrighted materials. In the section titled "DENYING
> U.S. FINANCIAL SUPPORT DEDICATED TO THEFT OF U.S. PROPERTY" and under
> "(1) PAYMENT NETWORK PROVIDERS", it says:
> 
> "a payment network provider shall take technically feasible and
> reasonable measures, as expeditiously as possible, but in any case
> within 5 days after delivery of a notification under paragraph (4),
> that are designed to prevent, prohibit, or suspend its service from
> completing payment transactions involving customers located within the
> United States and the Internet site, or portion thereof, that is
> specified in the notification under paragraph (4)."
> 
> The referenced paragraph 4 lists out the requirements of sending such
> a letter, but it appears that any legal entity could send it on behalf
> of the "holder of the intellectual property right". And that's where
> the EFF example comes in. In our example, Acme doesn't have to go
> through the government or notify Etsy. They can simply write a letter
> like in EFF's example and send it straight to Etsy's payment provider
> to have their payment processing suspended.

Generally speaking, Acme must go through a judge to get a law
enforced. Judges can order halts to transactions.
But maybe this is the poison pill.

BTW, I misspoke earlier when I said "payment" wasn't part of the text.
I used the browser's search, not the PDF search.

<snip>