Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobblehead
Could smaller websites caught in the crossfire afford to fight these claims? How much effort would be required for them to reverse the erroneous claims?
|
I think that's a major concern here. The target is foreign websites and the courts will be in America. Getting over alone will be an issue.
Of course, it doesn't help I keep flip-flopping on what the interpretation is...the clause begins with "with the prior approval of the court". This still seems to imply that there is a prior screening process, and that after the court order is given, the plaintiff must give 5 days notice to the funding organizations before filing the suit...doesn't affect the fact that if the court agrees there is reasonable claism, small projects will get killed, but it looks like at least arbitrary and petty things might not get through and may mitigate the "guity until proven innocent attitude" taken.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobblehead
It isn't just the direct pirate sites being pegged.
Any "Internet site is committing or facilitating the commission of criminal violations punishable under section 2318, 2319, 2319A, 2319B, or 2320, or chapter 90, of title 18, United States Code" (Sec 102(a)(2)) is liable.
|
That is also an issue. A huge concern for me is where the court order is placed. If you can pull funding from a site before a judge gets the chance to even look and see if it's worth filing suit over, it's a complete mess and open season. The more I'm re-reading her comments on it though, the more it sounds like a more complicated process of acquiring a court order to be able to pull, giving companies notice, then filing suit.