Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act

Sec. 2324. Internet sites dedicated to infringing activities

‘(a) Definition- For purposes of this section, an Internet site is ‘dedicated to infringing activities’ if such site--

‘(1) is otherwise subject to civil forfeiture to the United States Government under section 2323; or

‘(2) is--

‘(A) primarily designed, has no demonstrable, commercially significant purpose or use other than, or is marketed by its operator, or by a person acting in concert with the operator, to offer--

‘(i) goods or services in violation of title 17, United States Code, or enable or facilitate a violation of title 17, United States Code, including by offering or providing access to, without the authorization of the copyright owner or otherwise by operation of law, copies of, or public performance or display of, works protected by title 17, in complete or substantially complete form, by any means, including by means of download, transmission, or otherwise, including the provision of a link or aggregated links to other sites or Internet resources for obtaining such copies for accessing such performance or displays; or

‘(ii) to sell or distribute goods, services, or materials bearing a counterfeit mark, as that term is defined in section 34(d) of the Act entitled ‘An Act to provide for the registration and protection of trademarks used in commerce, to carry out the provisions of certain international conventions, and for other purposes’, approved July 5, 1946 (commonly referred to as the ‘Trademark Act of 1946’ or the ‘Lanham Act’; 15 U.S.C. 1116(d)); and

‘(B) engaged in the activities described in subparagraph (A), and when taken together, such activities are central to the activity of the Internet site or sites accessed through a specific domain name.

‘(b) Injunctive Relief- On application of the Attorney General following the commencement of an action pursuant to subsection (c), the court may issue a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction, or an injunction against the domain name used by an Internet site dedicated to infringing activities to cease and desist from undertaking any infringing activity in violation of this section, in accordance with rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A party described in subsection (e) receiving an order issued pursuant to this section shall take the appropriate actions described in subsection (e).

Section e provides that domains shall be blocked by DNRs.  That means that the DNR is legally required to block the IP. 

This is an interesting, read alarming bill.  It proposes that if an internet entity is allegedly engaged in what is already an illegal activity and punishable under the law can have their domain name blocked and thus be put out of business without a trial on the merits of the alleged infringement.

Common sense suggests that this proposal is at best illegal.  It proposes as a remedy a kind of prior restraint not on the offender but on domain name registration sites without a court hearing on the merits of the complaint.  It seems little more than yet another attempt by copyright holders to take punitive action without the burden of proving their complaint against an alleged infringement.  One is reminded of Viacom's recent litigation with YouTube wherein the court ruled in favor of YouTube.  Under this proposed bill YouTube would have been put out of business BEFORE the case was heard and Viacom LOST.

Copyrights are important to the protection of intellectual property to be sure.  But this is a very ill considered bill that attempts an end run around well established judicial processes.

Firestorm Erupts After Blogger Says His $400G Income Doesn't Make Him Rich

Todd Henderson, a law professor at the University of Chicago, usually kept his blog posts to matters of corporate law and the markets. But last week he made it personal.

He posted a portrait of his family finances to make his case that those who make more than $250,000 a year are struggling, like everyone else, to make ends meet -- even though people in that income bracket will see their taxes go up if President Obama succeeds in his plan to extend the Bush tax cuts only for low- and middle-income Americans.

“A quick look at our family budget, which I will gladly share with the White House, will show him that, like many Americans, we are just getting by despite seeming to be rich. We aren’t,” Henderson wrote. 

He said he and his wife, a doctor, paid $100,000 in federal and state taxes last year and $15,000 in property taxes. He wrote that they have a mortgage on a house they own a short distance from President Obama’s home, and they are paying off $250,000 in student loans. With an annual income of more than $400,000, he wrote, he and his wife are  far from super-rich.

...

But others disagree -- and none more bitingly than Prof. Bradford DeLong of the University of California at Berkeley, who dismissed Henderson’s posting as whining.

"By any standard they are rich,” DeLong said. "But they don’t feel rich.” 

He said the things Henderson takes for granted — retirement savings, private schools, new cars — are out of reach for most Americans, and he dismissed his complaint as a simple “cash flow problem.”

But Michelle Newton-Francis, a sociology professor at American University, said Henderson's blog had an impact because it showed “the country is redefining what it means to be rich and powerful.”

Common sense - 99% of Americans can NOT afford retirement savings, private schools, new cars and doubtless many of the things that Henderson assumes is his right!  $400,000 IS a lot of money.  It would buy the average house in suburban Boston for cash with money left over!  Henderson understandably doesn't want to pay more taxes.  No one does.  But if he's just getting by, he needs to look at how he's spending his money as he is by the standard of all but a fraction of 1% of Americans, rich.

As to Newton-Francis, it is NOT the country that is redefining what it means to be rich and powerful, it is the rich and powerful that want the other 99%+ of Americans to buy into the idea that they are not rich and powerful.  

Common sense suggests that it is long past time for Congress to begin acting on behalf of the average American not the rich and powerful who view themselves as entitled or big business that thinks shipping jobs overseas is OK. 

Senate GOP blocks bill that would promote less outsourcing

"Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, September 28, 2010; 12:34 PM

Senate Republicans on Tuesday blocked a Democratic plan to encourage companies to bring jobs back from overseas, as a united GOP caucus voted against a motion to debate the measure on the Senate floor.  The motion failed 53 to 45.  The legislation would have raised taxes on corporations that shift operations overseas, costing U.S. jobs. It also would have awarded companies that bring jobs back from abroad by offering a two-year hiatus from payroll taxes for those positions."

So lets go slow.  Item 1, we're just coming out of the worst recession in many years.  Item 2, many middle class workers are still out of work.  Depending on whose numbers you like and on if you think discouraged workers should be counted somewhere between 9% and 19% unemployment!  Item 3, the middle class tax cut will not be extended because most Republicans and a few Democrats think that those making MORE than $250,000 per year should also get a tax cut.  Item 4, more than 90% of the benefits of the recent "small business" bill go to companies with MORE than 500 employees. And now, drum roll please, the Republicans don't think that we should encourage companies to bring jobs into this country or to penalize them for shipping jobs out of the US! 

Words like disgusting seem much to nice.  Common sense suggest that extending tax cuts to the middle class will help in this very troubled economy.  Common sense suggests that encouraging US jobs is, well, simply common sense.  Where have our politicians, particularly Republicans, gone that they've lost any semblance of common sense?