Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.misc > #8130 > unrolled thread

Victory for CloudFlare Against SOPA-like Court Order: Internet Service Doesn't Have to Police Music Labels' Trademark

Back to article view | Back to comp.misc

Contents

  Victory for CloudFlare Against SOPA-like Court Order: Internet Service Doesn't Have to Police Music Labels' Trademark Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2015-07-15 21:02 +0000
    Re: Victory for CloudFlare Against SOPA-like Court Order: Internet Service Doesn't Have to Police Music Labels' Trademark True Satan <true_satan@fastmail.co.uk> - 2015-07-15 22:08 +0000
      Re: Victory for CloudFlare Against SOPA-like Court Order: Internet Service Doesn't Have to Police Music Labels' Trademark RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2015-07-16 06:26 +0000
        Re: Victory for CloudFlare Against SOPA-like Court Order: Internet   Service Doesn't Have to Police Music Labels' Trademark Larry Sheldon <lfsheldon@gmail.com> - 2015-07-16 02:02 -0500

#8130 — Victory for CloudFlare Against SOPA-like Court Order: Internet Service Doesn't Have to Police Music Labels' Trademark

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/07/victory-cloudflare-against-sopa-court-order-internet-service-doesnt-have-police

Quoting from the URL above:

   Striking a blow against the continuing effort to force service providers
   to serve as IP police, CloudFlare and EFF have pushed back against a
   court order that would have required CloudFlare to monitor its service
   to enforce a trademark held by a group of music labels. Last week, Judge
   Alison J. Nathan of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
   New York ruled that CloudFlare does not have to search out and block
   customers who use variations on the name "grooveshark." Instead,
   CloudFlare must take action only if it has "knowledge of an
   infringement" (for example, when the labels send a takedown notice).
   Given that this is essentially what US law already requires, Judge
   Nathan's order puts paid to the latest strategy to institute trademark-
   and copyright-related filtering ? at least in this case.

   The dispute started in May, as record labels sought to disappear a
   website that called itself Grooveshark and appeared to be a clone of a
   popular music-sharing site those same labels had shut down in April
   after settling a copyright lawsuit. That settlement left the labels in
   control of the original Grooveshark's trademarks. Claiming trademark
   infringement, the labels applied to the U.S. District Court for the
   Southern District of New York for a secret order to shut down the site,
   which was then located at grooveshark.io. Judge Deborah A. Batts granted
   the order in secret.

   Three weeks later, Judge Nathan ruled that the order also applied to
   CloudFlare, a content delivery network and "reverse proxy" service. The
   order apparently required CloudFlare to block all of its customers from
   using domain names that contained "grooveshark," regardless of whether
   those domains contained First Amendment-protected speech, or had any
   connection with the "New Grooveshark" defendants who were the targets of
   the actual lawsuit.

   ...

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#8131

Thank you for drawing attention to this Rich.

 The case is extremely important as it relates to freedom of speech, 
secret rulings that rob us all of rights we had assumed were inviolate 
and judicial over-reach in support of na powerful lobby interest group. 
In microcosm it reflects much that is going wrong  these days.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8134

On 2015-07-15, True Satan <true_satan@fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
> Thank you for drawing attention to this Rich.
>
>  The case is extremely important as it relates to freedom of speech, 
> secret rulings that rob us all of rights we had assumed were inviolate 
> and judicial over-reach in support of na powerful lobby interest group. 
> In microcosm it reflects much that is going wrong  these days.

Th next time we send a probe to outer space can we put the entire RIAA
lobby on it instead of a dead astronomer's ashes?  So tired of this
bullshit.

Remember the very early days, when they shut down OLGA, the online
guitar archive?  Because God forbid guitarists share printed sheet music
they largely picked out and figured for themselves.  OLGA got shutdown
hard, but before the music industry could pat itself on the back too
vigorously they promptly got shafted by Napster and the like opening the
barn door on music sharing itself.

So tired of this bullshit.  And I do miss OLGA.  Ironically, the
original Usenet groups that OLGA tried to archive are doing reasonably
well.  Take that, music industry - F.U.C.K. Y.O.U.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8136 — Re: Victory for CloudFlare Against SOPA-like Court Order: Internet Service Doesn't Have to Police Music Labels' Trademark

On 7/16/2015 01:26, RS Wood wrote:
> On 2015-07-15, True Satan <true_satan@fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> Thank you for drawing attention to this Rich.
>>
>>   The case is extremely important as it relates to freedom of speech,
>> secret rulings that rob us all of rights we had assumed were inviolate
>> and judicial over-reach in support of na powerful lobby interest group.
>> In microcosm it reflects much that is going wrong  these days.
>
> Th next time we send a probe to outer space can we put the entire RIAA
> lobby on it instead of a dead astronomer's ashes?  So tired of this
> bullshit.
>
> Remember the very early days, when they shut down OLGA, the online
> guitar archive?  Because God forbid guitarists share printed sheet music
> they largely picked out and figured for themselves.  OLGA got shutdown
> hard, but before the music industry could pat itself on the back too
> vigorously they promptly got shafted by Napster and the like opening the
> barn door on music sharing itself.
>
> So tired of this bullshit.  And I do miss OLGA.  Ironically, the
> original Usenet groups that OLGA tried to archive are doing reasonably
> well.  Take that, music industry - F.U.C.K. Y.O.U.

I am of the opinion that this stuff--like all monopolies--is a 
collection of malignancies that need to be excised.


-- 
sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Juvenal)

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.misc

csiph-web