Category: Media

  • Twitter to Censor Tweets and justifies it!-Entering China?

    Image representing Twitter as depicted in Crun...
    Image via CrunchBase

    Twitter , in its ofiicial Blog ,has atted that it will be blocking Blogs that are held offensive by a country.

    Its contention is’ Freedom is non-specific’ and varies from one country to another!?

    It explains as a sop, which it can not believe in, that it will make content available  and its stand on www. chilling effects.org.

    However ,in essence,this declaration of  blocking content is not very different from the stand of Google and Facebook who state that they will block if the content is ordered to be removed by the ‘courts’ while Twitter says it will do so if required  by ‘Law’.

    The fine distinction is that Twitter can block contents quoting specific Law, while Google and Facebook will do so on specific orders from a court.

    In India there are no specific Laws on this issue as in Germany where it is illegal to propagate ‘neo-Nazism

    So Twitter can say that its Tweets are not published because there is no specific law, if they choose.

    It is suspected that Twitter is eyeing the Chinese market where the Internet Censorship is strong where the Chinese  block a site if they want to with no recourse to legal remedy.

    At the same time,Twitter can say it is a model Corporation following law and at the same time post the informtion in Chiling effects for  rest of the world and declare it is a defender of Freedo of Expression.

    So you are an idealist crusading for freedom of Expression and at the same time make money by sacrificing the principle..

    What a double speak?

    ““The open exchange of information can have a positive global impact … almost every country in the world agrees that freedom of expression is a human right. Many countries also agree that freedom of expression carries with it responsibilities and has limits.”

    As we continue to grow internationally, we will enter countries that have different ideas about the contours of freedom of expression. Some differ so much from our ideas that we will not be able to exist there. Others are similar but, for historical or cultural reasons, restrict certain types of content, such as France or Germany, which ban pro-Nazi content.

    Until now, the only way we could take account of those countries’ limits was to remove content globally. Starting today, we give ourselves the ability to reactively withhold content from users in a specific country — while keeping it available in the rest of the world. We have also built in a way to communicate transparently to users when content is withheld, and why.

    We haven’t yet used this ability, but if and when we are required to withhold a Tweet in a specific country, we will attempt to let the user know, and we will clearly mark when the content has been withheld. As part of that transparency, we’ve expanded our partnership with Chilling Effects to share this new page,http://chillingeffects.org/twitter, which makes it easier to find notices related to Twitter.

    There’s more information in our Help pages, both on our Policy and about Your Account Settings.

    One of our core values as a company is to defend and respect each user’s voice. We try to keep content up wherever and whenever we can, and we will be transparent with users when we can’t. The Tweets must continue to flow.

    Update – Jan 27, 2:20pm. 
    Since yesterday’s post, we’ve gotten a number of questions that we’d like to broadly address with this update.

    In short, we believe the new, more granular approach to withheld content is a good thing for freedom of expression, transparency, accountability— and for our users. Besides allowing us to keep Tweets available in more places, it also allows users to see whether we are living up to our freedom of expression ideal.

    Q: Do you filter out certain Tweets before they appear on Twitter?
    A: No. Our users now send a billion Tweets every four days—filtering is neither desirable nor realistic. With this new feature, we are going to be reactive only: that is, we will withhold specific content only when required to do so in response to what we believe to be a valid and applicable legal request.

    As we do today, we will evaluate each request before taking any action. Any content we do withhold in response to such a request is clearly identified to users in that country as being withheld. And we are now able to make that content available to users in the rest of the world.

    Q: What will people see if content is withheld?
    A: If people are located in a country where a Tweet or account has been withheld and they try to view it, they will see a alert box that says “Tweet withheld” or “@Usernamewithheld” in place of the affected Tweet or account.


    Q: Why did you take this approach, and why now?
    A: There’s no magic to the timing of this feature. We’ve been working to reduce the scope of withholding, while increasing transparency, for a while. We have users all over the world and wanted to find a way to deal with requests in the least restrictive way.

    http://blog.twitter.com/2012/01/tweets-still-must-flow.html

    What is Chilling effects about?

    A joint project of the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Harvard, Stanford, Berkeley, University of San Francisco, University of Maine, George Washington School of Law, and Santa Clara University School of Law clinics.

    Do you know your online rights? Have you received a letter asking you to remove information from a Web site or to stop engaging in an activity? Are you concerned about liability for information that someone else posted to your online forum? If so, this site is for you.

    Chilling Effects aims to help you understand the protections that the First Amendment and intellectual property laws give to your online activities. We are excited about the new opportunities the Internet offers individuals to express their views, parody politicians, celebrate their favorite movie stars, or criticize businesses. But we’ve noticed that not everyone feels the same way. Anecdotal evidence suggests that some individuals and corporations are using intellectual property and other laws to silence other online users. Chilling Effects encourages respect for intellectual property law, while frowning on its misuse to “chill” legitimate activity.

    The website offers background material and explanations of the law for people whose websites deal with topics such as Fan FictionCopyrightDomain Names and TrademarksAnonymous Speech, and Defamation.

    In addition, we want your help. We are gathering a searchable database of Cease and Desist notices sent to Internet users like you. We invite you toinput Cease and Desist letters that you’ve received into our database, to document the chill. We will respond by linking the legalese in the letters to FAQs that explain the allegations in plain English.

    Periodically, we issue “weather reports” assessing the climate for Internet activity based on the letters we receive and news reports. What areas (topics, legal categories, jurisdictions) are coolest to online conduct? What activities risk being frozen out altogether? What conduct gets the warmest reception?

    Getting Started:

    The Chilling Effects Clearinghouse contains multiple topic areas. Choose a topic area to view its introduction, Frequently Asked Questions, and annotated Cease & Desist notices, along with reference material and recent news links.

    If you are visiting because you have received a Cease & Desist notice, we invite you to input your notice in the database. Questions on the submission form will help to categorize your letter, and then guide you toward topic areas for further information. Once the notice is in our database, clinical law students will be able to annotate it with questions and answers.

    http://www.chillingeffects.org/

  • The Hindu Stoops to new Low level.

    The Hindu was once the trusted Newspaper of  Tamilians.

    English: Editor in chief of The Hindu
    Image via Wikipedia

    There were people who will feel restless if they did not get a  copy of The Hindu in the morning.

    Such was the objectivity and trust that people used to refer to the Hindu for confirmation in it even for Gazette Notification.

    People use to quip that if one were to check the Obituary, The Hindu would take 10 Days to confirm the News, coinciding with the Tenth Day Ceremony of the departed, while The Indian Express and The Daily Thanthi will publish Obituary anticipating one’s Death!

    So thorough was The Hindu’s verification of a News Story and the commitment to Facts and Truth.

    ‘ The Hindu’ is no more.

    Unverified News items are flashed,though couched in jugglery of words to escape Legal proceedings.

    Take for instance the news item on Nakkeran‘s scurrilous article on Jayalalithaa, The chief Minister of Tamil Nadu on her eating habits.

    Nakkeran’s standard of writing is known to every one,a magazine of sheer yellow Journalism bordering on porn.
    It has been enjoying immunity  under the guise of protecting ‘the Tamils’,especially when Karunanidhi is in power.
    Nakkearn’s Editor  Gopal played a dubious role in the abduction and release of the Kannada Matinee Idol Dr.Rajkumar by the forest brigand Veerappan.The story of ‘missing millions of the ransom’ is yet to be solved.

    Nor Gopal’s credentials as one who is in cahoots with Tamil separatists/terrorists is disproved.

    Such is the fame of the Nakkeran.

    The Hindu, not only published the story of Nakkeran in its front page, but to help those who might have missed the Tamil piece,provided a Translation!

    Nakkeran has apologise unconditionally for the Story.

    Now, look at the news item in The Hindu covering the Legal Notice slapped on The Hindu for this article by Jayalalithaa.-tucked away in the eighth page corner!

    Gone are the days when The Hindu used  flash international News on the front page, quoting Reuters,New York Times and the like.

    On reporting a number of cases decided against the Government of Tamil Nadu  by the Courts, The Hindu reports in such a way as to create the impression that the Government was wrong and was strictured.

    Note the reporting on the High Court’s order on the propose conversion of The Oil Tanker of a Secretariat built by Karunanidhi,which was ‘declared open’ when civil works were on and the function was held in ‘set” erected by a Film Art Director!

    The Court has merely observed that the Government must obtain Fresh NOC from Pollution board and other Agencies before converting the building it into a Hospital as the Old NOCs were not sufficient.

    This news is presented in The Hindu in such a way as to convey the impression that the Court has quashed the Tamil Nadu Governments move and that it is illegal.

    Similar reporting on all the Court Judgements involving Jayalalitha head Tamil Nadu is being published in The Hindu.

    Probably it is more to with N.Ram’s familial relation with KarunanidhI.

    Our The Hindu is no more.

    R.I.P.

    In a setback to the AIADMK government, the Madras High Court on Friday granted an interim injunction restraining authorities from making any structural alterations to the new Legislative Assembly-cum-Secretariat complex at the Omandurar Government Estate on Anna Salai here until a writ petition challenging the decision to convert it into a multi-specialty hospital is disposed of.

    A Division Bench comprising Justices D.Murugesan and P.P.S.Janarthana Raja passed the interim order on a writ petition by R.Veeramani, a city advocate. It directed the authorities to file their counter by February 10. The case has been posted for February 13.

    The petitioner said the present government took a policy decision on August 19 last year to convert the new building into a multi-specialty hospital. This decision was irrational, “tainted with mala fides and is against public interest.”

    The petitioner’s senior counsel, P.Wilson, contended that environmental clearance given for the Assembly/ Secretariat complex could not be taken as clearance for conversion and housing a multi-specialty hospital.

    The Bench noted that the PWD had issued the tender notice in two dailies for carrying out civil and electrical works.

    Admittedly, as on date, no environmental clearance was obtained for the proposed modification in the new building. It was not in dispute that for a project exceeding 15,000 sq.metres, environmental clearance should be obtained from the Centre’s Environment Impact Assessment Authority.

    Though such clearance had been obtained before constructing the building, the fact remained that it was not obtained for the modification, the Bench said.

    The court said the authorities’ only contention was that the government was taking necessary action to get clearance before the building was put into use. The question as to whether the clearance was necessary prior to any modification/alteration or not should be gone into at the time of final disposal of the petition.

    For the present, it was of the prima facie opinion that the environmental clearance given for constructing the building would not include clearance for any modification. If that be so, the structure constructed at a cost of Rs.551.80 crore could not be altered and any money spent on such modification would cause huge loss to the exchequer if the writ petitioner succeeds. In that view of the matter, it said the authorities should be restrained from altering or modifying or in any manner changing the structure till the petition was disposed of.

    The Judges said their order would not stand in the way of the government obtaining environmental clearance and also taking other steps as per the policy decision.

    http://www.thehindu.com/news/states/tamil-nadu/article2817739.ece

  • Media Curiously mute on SOPA despite web Blackout

    Save On-line Piracy Act-SOPA- had invited wide protests world-wide and among the communities the protest was not more vociferous anywhere   as in the web.

    protest image against SOPA.
    SOPA Protest.

    Led by such sites like Mozilla ,Google,Wikipedia,Reddit and the like the effect on SOPA seems to be the opposite.

    First came the crash of Megaupload.

    Now it is the turn on of Filesonic.

    The Media especially the Electronic and the Print Media do not seem to be bothered much.

    Could be that the purse strings are controlled by the Publishers.

    Time that the Media professionals did their bit n this assault on Freedom on the Fourth estate.

    This issue is more serious than Murdoch’s Phone hacking.

    The online world and digital file locker services in particular are still reeling from the Thursdaytakedown of Megaupload and the arrest of the site’s staff. Acting at the behest of U.S. requests/orders, servers around the world were taken offline and those who ran the site were arrested in a case U.S. authorities have deemed the “Mega Conspiracy”.

    This afternoon, Filesonic.com went all but dark:

    Filesonic, one of the Internet’s leading cyberlocker services, has taken some drastic measures following the Megaupload shutdown and arrests last week. In addition to discontinuing its affiliates rewards program and not yet paying accrued money to members, the site has disabled all sharing functionality, leaving users only with access to their own files.

    Filesonic taking this step on its own at least spares users what would could have been the Megaupload-esque eventuality: loss of all their data, even if it was personal and perfectly legal. Megaupload users with legitimate data have been left out in the cold by the U.S. government and look to remain there for the foreseeable future.

    Even though Megaupload was a Hong Kong-based site, that was not enough to spare it the long arm of the law – lobbied and paid for by large “content creators” back stateside. While fear of repercussions has not been listed as the official reasoning for neutering the site – there has as of yet been no official announcement – that seems to be the best theory working at the moment:

    While there has been no official explanation from the site as to why the above actions were taken, all eyes are turned towards events of the last week – the closure of Megaupload and the arrest of its founder and management team.

    Like Megaupload, Filesonic appears to based in Hong Kong and it’s clear that the authorities there already worked with the US government to shut down Kim Dotcom’s operations and seize his assets there. Filesonic is also believed to have some US-based servers.

    Back on the Megaupload front, more details from the 72-page indictment continue to trickle out as it is poured over by tech sites. Feeling a rather lofty sense of self-importance for who they are and what they do, “content creators” were apparently rather upset that the uploading of infringing work wasn’t dealt with as swiftly as child pornography:

    http://www.secondpagemedia.com/jadblog/2012/01/megaupload-fallout-filesonic-kills-sharing-service/

    The Blackout Details.

    Two new laws proposed by US legislators, the Stop Online Piracy Act and Protect IP Act, have been attracting a very negative reaction from the web community over the past couple of months, which is today culminating in a day of protests. Aiming to curtail copyright infringement on the web by giving the US government unprecedented new powers, both SOPA and PIPA have been rejected as overreaching and unhelpful laws that cannot coexist with a free and open internet.

    The most outspoken protester of the bills today will be Wikipedia, whose English site will be going dark for the full 24 hours on January 18th, starting at midnight ET. It’s also joined by Reddit, which will replace its usual “glorious, user-curated chaos” with a message noting its opposition to SOPA and PIPA, accompanied by links to more information about the bills and suggested ways to express your own dissatisfaction with them. Reddit will not be offering its regular service between the hours of 8AM ET and 8PM ET, which is also when Mozilla will be redirecting the Mozilla.org and Mozilla.com English webpages to a similar “action page” inviting users of its software to voice their concern. The Firefox landing page will also be altered to raise awareness. Finally, Google’s search homepage is partaking in the protest by blacking out the Google logo, voicing the company’s opposition to SOPA, and including a link for more information.”

    http://www.theverge.com/2012/1/18/2715300/sopa-blackout-wikipedia-reddit-mozilla-google-protest

    If the only place you get your news is from the Sunday talk shows, you would not have been informed in the slightest today about the political and technological battle over the Stop Online Piracy Act last week. Yes, there was a huge primary yesterday that completely up-ended the Republican contest, but you’d figure a powerful people-powered protest resulting in some of the biggest and most visited websites either blacking out or using their resources to raise awareness of the bill would garner at least a brief discussion today.

    The only exception was Howard Kurtz, who did his due diligence bringing up the conflicts of interest inherent in the media’s coverage of SOPA and how some networks were better at disclosing such conflicts than others. However, Kurtz only brought this up at the tail end of Reliable Sources for about two minutes, so if you weren’t paying close attention, you might have missed it.

    And it’s not just the Sunday shows. On Wednesday, the day of the blackout, none of the primetime shows on MSNBC and Fox News brought up SOPA or the blackout at all except for Rachel Maddow. It’s honestly embarrassing. Yes, it’s awful and/or hilarious how the rest of the Republicans are going after Mitt Romney for being a wealthy venture capitalist. And who knew that Newt Gingrich had marital issues?

    But if your argument defending these hosts is “Oh, well they probably had more important issues to cover!” how is it that Lawrence O’Donnell found time to talk about ModernFamilyFuckGate but not the blackout? I completely agree with his position on profanity, but when in the editorial process did they decide “Internet freedom is good, but ABC primetime programming is just a little better”?

    http://www.mediaite.com/tv/even-after-blackout-protest-the-media-is-still-not-doing-its-job-in-coverage-of-sopa/

     

  • SOPA-Senseless.Web page under SOPA and Text of the Bill..

    World wide web
    Image via Wikipedia

    Stop On-line Piracy Act is , to say the least is idiotic ,impractical and seems to have been designed at the behest of Corporations to safeguard their interests.

    SOPA is impractical as it is not possible to differentiate between original content and the pirated one, short of blocking the sites.

    Blocking of sites on the basis of perceived copy right issues is difficult as even Quotes from the original will be closed down.

    Those who really infringe copy right act will continue to go about under the guise of ‘quoting’

    It is all a question of interpretation.

    Being impractical ,it becomes idiotic.

    Do Shakespeare,History Books ,Text Books,Literature,Science papers of general importance,even for that matter News…qualify to be called Copy Righted?

    While the Corporations manoeuvre  to have the bill passed, what is at stake is the individual Freedom of Expression.

    Wiki leaks,Wikipedia,Wired.com,Reddit, Firefox are among others of the internet community to take the fight to the Capitol Hill.

    Time that this non sense is put an end to protect freedom of Expression,fie the greedy corporations,whose perceived losses on account of Online piracy is a pittance compared with the astronomical profits they have.

    Care must be excised to avoid piracy as it amounts to eating what one has spit out.”

    See the Link as to how the web will look like  if the SPOA comes into force.

    I suggest, instead of  closing sites to show our disapproval,we write more, say 5 pieces per Blogger on SOPA, to register out protest, signifying that Word can not be suppressed.

    http://thehackernews.com/2012/01/indian-bjp-politicians-bank-accounts.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheHackersNews+%28The+Hackers+News+-+Daily+Cyber+News+Updates%29

    When the powerful world of old media mobilized to win passage of an online antipiracy bill, it marshaled the reliable giants of K Street — the United States Chamber of Commerce, the Recording Industry Association of America and, of course, the motion picture lobby, with its new chairman, former SenatorChristopher J. Dodd, the Connecticut Democrat and an insider’s insider.

    Yet on Wednesday this formidable old guard was forced to make way for the new as Web powerhouses backed by Internet activists rallied opposition to the legislation through Internet blackouts and cascading criticism, sending an unmistakable message to lawmakers grappling with new media issues: Don’t mess with the Internet.

    As a result, the legislative battle over two once-obscure bills to combat the piracy of American movies, music, books and writing on the World Wide Web may prove to be a turning point for the way business is done in Washington. It represented a moment when the new economy rose up against the old.

    “I think it is an important moment in the Capitol,” said Representative Zoe Lofgren, Democrat of California and an important opponent of the legislation. “Too often, legislation is about competing business interests. This is way beyond that. This is individual citizens rising up.”

    It appeared by Wednesday evening that Congress would follow Bank of America, Netflix and Verizon as the latest institution to change course in the face of a netizen revolt.

    Legislation that just weeks ago had overwhelming bipartisan support and had provoked little scrutiny generated a grass-roots coalition on the left and the right. Wikipedia made its English-language content unavailable, replaced with a warning: “Right now, the U.S. Congress is considering legislation that could fatally damage the free and open Internet.” Visitors to Reddit found the site offline in protest. Google’s home page was scarred by a black swatch that covered the search engine’s label.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/19/technology/web-protests-piracy-bill-and-2-key-senators-change-course.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha2

    SOPA Text.

    H.R.3261

    Stop Online Piracy Act (Introduced in House – IH)


    SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

      (a) Short Title- This Act may be cited as the `Stop Online Piracy Act’.
      (b) Table of Contents- The table of contents of this Act is as follows:
      Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
      Sec. 2. Savings and severability clauses.

    TITLE I–COMBATING ONLINE PIRACY

      Sec. 101. Definitions.
      Sec. 102. Action by Attorney General to protect U.S. customers and prevent U.S. support of foreign infringing sites.
      Sec. 103. Market-based system to protect U.S. customers and prevent U.S. funding of sites dedicated to theft of U.S. property.
      Sec. 104. Immunity for taking voluntary action against sites dedicated to theft of U.S. property.
      Sec. 105. Immunity for taking voluntary action against sites that endanger public health.
      Sec. 106. Guidelines and study.
      Sec. 107. Denying U.S. capital to notorious foreign infringers.

    TITLE II–ADDITIONAL ENHANCEMENTS TO COMBAT INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY THEFT

      Sec. 201. Streaming of copyrighted works in violation of criminal law.
      Sec. 202. Trafficking in inherently dangerous goods or services.
      Sec. 203. Protecting U.S. businesses from foreign and economic espionage.
      Sec. 204. Amendments to sentencing guidelines.
      Sec. 205. Defending intellectual property rights abroad.

    SEC. 2. SAVINGS AND SEVERABILITY CLAUSES.

      (a) Savings Clauses-
      (1) FIRST AMENDMENT- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to impose a prior restraint on free speech or the press protected under the 1st Amendment to the Constitution.
      (2) TITLE 17 LIABILITY- Nothing in title I shall be construed to enlarge or diminish liability, including vicarious or contributory liability, for any cause of action available under title 17, United States Code, including any limitations on liability under such title.
      (b) Severability- If any provision of this Act, or the application of the provision to any person or circumstance, is held to be unconstitutional, the other provisions or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

    TITLE I–COMBATING ONLINE PIRACY

    SEC. 101. DEFINITIONS.

      In this title:
      (1) DOMAIN NAME- The term `domain name’ has the meaning given that term in section 45 of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. 1127) and includes any subdomain designation using such domain name as part of an electronic address on the Internet to identify a unique online location.
      (2) DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM SERVER- The term `domain name system server’ means a server or other mechanism used to provide the Internet protocol address associated with a domain name.
      (3) DOMESTIC DOMAIN NAME- The term `domestic domain name’ means a domain name that is registered or assigned by a domain name registrar, domain name registry, or other domain name registration authority, that is located within a judicial district of the United States.
      (4) DOMESTIC INTERNET PROTOCOL ADDRESS- The term `domestic Internet Protocol address’ means an Internet Protocol address for which the corresponding Internet Protocol allocation entity is located within a judicial district of the United States.
      (5) DOMESTIC INTERNET SITE- The term `domestic Internet site’ means an Internet site for which the corresponding domain name or, if there is no domain name, the corresponding Internet Protocol address, is a domestic domain name or domestic Internet Protocol address.
      (6) FOREIGN DOMAIN NAME- The term `foreign domain name’ means a domain name that is not a domestic domain name.
      (7) FOREIGN INTERNET PROTOCOL ADDRESS- The term `foreign Internet Protocol address’ means an Internet Protocol address that is not a domestic Internet protocol address.
      (8) FOREIGN INTERNET SITE- The term `foreign Internet site’ means an Internet site that is not a domestic Internet site.
      (9) INCLUDING- The term `including’ means including, but not limited to.
      (10) INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR- The term `Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator’ means the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator appointed under section 301 of the Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act of 2008 (15 U.S.C. 8111).
      (11) INTERNET- The term `Internet’ has the meaning given that term in section 5362(5) of title 31, United States Code.
      (12) INTERNET ADVERTISING SERVICE- The term `Internet advertising service’ means a service that for compensation sells, purchases, brokers, serves, inserts, verifies, clears, or otherwise facilitates the placement of an advertisement, including a paid or sponsored search result, link, or placement, that is rendered in viewable form for any period of time on an Internet site.
      (13) INTERNET PROTOCOL- The term `Internet Protocol’ means a protocol used for communicating data across a packet-switched internetwork using the Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol, and includes any predecessor or successor protocol to such protocol.
      (14) INTERNET PROTOCOL ADDRESS- The term `Internet Protocol address’ means a numerical label that is assigned to each device that participates in a computer network that uses the Internet Protocol for communication.
      (15) INTERNET PROTOCOL ALLOCATION ENTITY- The term `Internet Protocol allocation entity’ means, with respect to a particular Internet Protocol address, the entity, local internet registry, or regional internet registry to which the smallest applicable block of Internet Protocol addresses containing that address is allocated or assigned by a local internet registry, regional internet registry, or other Internet Protocol address allocation authority, according to the applicable publicly available database of allocations and assignments, if any.
      (16) INTERNET SEARCH ENGINE- The term `Internet search engine’ means a service made available via the Internet that searches, crawls, categorizes, or indexes information or Web sites available elsewhere on the Internet and on the basis of a user query or selection that consists of terms, concepts, categories, questions, or other data returns to the user a means, such as a hyperlinked list of Uniform Resource Locators, of locating, viewing, or downloading such information or data available on the Internet relating to such query or selection.
      (17) INTERNET SITE- The term `Internet site’ means the collection of digital assets, including links, indexes, or pointers to digital assets, accessible through the Internet that are addressed relative to a common domain name or, if there is no domain name, a common Internet Protocol address.
      (18) LANHAM ACT- The term `Lanham Act’ means 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’).
      (19) NONAUTHORITATIVE DOMAIN NAME SERVER- The term `nonauthoritative domain name server’ means a server that does not contain complete copies of domains but uses a cache file that is comprised of previous domain name server lookups, for which the server has received an authoritative response in the past.
      (20) OWNER; OPERATOR- The terms `owner’ or `operator’, when used in connection with an Internet site, includes, respectively, any owner of a majority interest in, or any person with authority to operate, such Internet site.
      (21) PAYMENT NETWORK PROVIDER-
      (A) IN GENERAL- The term `payment network provider’ means an entity that directly or indirectly provides the proprietary services, infrastructure, and software to effect or facilitate a debit, credit, or other payment transaction.
      (B) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- For purposes of this paragraph, a depository institution (as such term is defined under section 3 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act) or credit union that initiates a payment transaction shall not be construed to be a payment network provider based solely on the offering or provision of such service.
      (22) SERVICE PROVIDER- The term `service provider’ means a service provider as defined in section 512(k)(1) of title 17, United States Code, that operates a nonauthoritative domain name system server.
      (23) U.S.-DIRECTED SITE- The term `U.S.-directed site’ means an Internet site or portion thereof that is used to conduct business directed to residents of the United States, or that otherwise demonstrates the existence of minimum contacts sufficient for the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the owner or operator of the Internet site consistent with the Constitution of the United States, based on relevant evidence that may include whether–
      (A) the Internet site is used to provide goods or services to users located in the United States;
      (B) there is evidence that the Internet site or portion thereof is intended to offer or provide–
      (i) such goods and services,
      (ii) access to such goods and services, or
      (iii) delivery of such goods and services,
      to users located in the United States;
      (C) the Internet site or portion thereof does not contain reasonable measures to prevent such goods and services from being obtained in or delivered to the United States; and
      (D) any prices for goods and services are indicated or billed in the currency of the United States.
      (24) UNITED STATES- The term `United States’ includes any commonwealth, possession, or territory of the United States

    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c112:1:./temp/~c112s5p8Nc:e1014: