[At-Large] [lac-discuss-en] GigaOM article : Louis Vuitton asks for SOPA-like seizure of hundreds of websites

[Karl Auerbach]

On 05/14/2012 07:41 PM, Bill Silverstein wrote:
,
>    Owners of properties information are a matter of public record in this
> county. In most states the identities of the owners of corporations are
> public record. Fictitiously named businesses are a matter of public
> record. Even if the owners' address of all the above are not listed, in
> most cases, the identity of the person who is authorized to receive
> service of process are available.

To which I respond, so what?

Yes, real property is subject to public record but it is frequently 
masked through layers of corporations.  There is a beach near here that 
is so enshrouded by layers of corporations that even the California 
Coastal Commission can't figure out who owns it.

The laws of real property in many US states tend to be rooted in ancient 
English laws that are largely discredited today - like the ones about 
"entailing" estates only to the eldest male descendent.  Traditions 
started by William the Conqueror's Domesday Book aren't necessarily wise 
things to continue without alternation into the modern era.

As for corporations - yes they need to publish a service of process 
point.  But that's just for service of process to begin a legal 
procedure - Here in California it is very frequently the almost 
unrevealing "C T Corporation System", I'm sure you've run into them and 
they will and do efficiently forward your missive to whomever.

Absent cooperation, penetrating "the corporate veil" to any deeper 
degree takes a positive accusation supported by evidence.

By-the-way, there are more counter-examples than examples of situations 
in which people who engage in acts are *not* required to make a public 
disclosure of any sort.

For example, I can buy and use a telephone or publish a newpaper or 
establish a church or walk down the street or give food to a hungry 
person.  I can even buy screwdrivers and hammers and flashlights (oh my) 
- which could be used for burglary - without presenting any bit of 
identification.


>    You also ignore that in a majority of the smaller crimes, that law
> enforcement will not do anything about it unless handed a nice tidy
> package
> with a bow on it.

Ah, the old "if I the voters in my city aren't willing to vote for 
enough taxes to pay the police to do what I want them to do then I have 
the right to put on a badge and be a do-it-yourself cop" argument.

That kind of person is often called a  "vigilante".

If one can't convince real law enforcement to take up a matter, then 
that might be a message that things might not be as bad one thinks.

		--karl--