I'll sue you!!
Posted on 07/20/2010 11:52:30 AM PDT by Lazamataz
Can FR put “forbidden blockers” much like most of our employers do?
John Kerry wanted to give newspapers tax exempt status to try to save them. Some mularkey about freedom of the press when he knew they were in the tank for dems mostly.
If journalists are going to be democratic campaign headquarters and all conservatives will be considered racists, then I hope they all become dinosaurs.
Real Journalism is dead and now they are not to be believed. http://is.gd/dzOo9
http://is.gd/dzP4P
[In other words, their website encourages article sharing. This sounds like entrapment.]
You should snapshot te page. It isn’t entrapment, but it surely weakens their case.
Why did they think a lawsuit was necessary when they could have simply asked?
I’ve been reading up and it seems that all of this paper’s copyrights were purchased from this one tech company that is solely in the business of suing for infringement.
In other words, the paper doesn’t own the right to their copyrights for the articles in question.
It may not be entrapment but it could be extortion.
Seems to me that when Google uses its web-cache they could be violating a copyright.
Las Vegas Review (i.e. Harrytown). Ugh.
They were so quick to get the story in print, they didn't wait for the defendants to be notified. Geeze...
Sounds like desperation to me, Jim.
This material is not sourced by you, it is sourced and posted by third parties, your action, once notified properly, is to take down offending information after it's been reported. That you offer a proactive tool for publishers to use, that of an automatic screening system which they can participate in, is simply a bonus, and does not excuse the company from not following established DCMA case law or regulations.
The response to the lawsuit should be: Nothing was posted by the defendants to the website from the plaintiff.
If you mean by "Some people", Free Republic, the lesson was learned to the point of automated tools to prevent copyright infringement, and rapid moderator response to avoidance of those tools. The plaintiffs, however, need to follow DCMA procedure and law, and they didn't here.
It’s more likely in a category of a nuisance or legal harassment lawsuit, i.e. a frivolous lawsuit.
This is characteristic of filing this kind of a civil lawsuit without notification, negotiation and/or allowance of reasonable time for remedial action(s) if applicable.
For one, if it ever gets to that point, the lawsuit could be transferred to California (FR’s location jurisdiction) if Jim decides it could get it dismissed easier.
If this lawsuit goes any farther than the exchange of a few “nasty” legal letters, Jim and John should demand [at least] a recompense of legal expenses in court. Frivolous lawsuits should be punished.
My pleasure.
Nope, this one was not for violations of fair use.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-20010923-261.html
More details are surfacing about why Blogetery.com, a blogging platform that claimed to service more than 70,000 blogs, was mysteriously booted from the Internet by its Web-hosting company.
The site was shut down after FBI agents informed executives of Burst.net, Blogetery's Web host, late on July 9 that links to al-Qaeda materials were found on Blogetery's servers, Joe Marr, chief technology officer for Burst.net, told CNET. Sources close to the investigation say that included in those materials were the names of American citizens targeted for assassination by al-Qaeda. Messages from Osama bin Laden and other leaders of the terrorist organization, as well as bomb-making tips, were also allegedly found on the server.
But Marr said a Burst.net employee erred in telling Blogetery's operator and members of the media that the FBI had ordered it to terminate Blogetery's service. He said Burst.net did that on its own.
Exactly right. Even if they agreed to settle for the defendants’ cost of defense, with that many lawsuits out there they’d reap a windfall.
I'll sue you!!
Among the multiple things they are demanding in the "Prayer for Relief" section, this caught my eye, on page #9:
3. Direct GKG and any successor domain name registrar for the Domain to lock the Domain and transfer control of the Domain to Righthaven
Reading the above, it seems to my non-lawyer eye that these twits want to shut FR down and to own the FR domain.
Any legal minds want to read and interpret?
Where did I post it was about fair use?
Youtube won against Viacom, can’t be responsible for what users post, as long as you act after being alerted to copyright infringement.
Apparently, they have sued 75 sites so this might be their newest revenue generating scheme.
I’m in for $10.
Let me know where to send it and how to fill out the check.
That’s how it looks to my non-legal mind also.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.