I demand that my name be removed immediately. This is your last chance to explain why you choose to defame my companies.
I see nothing in the article that defames you or your companies. The fact that some anonymous idiot labelled you a "kook" means nothing. And it's not an offense for Wikipedia to report that fact.
Note carefully the distinction:
A. Wikipedia is NOT calling you a kook (that would violate our policy, and I personally won't tolerate that).
B. Wikipedia *MAY* report that those jerks on Usenet have branded you a kook. (Read the part about Wikipedia NOT endorsing that label.)
I think I've said enough about this.
Ed Poor, aka Uncle Ed
B. Wikipedia *MAY* report that those jerks on Usenet have branded >> you
a
kook. (Read the part about Wikipedia NOT endorsing that label.)
I think that, looking at the previous way that the report was presented, it was written in a way that possibly seemed more like the anonymous user was calling him a kook than reporting it. Thus, Wikipedia was calling him a kook. If it had been written as something along the lines of "Persons that the newsgroup have labelled a 'kook' include [name], who was given the title of 'Kook of the Millenium'" then there would be no reasonable argument against its inclusion.
On 5/5/05, David 'DJ' Hedley spyders@btinternet.com wrote:
I think that, looking at the previous way that the report was presented, it was written in a way that possibly seemed more like the anonymous user was calling him a kook than reporting it. Thus, Wikipedia was calling him a kook. If it had been written as something along the lines of "Persons that the newsgroup have labelled a 'kook' include [name], who was given the title of 'Kook of the Millenium'" then there would be no reasonable argument against its inclusion.
This is perhaps an inappopriate discussion to have in public because a legal action has been threatened, but in brief, the fact that you report, but do not endorse, a claim is not a defense in a libel action. If you spread it, you spread it.
Sarah
slimvirgin@gmail.com (slimvirgin@gmail.com) [050506 07:18]:
This is perhaps an inappopriate discussion to have in public because a legal action has been threatened, but in brief, the fact that you report, but do not endorse, a claim is not a defense in a libel action. If you spread it, you spread it.
Removing relevant information from an article because someone makes the latest in a decade-long history of spurious legal threats on a mailing list is ridiculous.
- d.
slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
This is perhaps an inappopriate discussion to have in public because a legal action has been threatened, but in brief, the fact that you report, but do not endorse, a claim is not a defense in a libel action. If you spread it, you spread it.
It actually is a defense, as long as you report who has alleged it, not claim yourself it is true. Newspapers report on libel cases all the time: "X has alleged Y about Z, and Z has sued X for libel in response". The newspaper cannot be sued in that case simply because it said "X has alleged Y about Z"---even if Y is false, the fact that X alleged Y is true.
-Mark
On 5/5/05, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
This is perhaps an inappopriate discussion to have in public because a legal action has been threatened, but in brief, the fact that you report, but do not endorse, a claim is not a defense in a libel action. If you spread it, you spread it.
It actually is a defense, as long as you report who has alleged it, not claim yourself it is true. Newspapers report on libel cases all the time: "X has alleged Y about Z, and Z has sued X for libel in response". The newspaper cannot be sued in that case simply because it said "X has alleged Y about Z"---even if Y is false, the fact that X alleged Y is true.
Newspapers can claim privilege in certain situations in most jurisdictions. You can report that a libel action has been brought, for example, so long as there are no publication restrictions. But if your source Jane Doe telephones you and says: "John Smith is a shoplifter," and you report that, even if your report distances your newspaper from the allegation, it's still actionable.
Sarah
Don't British and US law differ in this regard? --jpgordon
On 5/5/05, slimvirgin@gmail.com slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/5/05, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
This is perhaps an inappopriate discussion to have in public because a legal action has been threatened, but in brief, the fact that you report, but do not endorse, a claim is not a defense in a libel action. If you spread it, you spread it.
It actually is a defense, as long as you report who has alleged it, not claim yourself it is true. Newspapers report on libel cases all the time: "X has alleged Y about Z, and Z has sued X for libel in response". The newspaper cannot be sued in that case simply because it said "X has alleged Y about Z"---even if Y is false, the fact that X alleged Y is true.
Newspapers can claim privilege in certain situations in most jurisdictions. You can report that a libel action has been brought, for example, so long as there are no publication restrictions. But if your source Jane Doe telephones you and says: "John Smith is a shoplifter," and you report that, even if your report distances your newspaper from the allegation, it's still actionable.
Sarah _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 5/5/05, Tony Sidaway minorityreport@bluebottle.com wrote:
Josh Gordon said:
Don't British and US law differ in this regard?
Not much consolation if you're an American sued in a British court for something you put on an American website. Yes, they do have jurisdiction. Yes, litigants have successfully collected.
The difficult thing in the UK is that the burden of proof lies with the defendant i.e. the publisher, who has to show why the material is not libellous; whereas in the U.S., the burden of proof lies with the person who brings the case.
Sarah
slimvirgin@gmail.com (slimvirgin@gmail.com) [050506 08:18]:
On 5/5/05, Tony Sidaway minorityreport@bluebottle.com wrote:
Josh Gordon said:
Not much consolation if you're an American sued in a British court for something you put on an American website. Yes, they do have jurisdiction. Yes, litigants have successfully collected.
The difficult thing in the UK is that the burden of proof lies with the defendant i.e. the publisher, who has to show why the material is not libellous; whereas in the U.S., the burden of proof lies with the person who brings the case.
This legal talk is entirely irrelevant to the issue at hand. Edmond Wollman has made spurious legal threats for decades. None have even come to court, let alone been won.
There is an encyclopedic interest issue at stake. Will relevant information be removed from an article because an exposed fraud's ego is bruised?
(Do check this page on Wollmann, by the way. It's not the least bit neutral - the POV is hardly penetrable once you're used to the Wikipedia way of writing things - but it does include large chunks of the sci.skeptic FAQ section Tony Sidaway was keeper of for a while (hence Mr Wollmann's hate-on for him) and has marvellous documentation of Mr Wollmann's online and offline activities. BTW, he has a fondness for sock puppetry:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~oracle/ed-w-con.htm
It's on [[Zenon Panoussis]]' site and there it's staying. Mr. Wollmann hasn't managed to sue him either.)
- d.
On 5/5/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
This legal talk is entirely irrelevant to the issue at hand ... There is an encyclopedic interest issue at stake. Will relevant
information be removed from an article because an exposed fraud's ego is bruised?
David, regarding the issue of encyclopedic interest: public figures are treated very differently by journalists, particularly in the U.S. where libel law is quite different when it comes to public figures, but also in other countries where there's no distinction in law. Public figures are seen to some extent as fair game, whereas the right of private individuals to retain their privacy and dignity is respected by good journalists, so even if some demonstrably true titbit comes their way, they'll hesitate to use it if it would damage a private person, provided there's no public-interest issue at stake.
Wikipedia has become an incredibly powerful medium but we don't have any kind of an ethical code for cases like this. We have no lawyers, no heirarchy of editors, no fact-checking procedures: none of the infrastructure of large, powerful news organizations, and yet we have arguably as much power as some of them. It's a sobering thought. All I'm arguing is that we should take that power seriously, and never abuse it; and if a private person complains that we have, where there's no public-interest issue involved, we should err on the side of caution and kindness, because we lose nothing by doing that, but the person being criticized might lose a lot if we don't (regardless of the details of this particular case: I'm talking generally).
Sarah
slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/5/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
This legal talk is entirely irrelevant to the issue at hand ... There is an encyclopedic interest issue at stake. Will relevant
information be removed from an article because an exposed fraud's ego is bruised?
David, regarding the issue of encyclopedic interest: public figures are treated very differently by journalists, particularly in the U.S. where libel law is quite different when it comes to public figures, but also in other countries where there's no distinction in law. Public figures are seen to some extent as fair game, whereas the right of private individuals to retain their privacy and dignity is respected by good journalists, so even if some demonstrably true titbit comes their way, they'll hesitate to use it if it would damage a private person, provided there's no public-interest issue at stake.
I would say anybody who posts to Usenet automatically becomes a "public figure"; you can hardly spew your thoughts and opinions into a million computers around the world, then try to claim "privacy". If you want to be private, start by keeping your mouth shut, eh?
I had that brought home to me many years ago when one of my heated arguments on Usenet was brought up in a job interview. (Fortunately, the interviewer agreed with my points.)
Stan
Exactly the reason why I keep Internet and real life seperate.
On 5/6/05, Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:
slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/5/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
This legal talk is entirely irrelevant to the issue at hand ... There is an encyclopedic interest issue at stake. Will relevant
information be removed from an article because an exposed fraud's ego is bruised?
David, regarding the issue of encyclopedic interest: public figures are treated very differently by journalists, particularly in the U.S. where libel law is quite different when it comes to public figures, but also in other countries where there's no distinction in law. Public figures are seen to some extent as fair game, whereas the right of private individuals to retain their privacy and dignity is respected by good journalists, so even if some demonstrably true titbit comes their way, they'll hesitate to use it if it would damage a private person, provided there's no public-interest issue at stake.
I would say anybody who posts to Usenet automatically becomes a "public figure"; you can hardly spew your thoughts and opinions into a million computers around the world, then try to claim "privacy". If you want to be private, start by keeping your mouth shut, eh?
I had that brought home to me many years ago when one of my heated arguments on Usenet was brought up in a job interview. (Fortunately, the interviewer agreed with my points.)
Stan
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 5/5/05, Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:
I would say anybody who posts to Usenet automatically becomes a "public figure"; you can hardly spew your thoughts and opinions into a million computers around the world, then try to claim "privacy". If you want to be private, start by keeping your mouth shut, eh?
It's an interesting point, whether sitting in your own home typing material onto the Web should in and of itself make you a public figure. I'm not aware of any relevant case law. Using your real name would certainly make it harder to argue that you'd intended to retain your privacy.
Sarah
slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote in message news:4cc603b0505051626226b944d@mail.gmail.com...
On 5/5/05, Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:
I would say anybody who posts to Usenet automatically becomes a "public figure"; you can hardly spew your thoughts and opinions into a million computers around the world, then try to claim "privacy". If you want to be private, start by keeping your mouth shut, eh?
It's an interesting point, whether sitting in your own home typing material onto the Web should in and of itself make you a public figure. I'm not aware of any relevant case law. Using your real name would certainly make it harder to argue that you'd intended to retain your privacy.
So adding your full name, address and contact details to the end of each and every post, as is Mr Wollmann's habit, would seem to fit this description: this guy has been doing his darndest to *become* a public figure for years.
Phil Boswell said:
So adding your full name, address and contact details to the end of each and every post, as is Mr Wollmann's habit, would seem to fit this description: this guy has been doing his darndest to *become* a public figure for years. --
The public/private distinction only applies in US jurisdictions, and with limited effect. Do not assume that you can say just anything about a person just because he publishes his address.
On Mr Wollmann
He has been repeatedly calling Terry on the matter of the kook reference, but also about some links in wikipedia. He is saying something about us linking to his copyrighted information. And he wants this link removed.
I had a look and realised there was initially an article under his name, where the problematic link probably was.
There is no legal ground related to us mentionning that a third party elected him a kook; so this issue is irrelevant.
As for the link issue, I think it was the ones in his article and he may not have noticed it is gone. I copied the content of the article for Terry and he will write him and reassure him.
If there is another link problematic somewhere, he is the one to mention where it is and which link is concerned.
Anthere
PS : just mentionning this in case there are further complains.
I also think, essentially, it is the english wikipedia editorial decision to keep or not, a kook nomination, a link, a page on a person. However, if the man decides to go further, it is the WMF business though... and currently, Terry receives phone calls on the topic.
Phil Boswell a écrit:
slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote in message news:4cc603b0505051626226b944d@mail.gmail.com...
On 5/5/05, Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:
I would say anybody who posts to Usenet automatically becomes a "public figure"; you can hardly spew your thoughts and opinions into a million computers around the world, then try to claim "privacy". If you want to be private, start by keeping your mouth shut, eh?
It's an interesting point, whether sitting in your own home typing material onto the Web should in and of itself make you a public figure. I'm not aware of any relevant case law. Using your real name would certainly make it harder to argue that you'd intended to retain your privacy.
So adding your full name, address and contact details to the end of each and every post, as is Mr Wollmann's habit, would seem to fit this description: this guy has been doing his darndest to *become* a public figure for years.
Anthere said:
On Mr Wollmann
He has been repeatedly calling Terry on the matter of the kook reference, but also about some links in wikipedia. He is saying something about us linking to his copyrighted information. And he wants this link removed.
I had a look and realised there was initially an article under his name, where the problematic link probably was.
There was an article created mid-December, deleted 3 February after someone listed it on VfD. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Edmond_Wollmann
On 5/6/05, slimvirgin@gmail.com slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/5/05, Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:
I would say anybody who posts to Usenet automatically becomes a "public figure"; you can hardly spew your thoughts and opinions into a million computers around the world, then try to claim "privacy". If you want to be private, start by keeping your mouth shut, eh?
It's an interesting point, whether sitting in your own home typing material onto the Web should in and of itself make you a public figure. I'm not aware of any relevant case law. Using your real name would certainly make it harder to argue that you'd intended to retain your privacy.
Another factor is the ease of access to the same audience. If a newspaper libels you, it is difficult to present counter-claims to everyone who read the original libel. But on Usenet, and arguably on Wikipedia, you have the same access to the same audience.
Skyring said:
Another factor is the ease of access to the same audience. If a newspaper libels you, it is difficult to present counter-claims to everyone who read the original libel. But on Usenet, and arguably on Wikipedia, you have the same access to the same audience.
This argument hasn't featured as a serious legal argument in any internet cases that I'm aware of. The damage is done by the original defamation; the plaintiff's attempts to control the damage (which are notoriously counter-productive even where the damaged party is utterly above reproof) do not make the original damage any less serious.
On 5/13/05, Tony Sidaway minorityreport@bluebottle.com wrote:
Skyring said:
Another factor is the ease of access to the same audience. If a newspaper libels you, it is difficult to present counter-claims to everyone who read the original libel. But on Usenet, and arguably on Wikipedia, you have the same access to the same audience.
This argument hasn't featured as a serious legal argument in any internet cases that I'm aware of. The damage is done by the original defamation; the plaintiff's attempts to control the damage (which are notoriously counter-productive even where the damaged party is utterly above reproof) do not make the original damage any less serious.
What sort of payouts have been involved?
Skyring said:
What sort of payouts have been involved?
Usually the terms of the settlements are not disclosed. One serial plaintiff has made settlements for published amounts varying from USD 8,000 to around USD 1,000,000, so this is potentially pretty serious.
On 5/15/05, Tony Sidaway minorityreport@bluebottle.com wrote:
Skyring said:
What sort of payouts have been involved?
Usually the terms of the settlements are not disclosed. One serial plaintiff has made settlements for published amounts varying from USD 8,000 to around USD 1,000,000, so this is potentially pretty serious.
You don't think the courts would see a difference, when assessing damages, between defamation by a major metropolitan daily newspaper, and some guy in a newsgroup?
Both could say you have your head up your bum, but is a court going to see the harm as equal and settlement identical?
Skyring said:
On 5/15/05, Tony Sidaway minorityreport@bluebottle.com wrote:
Skyring said:
What sort of payouts have been involved?
Usually the terms of the settlements are not disclosed. One serial plaintiff has made settlements for published amounts varying from USD 8,000 to around USD 1,000,000, so this is potentially pretty serious.
You don't think the courts would see a difference, when assessing damages, between defamation by a major metropolitan daily newspaper, and some guy in a newsgroup?
Oh yes, but a newspaper has far more resources than a private individual.
On 5/15/05, Tony Sidaway minorityreport@bluebottle.com wrote:
Skyring said:
On 5/15/05, Tony Sidaway minorityreport@bluebottle.com wrote:
Skyring said:
What sort of payouts have been involved?
Usually the terms of the settlements are not disclosed. One serial plaintiff has made settlements for published amounts varying from USD 8,000 to around USD 1,000,000, so this is potentially pretty serious.
You don't think the courts would see a difference, when assessing damages, between defamation by a major metropolitan daily newspaper, and some guy in a newsgroup?
Oh yes, but a newspaper has far more resources than a private individual.
Thanks.
So for a variety of reasons, the same slight is judged by the courts as being more worthy of compensation when made by a major newspaper than when made by some guy in. alt.talk.gossip.general
Our policy is NPOV, not "Caution and kindness." If we do NPOV correctly, then it shouldn't be a problem -- nobody will blame Wikipedia itself for what it says, they'll blame the Usenet forum or academic book or whatever.
The lack-of-lawyers is actually a serious concern which I suspect will become a major problem at some point in the future if Wikipedia continues to become larger and larger. The structure of many laws relevant to what we do here is such that Wikipedia can be up shit creek pretty quickly if somebody with money and influence wanted us to be. For example, "fair use" is only a *defensive* clause in the USA -- you can only really claim it if you are sued for copyright violation. It is not an offensive statement -- we cannot tell people they are "violating our fair use." What this means is that, even if we are in the right, it would be extremely easy for a company like Disney to grind us to a halt through a lawsuit -- the lawyer's fees alone would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. "We removed them immediately after you sent us a letter," WP plead to Walt. "Well, that's too bad -- I want back-royalties," he replies. And so in the best of situations, WP hires lawyers, they plead fair use and win, and then WP just owes the lawyers hundreds of thousands of dollars. Worst of situations, WP owes both Disney AND the lawyers money, who knows how much.
I don't see any good way around this. It is less a problem of Wikipedia itself (though I'd be very careful of "fair use" because of the way it is structured in US law), as it is with the ability of the big and powerful to wage legal war even on principles they are in the wrong on. It's more of a maddening thought than it is a sobering one.
FF
On 5/5/05, slimvirgin@gmail.com slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
Wikipedia has become an incredibly powerful medium but we don't have any kind of an ethical code for cases like this. We have no lawyers, no heirarchy of editors, no fact-checking procedures: none of the infrastructure of large, powerful news organizations, and yet we have arguably as much power as some of them. It's a sobering thought. All I'm arguing is that we should take that power seriously, and never abuse it; and if a private person complains that we have, where there's no public-interest issue involved, we should err on the side of caution and kindness, because we lose nothing by doing that, but the person being criticized might lose a lot if we don't (regardless of the details of this particular case: I'm talking generally).
Sarah _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Fastfission (fastfission@gmail.com) [050511 01:25]:
I don't see any good way around this. It is less a problem of Wikipedia itself (though I'd be very careful of "fair use" because of the way it is structured in US law), as it is with the ability of the big and powerful to wage legal war even on principles they are in the wrong on. It's more of a maddening thought than it is a sobering one.
The mediapathic nature of such a suit.
"They're suing an encyclopedia for quoting them." "WTF?!"
"They're suing Wikipedia for quoting them." "UNLEASH THE NINJA FIRST-AMENDMENT ATTACK LAWYERS!"
It's the sort of backup one hopes never to have to call upon. But it's there and keen to help. Avoid copyright paranoia.
- d.
I'm not talking about quoting, I'm talking about things like the copious images of Disney characters sprinkled throughout the site, without even mentioning the anime characters. But I'm not advocating paranoia, but I am advocating a less nonchalant attitude about fair use. At the moment it is often used as a "get out of copyright free" card in ways which I suspect would not be legally defensible, or not worth the money or time it would take to defend it (considering the principle at hand would be "does this qualify as X under this law," I'm not sure this would really be a first-amendment blockbuster if it clearly didn't qualify).
FF
On 5/10/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
Fastfission (fastfission@gmail.com) [050511 01:25]:
I don't see any good way around this. It is less a problem of Wikipedia itself (though I'd be very careful of "fair use" because of the way it is structured in US law), as it is with the ability of the big and powerful to wage legal war even on principles they are in the wrong on. It's more of a maddening thought than it is a sobering one.
The mediapathic nature of such a suit.
"They're suing an encyclopedia for quoting them." "WTF?!"
"They're suing Wikipedia for quoting them." "UNLEASH THE NINJA FIRST-AMENDMENT ATTACK LAWYERS!"
It's the sort of backup one hopes never to have to call upon. But it's there and keen to help. Avoid copyright paranoia.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Fastfission wrote:
I'm not talking about quoting, I'm talking about things like the copious images of Disney characters sprinkled throughout the site, without even mentioning the anime characters. But I'm not advocating paranoia, but I am advocating a less nonchalant attitude about fair use. At the moment it is often used as a "get out of copyright free" card in ways which I suspect would not be legally defensible [...]
Like how exactly? How would a picture of Mickey be used in any other way than to illustrate an article about animated characters or Disney?
One of WP's most useful defenses is to become even more popular and respected. We want to be in a position where all the judges in the building have to recuse themselves because they and their clerks consult WP on a daily basis, or have them find lawyers in contempt for merely suggesting that WP has any evil intentions. :-)
Perhaps more realistically, we want to be so credible and widely used that merely publishing the C&D letter on the main page will cause the foolhardy company to get deluged with hate mail and backpedal within 24 hours, disavowing any knowledge of the law firm that sent the letter. We've shown we can raise thousands of dollars within a few days just by asking; that's a reservoir of good will that can help us deal with a wide variety of threats.
Stan
Perhaps more realistically, we want to be so credible and widely used that merely publishing the C&D letter on the main page will cause the foolhardy company to get deluged with hate mail and backpedal within 24 hours, disavowing any knowledge of the law firm that sent the letter. We've shown we can raise thousands of dollars within a few days just by asking; that's a reservoir of good will that can help us deal with a wide variety of threats.
I would suggest against any form of vigilantism. Apart from anything else sooner or latter you run into someone who doesn't care. Then you are in real trouble.
geni wrote:
Perhaps more realistically, we want to be so credible and widely used that merely publishing the C&D letter on the main page will cause the foolhardy company to get deluged with hate mail and backpedal within 24 hours, disavowing any knowledge of the law firm that sent the letter. We've shown we can raise thousands of dollars within a few days just by asking; that's a reservoir of good will that can help us deal with a wide variety of threats.
I would suggest against any form of vigilantism. Apart from anything else sooner or latter you run into someone who doesn't care. Then you are in real trouble.
What do you mean, "vigilantism"? We just don't need to tiptoe around scared that one mistake by some anon editor will force us to shut down. We're not some kind of dubious dotcom with a shady biz model, we're as open and truthful as we know how, we're dedicated to facts more than agendas, and best of all, we're giving away stuff for free.
That's a very powerful story, and we should be making everybody aware of it, not chewing our fingernails in fear of corporate lawyers. Suing WP should come to be regarded as worse than suing nuns.
Stan
Stan Shebs wrote:
What do you mean, "vigilantism"? We just don't need to tiptoe around scared that one mistake by some anon editor will force us to shut down. We're not some kind of dubious dotcom with a shady biz model, we're as open and truthful as we know how, we're dedicated to facts more than agendas, and best of all, we're giving away stuff for free.
All issues of activism aside, something like this might be needed anyway in order to prevent future editors from re-adding "forbidden" content. Wikipedia is editable by everyone, so if we need to direct our editors not to do something that means we have to make those directions known to everyone.
I don't know if they still do it, but back when Google was first forced to remove certain sites from the results one gets when searching for certain terms, they did so by replacing those results with links to the takedown notice that had forced them to do so. Since the takedown notice named the "forbidden" URL it just added an extra step to the process of finding those pages. If Wikipedia winds up having material forced off of it, rather than trumpeting the fact and raising a ruckus how about just replacing the pages or images in question with the takedown notice? That way it's only presented to people who are looking for that specific information.
Stan Shebs wrote:
geni wrote:
Perhaps more realistically, we want to be so credible and widely used that merely publishing the C&D letter on the main page will cause the foolhardy company to get deluged with hate mail and backpedal within 24 hours, disavowing any knowledge of the law firm that sent the letter. We've shown we can raise thousands of dollars within a few days just by asking; that's a reservoir of good will that can help us deal with a wide variety of threats.
I would suggest against any form of vigilantism. Apart from anything else sooner or latter you run into someone who doesn't care. Then you are in real trouble.
What do you mean, "vigilantism"? We just don't need to tiptoe around scared that one mistake by some anon editor will force us to shut down. We're not some kind of dubious dotcom with a shady biz model, we're as open and truthful as we know how, we're dedicated to facts more than agendas, and best of all, we're giving away stuff for free.
That's a very powerful story, and we should be making everybody aware of it, not chewing our fingernails in fear of corporate lawyers. Suing WP should come to be regarded as worse than suing nuns.
I strongly agree with Stan that when it comes to allegations of copyvio we should not be in so much of a hurry to plead guilty that we trip on our own feet as we enter the courtroom. I suppose tha "vigilntism" refers to the immediate publishing of the C&D letter on the front page as soon as it arrives. Such an act would be a bit over the top and childish, especially when the complainer is troll in different clothing; no troll would be better nourished than by having his letter appear on our front page. :-) If and when we receive such a letter we should be prepared to give each letter a thorough review based on its own merits. There is a wide range of options available at that time, going from abject apology when we realize we're wrong to daring idiotic assholes to sue us. We can save our reliance on ninja lawyers for the situations when some point of principle is involved.
Those who shrink from fair use really should review the four criteria for fair use found in U.S. law. Copyright paranoids should also review the process that takes place when there is a claim of copyright infringement, beginning with the requiremts for having a valid take-down order. One of the most important is that the person making the claim must have standing; in other words, an off-the-street do-gooder has no standing to make such claims about a stranger's works. In most cases there are plenty of inexpensive opportunities to retract tryly infringing material before the issue gets out of hand.
Ec
On 5/14/05, Tony Sidaway minorityreport@bluebottle.com wrote:
Ray Saintonge said:
should review the four criteria for fair use found in U.S. law.
Why? I live outside the USA and Wikipedia publishes worldwide.
The servers are in florida as such we are subject to the law of that state and the laws of the US federal goverment.
geni said:
On 5/14/05, Tony Sidaway minorityreport@bluebottle.com wrote:
Ray Saintonge said:
should review the four criteria for fair use found in U.S. law.
Why? I live outside the USA and Wikipedia publishes worldwide.
The servers are in florida as such we are subject to the law of that state and the laws of the US federal goverment.
Not surprisingly, the UK courts do not take that view, and reciprocal legal arrangements between the US and the UK make it possible to pursue non-payment of UK judgements in US courts.
Tony Sidaway wrote:
geni said:
On 5/14/05, Tony Sidaway minorityreport@bluebottle.com wrote:
Ray Saintonge said:
should review the four criteria for fair use found in U.S. law.
Why? I live outside the USA and Wikipedia publishes worldwide.
The servers are in florida as such we are subject to the law of that state and the laws of the US federal goverment.
Not surprisingly, the UK courts do not take that view, and reciprocal legal arrangements between the US and the UK make it possible to pursue non-payment of UK judgements in US courts.
Not surprisingly, you are misinformed on this point. UK courts take the view that they do not have jurisdiction over US publications. For example, were the Atlanta Journal-Constitution to defame a Briton, they would not be able to sue in UK courts.
-Mark
On 5/15/05, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
geni said:
The servers are in florida as such we are subject to the law of that state and the laws of the US federal goverment.
Not surprisingly, the UK courts do not take that view, and reciprocal legal arrangements between the US and the UK make it possible to pursue non-payment of UK judgements in US courts.
Not surprisingly, you are misinformed on this point. UK courts take the view that they do not have jurisdiction over US publications. For example, were the Atlanta Journal-Constitution to defame a Briton, they would not be able to sue in UK courts.
I don't think any court would see Wikipedia as being a newspaper.
Delirium said:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
geni said:
On 5/14/05, Tony Sidaway minorityreport@bluebottle.com wrote:
Ray Saintonge said:
should review the four criteria for fair use found in U.S. law.
Why? I live outside the USA and Wikipedia publishes worldwide.
The servers are in florida as such we are subject to the law of that state and the laws of the US federal goverment.
Not surprisingly, the UK courts do not take that view, and reciprocal legal arrangements between the US and the UK make it possible to pursue non-payment of UK judgements in US courts.
Not surprisingly, you are misinformed on this point.
Please do not make insults on this mailing list.
UK courts take the view that they do not have jurisdiction over US publications. For example, were the Atlanta Journal-Constitution to defame a Briton, they would not be able to sue in UK courts.
As far as websites are concerned, that is flatly incorrect. Australia, Canada and the UK have all accepted cases against US websites, and the UK case Godfrey versus Hallam, for instance, demonstrates that a private US citizen who publishes using the internet can be sued in the British courts. An Australian businessmen sued WSJ online after it claimed he was involved in money laundering. The Australian court ruled that he was allowed to bring the case in Australia where his reputation was damaged by the article. Coincidentally, WSJ was also sued in the UK courts over a separate case. In both cases the content was published on a US website primarily for a US readership, but a foreign court accepted jurisdiction. The Canadian case involved an Ontario citizen suing the Washington Post in the Ontario courts. What is interesting about this case is that, at the time of the damage was done, the plaintiff was not in Canada, and was not a Canadian citizen. He was a UN employee stationed in an African country. Later he moved to Canada and petitioned the courts. The Ontario court reasoned that the harm would follow him wherever he went, so they accepted jurisdiction.
Tony Sidaway said:
and the UK case Godfrey versus Hallam, for instance, demonstrates that a private US citizen who publishes using the internet can be sued in the British courts.
Sorry, I got my cases all muxed ip. It's Godfrey versus Dolenga. Dolenga was a Cornell U. postgrad who was also a citizen of British Columbia. Godfrey said disgustingly anti-Canadian statements on soc.culture.canada, Dolenga responded by saying something defamatory about Godfrey. Godfrey obtained a default judgement against Dolenga in a UK court. He also sued Cornell University for "falsely and maliciously published or [causing] to be published" defamatory statements. Cornell had refused to stop letting Dolenga post, citing the First Amendment. They ended up setting with the persistent Godfrey.
Tony Sidaway wrote:
Tony Sidaway said:
and the UK case Godfrey versus Hallam, for instance, demonstrates that a private US citizen who publishes using the internet can be sued in the British courts.
Sorry, I got my cases all muxed ip. It's Godfrey versus Dolenga. Dolenga was a Cornell U. postgrad who was also a citizen of British Columbia. Godfrey said disgustingly anti-Canadian statements on soc.culture.canada, Dolenga responded by saying something defamatory about Godfrey. Godfrey obtained a default judgement against Dolenga in a UK court. He also sued Cornell University for "falsely and maliciously published or [causing] to be published" defamatory statements. Cornell had refused to stop letting Dolenga post, citing the First Amendment. They ended up setting with the persistent Godfrey.
It looks like Godfrey's barratry can be quite profitable. I've noted at least 11 defendants who have been victims of his actions. Since my previous posting I've noted that the ruling on his case with Demon was on a pre-trial motion. The tendency to settle these things out of court really doesn't help for building up a series of applicable precedents.
Ec
Tony Sidaway wrote:
Delirium said:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
geni said:
On 5/14/05, Tony Sidaway minorityreport@bluebottle.com wrote:
Ray Saintonge said:
should review the four criteria for fair use found in U.S. law.
Why? I live outside the USA and Wikipedia publishes worldwide.
The servers are in florida as such we are subject to the law of that state and the laws of the US federal goverment.
Not surprisingly, the UK courts do not take that view, and reciprocal legal arrangements between the US and the UK make it possible to pursue non-payment of UK judgements in US courts.
Not surprisingly, you are misinformed on this point.
Please do not make insults on this mailing list.
I fail to see the relevance of that comment. I most circumstances one would at least wait until there has in fact been an insult before making such a request.
UK courts take the view that they do not have jurisdiction over US publications. For example, were the Atlanta Journal-Constitution to defame a Briton, they would not be able to sue in UK courts.
As far as websites are concerned, that is flatly incorrect. Australia, Canada and the UK have all accepted cases against US websites, and the UK case Godfrey versus Hallam, for instance, demonstrates that a private US citizen who publishes using the internet can be sued in the British courts. An Australian businessmen sued WSJ online after it claimed he was involved in money laundering. The Australian court ruled that he was allowed to bring the case in Australia where his reputation was damaged by the article. Coincidentally, WSJ was also sued in the UK courts over a separate case. In both cases the content was published on a US website primarily for a US readership, but a foreign court accepted jurisdiction. The Canadian case involved an Ontario citizen suing the Washington Post in the Ontario courts. What is interesting about this case is that, at the time of the damage was done, the plaintiff was not in Canada, and was not a Canadian citizen. He was a UN employee stationed in an African country. Later he moved to Canada and petitioned the courts. The Ontario court reasoned that the harm would follow him wherever he went, so they accepted jurisdiction.
In reviewing this string of cases at http://www.caslon.com.au/defamationprofile7.htm I note that the plaintiff was a resident of the jurisdiction at the time the suit was filed. In the Bangoora case it is admitted that he was not a resident at the time the offence began, but the offence is considered as continuing as long as the material keeps appearing on the net. Thus the questions of jurisdiction presented in these cases relate more to where the offence was committed, than to whether the plaintiff has standing in the jurisdiction.
I believe you were the one who claimed that truth was not a defence to an allegation of defamation in the UK. This is clearly not true. See http://www.swarb.co.uk/lawb/defGeneral.shtml on this point.
Ec
Ray Saintonge said:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
Please do not make insults on this mailing list.
I fail to see the relevance of that comment. I most circumstances one would at least wait until there has in fact been an insult before making such a request.
I'll let it go. Perhaps the slight was unintended.
In the Bangoora case it is admitted that he was not a resident at the time the offence began, but the offence is considered as continuing as long as the material keeps appearing on the net.
Yes. Also of relevance was the fact that the Washington Post is widely read throughout North America.
In a case where an American brought a case against an American in a UK court, the court might decline jurisdiction, or it might not. I'm not aware of any relevant case law, but the internet's pervasiveness suggests that any location where a person's reputation could be damaged may be considered appropriate.
I believe you were the one who claimed that truth was not a defence to an allegation of defamation in the UK.
I think it was somebody else.
Tony Sidaway wrote:
Ray Saintonge said:
should review the four criteria for fair use found in U.S. law.
Why? I live outside the USA and Wikipedia publishes worldwide.
The four criteria provide an objective and accessible framework for evaluating fair use. This does not mean that we are imposing US law. If you can point to criteria from elsewhere that accomplish the same thing, that would be fine too.
Ec
geni said:
Perhaps more realistically, we want to be so credible and widely used that merely publishing the C&D letter on the main page will cause the foolhardy company to get deluged with hate mail and backpedal within 24 hours, disavowing any knowledge of the law firm that sent the letter. We've shown we can raise thousands of dollars within a few days just by asking; that's a reservoir of good will that can help us deal with a wide variety of threats.
I would suggest against any form of vigilantism. Apart from anything else sooner or latter you run into someone who doesn't care. Then you are in real trouble.
Indeed. The first sniff of endorsement of that kind of thuggery and I'll be gone, for one.
Tony Sidaway (minorityreport@bluebottle.com) [050513 17:26]:
geni said:
Perhaps more realistically, we want to be so credible and widely used that merely publishing the C&D letter on the main page will cause the foolhardy company to get deluged with hate mail and backpedal within 24 hours, disavowing any knowledge of the law firm that sent the letter. We've shown we can raise thousands of dollars within a few days just by asking; that's a reservoir of good will that can help us deal with a wide variety of threats.
I would suggest against any form of vigilantism. Apart from anything else sooner or latter you run into someone who doesn't care. Then you are in real trouble.
Indeed. The first sniff of endorsement of that kind of thuggery and I'll be gone, for one.
Publishing a takedown notice is vigilantism?
- d.
David Gerard said:
Tony Sidaway (minorityreport@bluebottle.com) [050513 17:26]:
Indeed. The first sniff of endorsement of that kind of thuggery and I'll be gone, for one.
Publishing a takedown notice is vigilantism?
No. But soliciting or endorsing a hate mail campaign is, in my opinion.
This touches on my main beef with the reaction to Wollmann here.
For all his grandiose threats, Wollmann is a puny, harmless self-deluding individual with no supporters, but a group of dedicated, obsessed enemies who have repeatedly demonstrated themselves to be without scruples or pity. I know these people intimately, I watched aghast as they built the legend, and I did my best to gently tear away the artifice and reconcile them with their bete noir. I misjudged badly. Hatred of Wollmann led to active email mailbombing/spamming campaigns against him (to his credit one Usenet administrator helped Wollmann to deal with and stop these--not that he showed any gratitude). It led to a campaign of denigration in the San Diego University newsgroups, with the result that crossposts from astrology groups, or posts discussing any aspect of the Edmond Wollmann flame war, are now forbidden in those newsgroups. Somewhere in there is a private individual, someone like you and me. Though he is not particularly likeable he is entitled to his privacy. He is trying in his typically misguided, futile, inept way to ask for privacy.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Tony Sidaway wrote:
David Gerard said:
Tony Sidaway (minorityreport@bluebottle.com) [050513 17:26]:
Indeed. The first sniff of endorsement of that kind of thuggery and I'll be gone, for one.
Publishing a takedown notice is vigilantism?
No. But soliciting or endorsing a hate mail campaign is, in my opinion.
This touches on my main beef with the reaction to Wollmann here.
For all his grandiose threats, Wollmann is a puny, harmless self-deluding individual with no supporters, but a group of dedicated, obsessed enemies who have repeatedly demonstrated themselves to be without scruples or pity. I know these people intimately, I watched aghast as they built the legend, and I did my best to gently tear away the artifice and reconcile them with their bete noir. I misjudged badly. Hatred of Wollmann led to active email mailbombing/spamming campaigns against him (to his credit one Usenet administrator helped Wollmann to deal with and stop these--not that he showed any gratitude). It led to a campaign of denigration in the San Diego University newsgroups, with the result that crossposts from astrology groups, or posts discussing any aspect of the Edmond Wollmann flame war, are now forbidden in those newsgroups. Somewhere in there is a private individual, someone like you and me. Though he is not particularly likeable he is entitled to his privacy. He is trying in his typically misguided, futile, inept way to ask for privacy.
May others learn from his example that you should be very careful what you say on the Internet, because once it's there, it won't go away, no matter how hard you try.
- -- Alphax GnuPG key: 0xF874C613 - http://tinyurl.com/8mpg9 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, 'All right, then, have it your way.' - C. S. Lewis
"Tony Sidaway" minorityreport@bluebottle.com wrote in message news:28944.62.252.0.4.1115987732.squirrel@happy.minority-report.co.uk... [snip]
Somewhere in there is a private individual, someone like you and me. Though he is not particularly likeable he is entitled to his privacy. He is trying in his typically misguided, futile, inept way to ask for privacy.
So why does he insist on appending his full name, address and contact details to everything he posts?
After so many years, he cannot be unaware of the possible consequences.
Phil Boswell said:
So why does he insist on appending his full name, address and contact details to everything he posts?
Wollmann's emails to this list have included his WWW URLs and the telephone number for his business, Astrological Consulting (SAN 299-5603). His Usenet postings have the same signature or a similar one. Someone once found his actual address and posted it repeatedly on Usenet in mid-1999, alongside blood-curdling but extremely inaccurate descriptions of Wollmann. As far as I'm aware Wollmann has not posted his address himself. His business and personal internet domains are registered under a P.O. Box.
Tony Sidaway wrote:
Somewhere in there is a private individual, someone like you and me. Though he is not particularly likeable he is entitled to his privacy. He is trying in his typically misguided, futile, inept way to ask for privacy.
But if he's a public individual, then he's a public individual whether he wants to be or not. I'm sure there are plenty of public individuals out there who'd prefer to be private.
If the Wollmann article gets undeleted, NPOV policy would demand that the sort of caveats you just listed off about Wollmann's notoriety should be mentioned in there. If NPOV is done right then all sides of an argument should theoretically be satisfied with the results.
Bryan Derksen said:
If the Wollmann article gets undeleted, NPOV policy would demand that the sort of caveats you just listed off about Wollmann's notoriety should be mentioned in there. If NPOV is done right then all sides of an argument should theoretically be satisfied with the results.
Oh yes, I agree. I think the article when it was deleted was admirably NPOV. I did that myself. I was still relieved to see it go.
slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/5/05, David 'DJ' Hedley spyders@btinternet.com wrote:
I think that, looking at the previous way that the report was presented, it was written in a way that possibly seemed more like the anonymous user was calling him a kook than reporting it. Thus, Wikipedia was calling him a kook. If it had been written as something along the lines of "Persons that the newsgroup have labelled a 'kook' include [name], who was given the title of 'Kook of the Millenium'" then there would be no reasonable argument against its inclusion.
This is perhaps an inappopriate discussion to have in public because a legal action has been threatened, but in brief, the fact that you report, but do not endorse, a claim is not a defense in a libel action. If you spread it, you spread it.
Can't be that simple - we report on lots of unproven claims made by leftist politicos and interest groups against rightists, and vice versa. Not only that, but we report on accusations made against the Chinese governments that I'm sure they consider libellous, and likewise for many other governments around the world. So by your reasoning, we would have to scrub out quite a few articles, and the Ann Coulter article would likely wind up empty. :-)
Stan
slimvirgin@gmail.com stated for the record:
On 5/5/05, David 'DJ' Hedley spyders@btinternet.com wrote:
This is perhaps an inappopriate discussion to have in public because a legal action has been threatened, but in brief, the fact that you report, but do not endorse, a claim is not a defense in a libel action. If you spread it, you spread it.
Sarah
Truth is an absolute defense against charges of libel. It is true that the Usenet group alt.usenet.kooks named Wollmann a kook. I can repeat that true statement as often as I like, and Wollmann's lawsuits would be groundless if they weren't merely empty threats.
The Usenet group alt.usenet.kooks named Wollmann a kook. The Usenet group alt.usenet.kooks named Wollmann a kook. The Usenet group alt.usenet.kooks named Wollmann a kook.
On 5/6/05, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org wrote:
Truth is an absolute defense against charges of libel.
Maybe it is where you live, but certainly not everywhere. If I was mounting a lawsuit, I'd go for the jurisdiction with my best chance of success. Wouldn't you?
Skyring stated for the record:
On 5/6/05, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org wrote:
Truth is an absolute defense against charges of libel.
Maybe it is where you live, but certainly not everywhere. If I was mounting a lawsuit, I'd go for the jurisdiction with my best chance of success. Wouldn't you?
Two important points: the plaintiff doesn't have infinite resources. Even if the courts in Kookooland can be relied upon to always find for the plaintiff and not to care about the truth, the plaintiff has to get there and get them to accept his case. And even if he does, I'm an American citizen. I don't care what the courts in Kookooland say about me.
-- Sean Barrett | That was the stun setting. This is not. sean@epoptic.com |
Skyring wrote:
On 5/6/05, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org wrote:
Truth is an absolute defense against charges of libel.
Maybe it is where you live, but certainly not everywhere. If I was mounting a lawsuit, I'd go for the jurisdiction with my best chance of success. Wouldn't you?
Jurisdiction shopping is not always productive. Unless there is a lot at stake the additional cost of fighting your case far from home may exceed what you can recover.
Ec