---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Pce3@ij.net pce3@ij.net Date: May 29, 2006 7:42 PM Subject: Wikipedia e-mail To: Sceptre sceptre@tintower.co.uk
Wikimedia Foundation Web Site Takedown Notice
The copyright owner herein provides notice to the Wikimedia Foundation in accordance with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to remove or disable access to the web pages listed below:
1.) Name, address, and electronic signature of the complaining party [512(c)(3)(A)(i)]
Patrick Eberhart, 1911 E Clinton St, Tampa, Florida 33610
Pce3@ij.net Wikipedia User ID 1219911
2.) The infringing materials and their Internet location [512(c)(3)(A)(ii-iii)], or if the service provider is an "information location tool" such as a search engine, the reference or link to the infringing materials [512(d)(3)].
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimal_classification http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Optimal_classification http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_Chart_Method_of_Logical_Equation_Reduct... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Harvard_Chart_Method_of_Logical_Equation_R...
3.) Sufficient information to identify the copyrighted works [512(c)(3)(A)(iv)].
3.a.) Optimal classification and Talk:Optimal classifcation
3.b.) Harvard Chart Method of Logical Equation Reduction and Talk: Harvard Chart Method of Logical Equation Reduction
4.) Statement by the owner that he has a good faith belief that there is no legal basis for the use of the materials complained of [512(c)(3)(A)(v)].
4.a) I belief that the Wikimedia foundation has no legal basis for use of the materials cited above against my stated will and instructions and withdrawal of any and all prior permissions. – Patrick Eberhart
5.) A statement of the accuracy of the notice and, under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on the behalf of the owner [512(c)(3)(A)(vi)].
5.a) The information contained herein is accurate to the best of my knowledge. I am the author and owner of the above cited material. –Patrick Eberhart
The Wikimedia Foundation is hereafter required to expeditiously remove, or disable access to the material.
Will,
he's not trying to take Wikipedia down at all.
Here's what happened:
1) Patrick wrote a bunch of articles on mathematics and computer science-related topics. They were quite good, really.
2) One of them was full of original research. It was taken to AfD, and mocked.
3) He wasn't very happy about this (gosh, I wonder why?), and declared that we couldn't use a couple of *other* of his articles. He tried blanking the articles, but was reverted by Tawkerbot. So then he hit on the idea of a DMCA takedown notice to force us to remove his contributions from our records.
Okay, not the nicest thing or the smartest thing that he could have done. But this is a case of a user we did wrong by, who over-reacted. This is generally considered something to be regretted, not an opportunity for humour.
He's sincere, and hurt, and there's no call to go making fun of him here, and especially not to republish his full personal details, including home address.
Please, just *think* a little before you post!
<forwarded message snipped/>
Mark Gallagher wrote:
He's sincere, and hurt, and there's no call to go making fun of him here, and especially not to republish his full personal details, including home address.
Please, just *think* a little before you post!
That's a bit rich coming a few hours after you just told Molu his posts were annoying and full of nonsense, and demanded he stopped posting to the list.
Chris
On 30/05/06, Chris Jenkinson chris@starglade.org wrote:
Mark Gallagher wrote:
He's sincere, and hurt, and there's no call to go making fun of him here, and especially not to republish his full personal details, including home address.
Please, just *think* a little before you post!
That's a bit rich coming a few hours after you just told Molu his posts were annoying and full of nonsense, and demanded he stopped posting to the list.
Okay, then, I'll sign that email instead of Mark; it's exactly what I was saying on IRC last night.
Sometimes, our processes don't work well for people. Sometimes, they end up being compelled to do things we view as being a bit silly, like DMCA takedown notices. This is because, frankly, we have an institutionalised culture of being pretty dickish when people make not-unreasonable requests like "please delete an article I wrote".
I really do feel sorry for this guy, and there is *absolutely nothing* to be gained by mocking him on wikien-l other than making us look like heels.
On 5/30/06, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
Sometimes, our processes don't work well for people. Sometimes, they end up being compelled to do things we view as being a bit silly, like DMCA takedown notices. This is because, frankly, we have an institutionalised culture of being pretty dickish when people make not-unreasonable requests like "please delete an article I wrote".
I really do feel sorry for this guy, and there is *absolutely nothing* to be gained by mocking him on wikien-l other than making us look like heels.
Hear hear. We should not be engaging in such mockery. I think it would have been better if the email at the head of this thread had not been sent, or failing that, if it had been modded out because of its unacceptable tone (and perhaps for some confidential content, if there is some)
G'day Chris,
Mark Gallagher wrote:
He's sincere, and hurt, and there's no call to go making fun of him here, and especially not to republish his full personal details, including home address.
Please, just *think* a little before you post!
That's a bit rich coming a few hours after you just told Molu his posts were annoying and full of nonsense, and demanded he stopped posting to the list.
"a bit rich" implies inconsistency. I assure you both emails are quite consistent. They're both a case of someone posting something silly to this list and me getting snappy about it.
If you'd called me on civility alone, well, you'd have been 100% right. While everything I said to Molu was true, it did not, perhaps, need to be said, and *definitely* did not need to be said in such a tone. Molu: I am sorry, my post was rude and insulting. I always aim to be straightforward, but there is a line between "being straightforward" and "being a dick" and I crossed it.
On 5/30/06, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
G'day Chris,
"a bit rich" implies inconsistency. I assure you both emails are quite consistent. They're both a case of someone posting something silly to this list and me getting snappy about it.
If you'd called me on civility alone, well, you'd have been 100% right. While everything I said to Molu was true, it did not, perhaps, need to be said, and *definitely* did not need to be said in such a tone. Molu: I am sorry, my post was rude and insulting. I always aim to be straightforward, but there is a line between "being straightforward" and "being a dick" and I crossed it.
What?! An apology on something Wikipedia-related?!?! What is this world coming to??? It's like I'm in a whole new universe. ;-) Yeah, the original email probably shouldn't have been sent. At least not to the entire wikien-l. Has this been passed on to the juriwiki list? I don't really think it holds too much water, since he knows that his contibutions originally fell under the GDFL, but it may be worth letting them know. --LV
On 5/30/06, Chris Jenkinson chris@starglade.org wrote: Mark Gallagher wrote:
He's sincere, and hurt, and there's no call to go making fun of him here, and especially not to republish his full personal details, including home address.
Please, just *think* a little before you post!
That's a bit rich coming a few hours after you just told Molu his posts were annoying and full of nonsense, and demanded he stopped posting to the list.
Nonsense; the two aren't even remotely comparable. A potentially good editor who has been hard done by over an article is nothing like a non-editor who feels they need to get rid of Wikipedia admins because they can't POV the project to their own liking.
Jay.
Mark Gallagher wrote:
Will,
he's not trying to take Wikipedia down at all.
Here's what happened:
Patrick wrote a bunch of articles on mathematics and computer science-related topics. They were quite good, really.
One of them was full of original research. It was taken to AfD, and mocked.
Perhaps there should be a way of punishing those who abuse process that way. That lack of civility is every bit as serious as breaching original research rules.
- He wasn't very happy about this (gosh, I wonder why?), and declared that we couldn't use a couple of *other* of his articles. He tried blanking the articles, but was reverted by Tawkerbot. So then he hit on the idea of a DMCA takedown notice to force us to remove his contributions from our records.
It's an interesting approach which opens up a lot of fantastic opportunities.
Okay, not the nicest thing or the smartest thing that he could have done. But this is a case of a user we did wrong by, who over-reacted. This is generally considered something to be regretted, not an opportunity for humour.
He's sincere, and hurt, and there's no call to go making fun of him here, and especially not to republish his full personal details, including home address.
In these circumstances, there is nothing wrong with publishing personal details. It may even be legally required.
One of the requirements of takedown orders is that the alleged infringer must be notified by the service provider (Section 512(g)(2)(A)). It would seem that the practical approach would be to put a copy of the full takedown order where the article once appeared. That notice is a legal document which includes, among other things, the notifier's identifying details.
There is an open question about just who is the infringer. Presumably, it's _everyone_ who participated in editing that page, or at least it should be for purposes of determining who should receive the notice. If they aren't infringers they have a legal complaint that their work was illegally removed.
Unlike original notifications which require that the person complaining of copyright infringement must have a personal interest in the material, there does not appear to be any requirement that a person issuing a counter notification must have a personal interest. The law uses the term "subscriber". That could mean anyone with a Wikipedia account! The standard in 512(g)(3)(C) is "A statement under penalty of perjury that the subscriber has a good faith belief that the material was removed or disabled as a result of mistake or misidentification of the material to be removed or disabled." The other requirements relatively more mechanical. One does not even need to describe the basis for that good faith belief, but providing such a description could still go a long way to resolving the legal issues
I assume that the take down notice under consideration was properly sent to Michael Davis in his capacity as the registered agent, and that there was no mistake in that regard. There are however other arguments that could establish the required good faith.
A service provider is still protected by a safe harbor if he does not comply with a substantially deficient notification. In this case the notice is deficient in identifying the works that were infringed. He merely repeated the titles of the articles, which, oddly enough included two talk pages. What this provision should do is identify the truly original works so that either the service provider or a subscriber can seek out those works, and with due dilligence determine for himself whether he believes that an infringement really took place.
If our complainer is through some recursive slight of hand both contributor and infringer of something that was originally written as a part of Wikipedia he is in violation of the GFDL. GFDL makes no sense unless the licensing is irrevocable in the first place.
Does any Wikipedian living in the United States want to issue a counter notification giving jurisdiction to the Federal District Court where he lives? I could file from outside the US, but I am having a problem interpreting the phrase "any judicial district in which the service provider may be found". For me the most convenient district would be the one that includes the State of Washington, but it's unclear whether that choice is available to me.
Ec
On 5/31/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
In these circumstances, there is nothing wrong with publishing personal details. It may even be legally required.
Mark was just explaining that his article was mocked on AfD, and that was why he sent the notice - while a bit silly, he had a legitimate grievance. Do you really feel that this sort of response is necessary? It would seem to me like kicking him while he's down.
Stephen Bain wrote:
On 5/31/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
In these circumstances, there is nothing wrong with publishing personal details. It may even be legally required.
Mark was just explaining that his article was mocked on AfD, and that was why he sent the notice - while a bit silly, he had a legitimate grievance. Do you really feel that this sort of response is necessary? It would seem to me like kicking him while he's down.
I don't condone the mockery any more than you do.
DMCA notifications, however, are the beginning of a legal process. I don't at all equate legal steps to some kind of personal "kicking him while he's down."
Thus far, either the DMCA notifications have been rare or the people whose work has been subject to such notices have not been properly informed of such orders as required by law. Assuming good faith implies assuming the former.
In the absence of balanced protocols to deal with the problem, there is a lot in these notices that need an opportunity to be tested in the courts.
Ec
On 5/31/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
If our complainer is through some recursive slight of hand both contributor and infringer of something that was originally written as a part of Wikipedia he is in violation of the GFDL. GFDL makes no sense unless the licensing is irrevocable in the first place.
The GFDL is automatically revoked when there is any copying or distribution done which doesn't follow the terms of the GFDL.
Since Wikipedia doesn't follow the GFDL, its license is automatically revoked every time it distributes a page.
Does any Wikipedian living in the United States want to issue a counter notification giving jurisdiction to the Federal District Court where he lives? I could file from outside the US, but I am having a problem interpreting the phrase "any judicial district in which the service provider may be found". For me the most convenient district would be the one that includes the State of Washington, but it's unclear whether that choice is available to me.
Ec
I certainly won't be issuing a counter notification, because I don't think there is a very good defense against copyright infringement. Sure, you could argue an implicit license, but surely that's not going to hold up against an explicit revocation of any such license.
Anthony
On 5/29/06, Will Sceptre Noble tintower@tintower.tk wrote:
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Pce3@ij.net pce3@ij.net Date: May 29, 2006 7:42 PM Subject: Wikipedia e-mail To: Sceptre sceptre@tintower.co.uk
<snip />
5.a) The information contained herein is accurate to the best of my
knowledge. I am the author and owner of the above cited material. –Patrick Eberhart
The Wikimedia Foundation is hereafter required to expeditiously remove, or disable access to the material.
This notice is Good For Damn Little.
That's quite interesting...especially when the article is deleted
On 5/29/06, Will Sceptre Noble tintower@tintower.tk wrote:
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Pce3@ij.net pce3@ij.net Date: May 29, 2006 7:42 PM Subject: Wikipedia e-mail To: Sceptre sceptre@tintower.co.uk
Wikimedia Foundation Web Site Takedown Notice
The copyright owner herein provides notice to the Wikimedia Foundation in accordance with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to remove or disable access to the web pages listed below:
1.) Name, address, and electronic signature of the complaining party [512(c)(3)(A)(i)]
Patrick Eberhart, 1911 E Clinton St, Tampa, Florida 33610
Pce3@ij.net Wikipedia User ID 1219911
2.) The infringing materials and their Internet location [512(c)(3)(A)(ii-iii)], or if the service provider is an "information location tool" such as a search engine, the reference or link to the infringing materials [512(d)(3)].
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimal_classification http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Optimal_classification
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_Chart_Method_of_Logical_Equation_Reduct...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Harvard_Chart_Method_of_Logical_Equation_R...
3.) Sufficient information to identify the copyrighted works [512(c)(3)(A)(iv)].
3.a.) Optimal classification and Talk:Optimal classifcation
3.b.) Harvard Chart Method of Logical Equation Reduction and Talk: Harvard Chart Method of Logical Equation Reduction
4.) Statement by the owner that he has a good faith belief that there is no legal basis for the use of the materials complained of [512(c)(3)(A)(v)].
4.a) I belief that the Wikimedia foundation has no legal basis for use of the materials cited above against my stated will and instructions and withdrawal of any and all prior permissions. – Patrick Eberhart
5.) A statement of the accuracy of the notice and, under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on the behalf of the owner [512(c)(3)(A)(vi)].
5.a) The information contained herein is accurate to the best of my knowledge. I am the author and owner of the above cited material. –Patrick Eberhart
The Wikimedia Foundation is hereafter required to expeditiously remove, or disable access to the material.
-- -Sceptre http://tintower.co.uk _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Quite.
First submit something, then complain it's there. If that case ever got to court, he'd be suing himself for copyright infringement.
Some people....
Mgm
On 5/31/06, Ilya N. ilyanep@gmail.com wrote:
That's quite interesting...especially when the article is deleted
On 5/29/06, Will Sceptre Noble tintower@tintower.tk wrote:
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Pce3@ij.net pce3@ij.net Date: May 29, 2006 7:42 PM Subject: Wikipedia e-mail To: Sceptre sceptre@tintower.co.uk
Wikimedia Foundation Web Site Takedown Notice
The copyright owner herein provides notice to the Wikimedia Foundation
in
accordance with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to remove or
disable
access to the web pages listed below:
1.) Name, address, and electronic signature of the complaining party [512(c)(3)(A)(i)]
Patrick Eberhart, 1911 E Clinton St, Tampa, Florida 33610
Pce3@ij.net Wikipedia User ID 1219911
2.) The infringing materials and their Internet location [512(c)(3)(A)(ii-iii)], or if the service provider is an "information location tool" such as a search engine, the reference or link to the infringing materials [512(d)(3)].
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimal_classification http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Optimal_classification
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_Chart_Method_of_Logical_Equation_Reduct...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Harvard_Chart_Method_of_Logical_Equation_R...
3.) Sufficient information to identify the copyrighted works [512(c)(3)(A)(iv)].
3.a.) Optimal classification and Talk:Optimal classifcation
3.b.) Harvard Chart Method of Logical Equation Reduction and Talk:
Harvard
Chart Method of Logical Equation Reduction
4.) Statement by the owner that he has a good faith belief that there is no legal basis for the use of the materials complained of
[512(c)(3)(A)(v)].
4.a) I belief that the Wikimedia foundation has no legal basis for use
of
the materials cited above against my stated will and instructions and withdrawal of any and all prior permissions. – Patrick Eberhart
5.) A statement of the accuracy of the notice and, under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on the behalf of the
owner
[512(c)(3)(A)(vi)].
5.a) The information contained herein is accurate to the best of my knowledge. I am the author and owner of the above cited material.
–Patrick
Eberhart
The Wikimedia Foundation is hereafter required to expeditiously remove,
or
disable access to the material.
-- -Sceptre http://tintower.co.uk _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- ~Ilya N. (Now with 2% Juice) http://ilya.nepfamily.com (My website; DarkLordFoxx Media) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ilyanep (on Wikipedia) http://www.wheresgeorge.com - Track your money's travels. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 5/31/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
First submit something, then complain it's there. If that case ever got to court, he'd be suing himself for copyright infringement.
Yes, he doesn't have a case, and is of absolutely no threat to us whatsoever. Which totally destroys any reason we could possibly have for mocking him publicly.
Steve
On 31/05/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/31/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
First submit something, then complain it's there. If that case ever got to court, he'd be suing himself for copyright infringement.
Yes, he doesn't have a case, and is of absolutely no threat to us whatsoever. Which totally destroys any reason we could possibly have for mocking him publicly.
Steve _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
We've had some problems with this user on en.wiktionary as well, including legal threats about the Wikimedia bylaws in Florida and such.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User_talk:Wytukaze#Block_indeed http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Tea_room#Irresponsible_Sysop_Action...
I've been wondering whether his threats were anything serious, but this incident clarifies it all. It seems that on Wiktionary, we're going to see more things that I had always thought would remain restricted to Wikipedia (compare the Primetime incident, for instance).
Cheers, Wildrick http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Vildricianus
On 6/1/06, Wildrick Steele wildrick.steele@gmail.com wrote:
We've had some problems with this user on en.wiktionary as well, including legal threats about the Wikimedia bylaws in Florida and such.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User_talk:Wytukaze#Block_indeed http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Tea_room#Irresponsible_Sysop_Action...
I've been wondering whether his threats were anything serious, but this incident clarifies it all. It seems that on Wiktionary, we're going to see more things that I had always thought would remain restricted to Wikipedia (compare the Primetime incident, for instance).
Cheers, Wildrick http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Vildricianus
Wait untill you see some try to claim you can't deleted stuff claimed as fair use becuase that consitutes giving legal advice.
On 6/2/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Wait untill you see some try to claim you can't deleted stuff claimed as fair use becuase that consitutes giving legal advice.
[[WP:BEANS]] ;-)
On 6/2/06, Death Phoenix originaldeathphoenix@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/2/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Wait untill you see some try to claim you can't deleted stuff claimed as fair use becuase that consitutes giving legal advice.
[[WP:BEANS]] ;-)
Doesn't apply becuase it has already been tried:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Copyright_problems#A_proposal
geni wrote:
On 6/2/06, Death Phoenix originaldeathphoenix@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/2/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Wait untill you see some try to claim you can't deleted stuff claimed as fair use becuase that consitutes giving legal advice.
[[WP:BEANS]] ;-)
Doesn't apply becuase it has already been tried:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Copyright_problems#A_proposal
Simply giving legal advice is not the practice of law. Practice would require doing it as some kind of business.
Ec
On Jun 4, 2006, at 8:00 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Wait untill you see some try to claim you can't deleted stuff claimed as fair use becuase that consitutes giving legal advice.
[[WP:BEANS]] ;-)
Doesn't apply becuase it has already been tried:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Wikipedia_talk:Copyright_problems#A_proposal
Simply giving legal advice is not the practice of law. Practice would require doing it as some kind of business.
It's still against the rules to give legal advice for free, because the rules are made by lawyers, and lawyers' business is giving legal advice.
On 6/5/06, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:
On Jun 4, 2006, at 8:00 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Wait untill you see some try to claim you can't deleted stuff claimed as fair use becuase that consitutes giving legal advice.
[[WP:BEANS]] ;-)
Doesn't apply becuase it has already been tried:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Wikipedia_talk:Copyright_problems#A_proposal
Simply giving legal advice is not the practice of law. Practice would require doing it as some kind of business.
It's still against the rules to give legal advice for free, because the rules are made by lawyers, and lawyers' business is giving legal advice.
Really? I get free legal advice from my lawyer all the time, though I guess the "free" part could be in dispute. For instance, my mortgage agreement is up for renewal, and I go to my lawyer to update the paperwork. He does not charge by the hour for this service, and instead has a fixed price. While I am there, I also let him know of some changes in my life and whether I should update my will. He says not necessarily, but tells me what changes in my life DO require an update on my will. Did he just give me free legal advice, and if so, is this against the rules?
Now, let's say I don't go to the lawyer on an unrelated matter, let's say I call him up out of the blue to tell him of changes in my life and ask him whether I should update my will. Did he just give me free legal advice, and if so, is this against the rules?
On Jun 6, 2006, at 7:24 AM, Death Phoenix wrote:
It's still against the rules to give legal advice for free, because the rules are made by lawyers, and lawyers' business is giving legal advice.
Really? I get free legal advice from my lawyer all the time, though I guess the "free" part could be in dispute. For instance, my mortgage agreement is up for renewal, and I go to my lawyer to update the paperwork. He does not charge by the hour for this service, and instead has a fixed price. While I am there, I also let him know of some changes in my life and whether I should update my will. He says not necessarily, but tells me what changes in my life DO require an update on my will. Did he just give me free legal advice, and if so, is this against the rules?
Now, let's say I don't go to the lawyer on an unrelated matter, let's say I call him up out of the blue to tell him of changes in my life and ask him whether I should update my will. Did he just give me free legal advice, and if so, is this against the rules?
Maybe. I was joking anyway.
On 6/6/06, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:
On Jun 6, 2006, at 7:24 AM, Death Phoenix wrote:
It's still against the rules to give legal advice for free, because the rules are made by lawyers, and lawyers' business is giving legal advice.
Really? I get free legal advice from my lawyer all the time, though I guess the "free" part could be in dispute. For instance, my mortgage agreement is up for renewal, and I go to my lawyer to update the paperwork. He does not charge by the hour for this service, and instead has a fixed price. While I am there, I also let him know of some changes in my life and whether I should update my will. He says not necessarily, but tells me what changes in my life DO require an update on my will. Did he just give me free legal advice, and if so, is this against the rules?
Now, let's say I don't go to the lawyer on an unrelated matter, let's say I call him up out of the blue to tell him of changes in my life and ask him whether I should update my will. Did he just give me free legal advice, and if so, is this against the rules?
Maybe. I was joking anyway.
Rats. My joke detector completely missed this one.
On 6/5/06, Philip Welch wikipedia@philwelch.net wrote:
It's still against the rules to give legal advice for free, because the rules are made by lawyers, and lawyers' business is giving legal advice.
Fortunately here in the US there's that rule about free speech which would trump any such law against stating facts about the law.
Giving *bad* legal advice (for free or for a price), pretending to be a lawyer, or practicing law, on the other hand... That's trickier.
This is not legal advice. I am not a lawyer. :)
Anthony
Philip Welch wrote:
On Jun 4, 2006, at 8:00 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Wait untill you see some try to claim you can't deleted stuff claimed as fair use becuase that consitutes giving legal advice.
[[WP:BEANS]] ;-)
Doesn't apply becuase it has already been tried:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Wikipedia_talk:Copyright_problems#A_proposal
Simply giving legal advice is not the practice of law. Practice would require doing it as some kind of business.
It's still against the rules to give legal advice for free, because the rules are made by lawyers, and lawyers' business is giving legal advice.
There's such a thing as taking this to extremes. The way you put it if two beer buddies sit down and discuss their latest parking tickets they could be illegally driving lawyers into starvation. In practical terms, even though lawyers write the rules they are not turned on unless they can smell money.
Ec
On Jun 7, 2006, at 2:50 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
It's still against the rules to give legal advice for free, because the rules are made by lawyers, and lawyers' business is giving legal advice.
There's such a thing as taking this to extremes. The way you put it if two beer buddies sit down and discuss their latest parking tickets they could be illegally driving lawyers into starvation. In practical terms, even though lawyers write the rules they are not turned on unless they can smell money.
Yes but lawyers will look at them with disdain.
(I was half-joking, too.)
On Wed, 31 May 2006 10:36:22 +0200, you wrote:
Yes, he doesn't have a case, and is of absolutely no threat to us whatsoever. Which totally destroys any reason we could possibly have for mocking him publicly.
Damn. He so richly deserves some public mocking.
Guy (JzG)