Slashdot Mirror

Once again, an AC holds an opinion opposite of reality. Though this AC had better cites than most.

http://www.citmedialaw.org/blog/2009/sam-bayard/first-circuit-upends-accepted-understanding-truth-defense-defamation-cases

He said the material is not libelous. I'm allowed to start a domain called SheetrockIsATerriblePerson.com and post criticisms about you. That's not trademark infringement. You cannot use trademark law to silence critics.

Wal-mart tried this in 2008:
http://www.citmedialaw.org/blog/2008/court-rejects-wal-marts-bid-silence-criticism-through-trademark-law

I'm not a fancy lawyer or nothing; but this suggests that it could.

Specifically: "In Virginia, a statement that does any of the following things amounts to defamation per se:
(some irrelevant ones omitted)
hurts the plaintiff in his or her profession or trade."

A nasty yelp review would reasonably seem to be something that would hurt a contractor in their profession or trade. However, in order to be defamatory, the statement has to be a false statement of fact. If what she says turns out to be substantially true, he can just go cry about it(and "Nasty yelp review upheld in court of law" probably doesn't help your PR any). If she is lying or terribly ill-supported, though...

With the Supreme Court not yet weighing in, here's a summary of the current state of case law. Every federal appellate circuit to consider the matter has come out in favor of recording being protected, however.

Yes, but I very much doubt they have a history of defending the word "memory" in a product that does not compete with them, say... a "free memory" tool. If I had a game called memory, they might have a case. There are lots of other factors to consider depending on what your case might be. I am not a lawyer but I do have enough experience with trademark law to win a case, and i'm 99.9% sure that in this particular case, Ravensburger wouldn't stand a chance.

Legal to Photograph Your Marked Ballot
Alabama
Delaware
Maine
North Dakota
Rhode Island
Tennessee
Vermont
Wyoming

The Law on This is Unlcear
Arkansas
Connecticut
DC
Hawaii
Idaho
Kansas
Kentucky
Maryland
Ohio

Illegal to Photograph Your Marked Ballot
All Other U.S. States

Source

Not so. In Washington, consent is only necessary if the conversation is private. As for what's considered private...

Whether a conversation or other communications is "private" depends on a number of case-specific factors, such as the subjective intention of the parties, the reasonableness of their expectation that the conversation would be private, the location of the conversation, and whether third parties were present.

In other words, consent is necessary for most telephone calls or meetings behind closed doors, but not for conversations between strangers taking place in a public place with other people moving around as well.

Source: http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/washington/washington-recording-law

Certain state laws differ, but according to federal law nobody goes to jail in either situation you just described (Source for legality of recording a public conversation).

Freedom of the press is about publishing without interference, not about being able to go anywhere one wants.

It was my understanding that the "occupy" protests, in general, have been occurring in public spaces (this is certainly the case in my city). I don't understand why it would be illegal to go to a public space in order to report on a protest happening there.

If you're talking about cases where journalists have committed illegal trespass, then perhaps I could see your point. But I assume that the press freedom rankings are based on arrests of journalists not committing trespass. I'm thinking about people such as Kristyna Wentz-Graff; since she was released without charge, it would appear that she was not committing a crime when she was arrested.

http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/recording-phone-calls-and-conversations
http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/state-law-recording

Appears to be a reputable site, but as always, IANAL, and even if I was, IANYourL.

http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/recording-phone-calls-and-conversations
http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/state-law-recording

Appears to be a reputable site, but as always, IANAL, and even if I was, IANYourL.

from: http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/responding-dmca-takedown-notice-targeting-your-content,br.,br. The highlighted part:

Section 512(f) of the DMCA creates liability for knowingly making false claims in a DMCA takedown notice or counter-notice. See 17 U.S.C. 512(f). So, if you claim in a counter-notice that your content does not infringe the complaining party's copyrighted work while knowing this to be false, then the copyright owner can win damages from you, including court costs and attorneys' fees stemming from your wrongful counter-notice. Note, however, that this provision also works against a person or company sending a wrongful takedown notice. If someone claims in a takedown notice that you are infringing their copyrighted material while knowing this to be false, then you can win damages from them in a lawsuit. In recent years, the targets of wrongful takedowns have fought back and won damages and favorable settlements from individuals and companies sending bogus takedown notices. For instance, in Online Policy Group v. Diebold, Inc., 337 F. Supp. 2d 1195 (N.D. Cal. 2004), two students and their ISP sued voting machine manufacturer Diebold after it tried to use DMCA takedown notices to disable access to Internet postings of the company's leaked internal email archive. The court granted summary judgment to the students and ISP on their claim, finding that portions of the email archive were so clearly subject to the fair use defense that "[n]o reasonable copyright holder could have believed that [they] were protected by copyright." According to the EFF, Diebold subsequently agreed to pay $125,000 in damages and fees to settle the lawsuit. For another example, see Crook v. 10 Zen Monkeys in our legal threats database. Someone who has sent a baseless takedown notice about your content may be more inclined to back off if you remind him or her about section 512(f) of the DMCA, in addition to sending a counter-notice.

He'll win, easily.

It's illegal to record audio of people without their express permission in Massachusetts. Period. Doesn't matter where.

About the only exception is if it's blatantly obvious that you're being recorded, which has been taken to mean "news team" - in other words, an absolutely gigantic, impossible-to-miss camera, or a large microphone, like TV reporters carry with the station logo on it.

Otherwise, it's "wire tapping."

Ridiculous? You bet. Going to change? Hah!

Incidentally, as far as I know, you're allowed to take video of people in public places. Just not the audio.

You're right about the situation in two-party consent states. As well, yes, you're allowed to take video, but not audio. The only concern in two-party states is that people will say one thing when not being recorded, and another if they know they are being recorded. (Take Rod Blagojevich, he would have never said "this is *bleep*ing golden, and I'm not just giving it away," if he knew he were being recorded.)

The intent is to protect people from inadvertently saying something retarded, because we all say retarded things fairly often. However, video records actions not speech, and therefore aren't recording conversations... unless you're Deaf and using Sign Language... I've often wondered about that from time to time... can it be wiretapping to record a conversation in Sign Language, because the wording is about recording conversations (in Washington State at least) not about "audio vs. video" or whatever.

He'll win, easily.

It's illegal to record audio of people without their express permission in Massachusetts. Period. Doesn't matter where.

Negatory good buddy, FTA:
“Even a cursory review of the law would show that the Legislature took the time to insert a preamble into the statute showing that it is specifically aimed at organized crime prosecutions,”

So, no he will not win easily......he likely will not even win.

cc

He'll win, easily.

It's illegal to record audio of people without their express permission in Massachusetts. Period. Doesn't matter where.

About the only exception is if it's blatantly obvious that you're being recorded, which has been taken to mean "news team" - in other words, an absolutely gigantic, impossible-to-miss camera, or a large microphone, like TV reporters carry with the station logo on it.

Otherwise, it's "wire tapping."

Ridiculous? You bet. Going to change? Hah!

Incidentally, as far as I know, you're allowed to take video of people in public places. Just not the audio.

It's interesting that all the comments so far have been about the technology etc.

This breaks just about every federal and state wiretapping law that exists. If a person or organization wishes to record the phone conversation of two individuals, according to federal law, one party must have full knowledge that the call will be recorded and give her consent before the call.

Additionally, according to some states' law, both parties must have full knowledge and give prior consent.

The key here is the prior consent. Google is breaking all of these laws by recording first then telling the people after the call about it. By that time the recording is a criminal act, no matter what under federal laws and ALL state laws.

No. There are different laws for video vs audio, as well as based on jurisdiction.

For example, I recall one story where a landlord installed spycams in an tenants apartment and recorded her, but he wasn't convicted because he only recorded video [if he had audio, then he would have been].

Some jurisdictions require both parties to consent to recording audio, some just one party. I would guess most places have video without audio generally is permissible in public places, but IANAL.

IANAL either; but I happen to know just a little on this subject, and this is one of the few places in the U.S. where the police could possibly get a lawsuit like this to "fly".

Unfortunately, New Hampshire happens to be one of only TWELVE states in the USA that require BOTH PARTIES to consent to recording.

One good thing: Even if you live in one of those states, calling INTERstate is covered by Federal law, which is ONE-PARTY to consent (that is to say, "you").

Not quite. The photographer holds the copyright. People in the pictures have a right to publicity, but its considered separate from the actual copyright on the photo. Like in the Virgin Mobile case, they legally had the copyright but did not have consent from the model, aka "right to publicity".

Funny, I thought the law was quite clear about needing explicit permission to use one's likeness for advertising. I believe it's referred to as personality rights, or more specifically in the US, right to publicity. Failure to do so can result in a lawsuit for invasion of privacy through misappropriation of name or likeness and/or violation of the right of publicity.

Though I'm sure FB is already prepared to update its terms of use to allow this kind of use, no doubt by dangling useless "Facebook credits" in front of the users to get them to sign...

(IANAL, but have worked enough with commercial photography to know you always need a release for this kind of use in advertising)

You were awarded $19,462 Did that cover the costs of this litigation? Yes, I know you were pro se, but I'll also bet you could have been taking a lot of photos during the time you were researching and writing briefs...

Illinois's wiretapping law is a "two-party consent" law. Illinois makes it a crime to use an "eavesdropping device" to overhear or record a phone call or conversation without the consent of all parties to the conversation. The law defines an "eavesdropping device" as "any device capable of being used to hear or record oral conversation or intercept, retain, or transcribe electronic communication whether such conversation or electronic communication is conducted in person, by telephone, or by any other means." 720 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/14-1, -2. If you are operating in Illinois, you should always get the consent of all parties before recording an in-person conversation or telephone call. In addition to subjecting you to criminal prosecution, violating the Illinois wiretapping statute can expose you to a civil lawsuit for damages by an injured party. While you generally are permitted to photograph or record video of people without permission in most public places, it is illegal in Illinois to "videotape, photograph, or film" people without their consent in "a restroom, tanning bed, or tanning salon, locker room, changing room or hotel bedroom." 720 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/26-4(a) (scroll down).

http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/illinois-recording-law

Truth is not an absolute defence against libel under UK law (unlike, I believe, the US).

Truth is an ultimate defence for civil libel in England and always has been. Exceptions have been made in some states in the US for when the truth is told with malicious intent. However, there has been no such case in England/Wales under civil libel law where the ruling has dismissed truth as a defence.

The final issue of this case was not Mr Singh's scientific claims, but his claims that the BCA "happily promotes bogus treatments", which was taken by the BCA to mean that they knowingly advertised treatments that they knew to be ineffective. Mr Singh claimed this was not his meaning. The issue with this comment, in that interpretation is that it is difficult to show that you have reasonable basis to believe that the BCA has no faith in its own treatment. In the end, the court took it to mean that simply that the BCA promoted ineffective treatments, something that Mr Singh had reasonable basis for saying.

The law in this case has done its job, it has found Mr Singh not liable for defamation. Defamation laws are there to make people responsible for what they say and they mostly work. The issue here is that the whole system of civil law is so slow and expensive that it becomes prohibitively inconvenient to actually get to the truth. But this goes far beyond libel and to every claim imaginable.

Although that might seem like a good analogy, it really isn't. There's a very major difference between someone hosting somebody else's content and a print publisher: editorial control. If my memory of communications law serves, that's a key factor in determining liability.

If you had said a self-publishing firm, your analogy would be on track, and the answer would be that they would go after the author because the self-publishing firm is nothing more than a company hired to provide a service. They would be no more liable for the violation than Kinko's or eBay would be if someone photocopied 10,000 copies of a copyrighted poem at Kinko's and then sold them on eBay. Neither party had an opportunity to exercise editorial control over the content, and as such, they generally are not liable for the content.

With a traditional publishing firm, the publishing company is paying the author instead of the other way around, and as such, the author is under contract to write a book for the firm. The author may or may not retain rights, but in any case, the publishing house has hired the author to do that, and has taken editorial responsibility for ensuring the book meets the standards set by the particular imprint. As soon as a book becomes an imprinted publication, that publisher is responsible for it. It is no longer the author publishing through someone, but rather the publisher choosing to publish a particular work by a particular author, and that is generally where the line is drawn.

As for what the RIAA wants, they'll never get it. If they did, then every Internet web server, bookstore, newsstand, record store, etc. would suddenly be required to exercise editorial control over everything they sell to avoid potential liability, and the market for copyrighted material would dry up completely, including stuff published through official RIAA channels. What they're asking for is basically suicide for the RIAA and those they represent. At some point, they'll probably pull their heads out of their backsides and realize that they're being morons, but I think it's safe to say that even the U.S. government isn't dumb enough to give them what they're asking for....

Such a valuable argument from someone too coward to even show his/her nickname here.

Some of the most important and influential writings of all time were written by people who chose to remain anonymous. In fact, the oppressive regimes that I argue we're slipping towards always try to stop anonymous writing with their secret police. So, by pulling the, "you're too much of a coward to identify yourself" inane argument, you prove my point that you don't understand enough of history to truly grasp the consequences of what you wish for. However, even in your ignorance you're still here arguing for less protections available to those who are accused, so yes...I believe, "fuck you" is an appropriate sentiment.

Do you know the Brazilian Laws?

As a matter of fact, I've lived in Brazil for 14 years.

Do you have experience dealing with those laws?

Not personally, but I've seen enough to know that the laws there are already too strict and remove too many freedoms. Suing Google over dirty jokes on Orkut for example. The problem as I see it are too many laws, and too many of those stupid laws actually being enforced.

You sound like those indoctrinated left-wing youngsters who believe in absolute truths.

On the contrary, my lack of belief in absolute truths is what drives the very core of my argument. You want the government to be able to force this guy to hand over his encryption keys, because you want him to be prosecuted for what he did. Fine. What happens when they come after you? Oh, they would never do that because you're not doing anything wrong, right? Well, you said,

Did you ever fought (like taking legal risks or even risking your neck) against something wrong?

and now you've given a tool for the government to shut you down if you're ever in a position where you are fighting against something they are doing that's wrong. You said these protections were given as an overreaction to the abuses of the military government, but what you don't understand is that it's not an overreaction, it's a necessary one. If the government ever starts going in that direction again, they'll want to restrict speech. So right now they're using that power to prosecute a criminal. Tomorrow they could use that power because you've been writing political pamphlets against the people currently in power, seize your computer, and force you to hand over encryption keys. Remember, they decide what the laws are, so they can make you a criminal at any time. Yes, if it ever gets to that point, they can always force you to hand over the keys through torture, but that's much harder to hide and justify.

Do you have the slightlest idea what is, like, putting your feet in the Federal Public Ministry to denounce financial corruption against people who can do you real harm?

That's funny. You don't trust the government because they're too corrupt, but you want to give them more powers. And I'm the naive kiddo who needs to grow up and get some experience from the real world. Nice.

If you stand on a street corner and yell back and forth at your neighbor across the street, is somebody standing 100 feet away from you with a tape recorder capturing your conversation violating your privacy? That's exactly what Google was doing with their wireless capture.

It's not exactly that same thing, since you can't naturally hear wifi conversations.

Can you record a phone call or conversation when you do not have consent from one of the parties?

Regardless of whether state or federal law governs the situation, it is almost always illegal to record a phone call or private conversation to which you are not a party, do not have consent from at least one party, and could not naturally overhear. In addition, federal and many state laws do not permit you to surreptitiously place a bug or recording device on a person or telephone, in a home, office or restaurant to secretly record a conversation between two people who have not consented.

The part about having to wait 90 days. You don't have to do that.

Wrong.

California law regulates what you can do when you find lost property in the state. Section 2080 of the Civil Code provides that any person who finds and takes charge of a lost item acts as "a depositary for the owner." If the true owner is known, the finder must notify him/her/it within a reasonable time and "make restitution without compensation, except a reasonable charge for saving and taking care of the property." Id. 2080. If the true owner is not known and the item is worth more than $100, then the finder has a duty to turn it over to the local police department within a reasonable time. Id. 2080.1. The owner then has 90 days to claim the property. Id. 2080.2. If the true owner fails to do so and the property is worth more than $250, then the police publish a notice, and 7 days after that ownership of the property vests in the person who found it, with certain exceptions. Id. 2080.3.
http://www.citmedialaw.org/blog/2010/lost-and-found-california-law-and-next-generation-iphone

The asshole lost it.

Well given his job title, I'd say he's a very intelligent engineer, not an ignorant jerk like yourself.

Correct me if I'm wrong, isn't there a shield law that protects news reporters, publishers, bloggers and other people that report news from this?
http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/california-protections-sources-and-source-material

Sounds like Apple is getting the local police to be their Gestapo for their corporate use and this is not good. This should be an interesting fight for this shield law since this is the second time that Apple is on the other side of this legal fight.

"California law regulates what you can do when you find lost property in the state. Section 2080 of the Civil Code provides that any person who finds and takes charge of a lost item acts as "a depositary for the owner." If the true owner is known, the finder must notify him/her/it within a reasonable time and "make restitution without compensation, except a reasonable charge for saving and taking care of the property." Id. 2080. If the true owner is not known and the item is worth more than $100, then the finder has a duty to turn it over to the local police department within a reasonable time. Id. 2080.1. The owner then has 90 days to claim the property. Id. 2080.2. If the true owner fails to do so and the property is worth more than $250, then the police publish a notice, and 7 days after that ownership of the property vests in the person who found it, with certain exceptions. Id. 2080.3."

That's what the law says. Is that what happened? No? Then maybe you shouldn't crack wise.

You're wrong. This post explains it:

http://www.citmedialaw.org/blog/2010/lost-and-found-california-law-and-next-generation-iphone

While you generally are permitted to photograph or record video of people without permission in most public places, it is illegal in Illinois to "videotape, photograph, or film" people without their consent in "a restroom, tanning bed, or tanning salon, locker room, changing room or hotel bedroom." 720 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/26-4(a).

Your linked article makes sense for private places, but as far as I can tell, if you're in a public park, or on a public roadway, or on a public sidewalk, or in a government building, or other public place, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy.

The police department elected not to prosecute Mr. Gannon. (Sorry for paywall) Yes, he was certainly hassled a lot, apparently within the letter of the law.

Barratry is alive and well, in both federal and many state judicial systems:

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/lawyer_awaits_verdict_in_barratry_trial_over_subpoena_sent_to_opposing_part/
http://www.lukegilman.com/blawg/2009/11/07/houston-lawyer-charged-with-barratry-for-having-homeless-man-hand-out-business-cards/
http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/state-oklahoma-miller-v-king

In the case of "the offense of persistently instigating lawsuits, typically groundless ones",
just making the accusation is often enough to make the attorney quit a case. They can be tried for it in court as well as being censured or disbarred, whereas the client can only be tried (often not understanding what it is and/or thinking their case's validity precludes such a charge). It may have been used successfully at least once in a context in which it is often discussed: "In Religious Technology Center v. Gerbode, 1994 WL 228607 (C.D. Cal. 1994), a Rule 11 sanction of $8,887.50 was imposed against Helena K. Kobrin, an attorney for the Church for bringing legally baseless, frivolous claims", however corroboration for this is lacking.

http://www.citmedialaw.org/blog/2009/hipcheck16-no-turk-182-anonymous-political-speech-sacred

is much better -- it's written by actual legal scholars and discusses what the specific "deeply disturbing" comments were. Sometimes the hometown major newspaper isn't actually the best place to get articles, Slashdot.

p

You are at least partially correct.

"Michigan law makes it a crime to "use[] any device to eavesdrop upon [a] conversation without the consent of all parties." Mich. Comp. Laws  750.539c. This looks like an "all party consent" law, but one Michigan Court has ruled that a participant in a private conversation may record it without violating the statute because the statutory term "eavesdrop" refers only to overhearing or recording the private conversations of others. See Sullivan v. Gray, 342 N.W. 2d 58, 60-61 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982). The Michigan Supreme Court has not yet ruled on this question, so it is not clear whether you may record a conversation or phone call if you are a party to it. But, if you plan on recording a conversation to which you are not a party, you must get the consent of all parties to that conversation. In addition, if you intend to record conversations involving people located in more than one state, you should play it safe and get the consent of all parties. "

http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/michigan-recording-law since you're too lazy to attempt to debunk me, like a typical 7-digit slashdotter.

"This looks like an "all party consent" law, but one Michigan Court has ruled that a participant in a private conversation may record it without violating the statute because the statutory term "eavesdrop" refers only to overhearing or recording the private conversations of others. See Sullivan v. Gray, 342 N.W. 2d 58, 60-61 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982)."

Now what were you saying? Anecdotal evidence from me usually comes from personal experience in the court systems. Remember, I'm the guy that kicked EA's ass over the Spore DRM issue.

WRONG. Michigan requires only ONE party to know it's being taped.

That's not what this says:

http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/michigan-recording-law

Michigan law makes it a crime to "use[] any device to eavesdrop upon [a] conversation without the consent of all parties." This looks like an "all party consent" law, but one Michigan Court has ruled that a participant in a private conversation may record it without violating the statute because the statutory term "eavesdrop" refers only to overhearing or recording the private conversations of others. The Michigan Supreme Court has not yet ruled on this question, so it is not clear whether you may record a conversation or phone call if you are a party to it. But, if you plan on recording a conversation to which you are not a party, you must get the consent of all parties to that conversation.

Also, from the horse's mouth:

http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-750-539c

Any person who is present or who is not present during a private conversation and who wilfully uses any device to eavesdrop upon the conversation without the consent of all parties thereto ... is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment in a state prison for not more than 2 years or by a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both.

I couldn't find any exceptions to the Massachusetts law, but I did find a blog post that described another case like it. A man operating a video camera at a political protest in 2006 was ordered by the police to stop recording, but he simply hid the camera in his coat and continued to record. He was arrested, ordered to pay a $500 fine, and sentenced to six months probation.

http://www.citmedialaw.org/blog/2007/massachusetts-wiretapping-law-strikes-again

So even though there's no exception, I would guess that the man described in the original article will receive a similar sentence. The post I linked to above also mentions a case in which a woman posted a video on the Internet that was obtained in a similar manner. The police department ordered her to take it down or face prosecution; she resisted, citing the first amendment, and the court ruled in her favor, since she did not actually make the video that she was posting. So creating the recording is a crime, but, assuming you didn't create it, you can share it with whomever you want.

I also discovered that the defense counsel for Joel Tennenbaum, who was sued by the RIAA and whose case has appeared on Slashdot before, used the wiretapping law as part of their defense:

http://blog.pff.org/archives/2009/07/print/005584.html

Oh, and this website that purports to list dumb laws that have been passed in the US and around the world. I don't know how accurate it is, but it's good for a laugh.

http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-states/massachusetts

"...one Michigan Court has ruled that a participant in a private conversation may record it without violating the statute because the statutory term "eavesdrop" refers only to overhearing or recording the private conversations of others. See Sullivan v. Gray, 342 N.W. 2d 58, 60-61 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982). "
http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/michigan-recording-law

(Yet to be tested by the Michigan Supreme Court)

In light of the dangerous expansion of the CFAA and the serious First Amendment and due process concerns raised by the case, a coalition of public interest organizations and individual Internet law professors today filed an amicus curiae brief in support of Drew's motion to dismiss the indictment. Some of the coalition members include EFF, Public Citizen, Center for Democracy & Technology, Lauren Gelman, Eric Goldman, Mark A. Lemley, and Daniel J. Solove. Phil Malone of the Berkman Cyberlaw Clinic and Jennifer Granick of EFF represent the coalition.

Feel free to indulge your primal "WE MUST PUNISH HER!" emotions, but some of us are ruled by reason and logic and a sense of proportion and caution with regard to the long-term consequences of our actions.

The First Amendment is commonly interpreted to imply a right to anonymity-- otherwise there would be a significant burden to free speech, and the First Amendment precludes "abridging" speech. Here's what the EFF and
Citizen Media Law have to say.

Just like the 2nd amendment is interpreted to apply mainly to guns even though the word "gun" (or even firearm) doesn't appear within it, anonymity is assumed to be part of one's freedom to speak openly in defiance of the majority opinion.

But even though they're not private information of yours I would not have the right to widely distribute them, either free or for money.

That's a good point, though I think if you posted it up in sections with commentary, and without financial motive, you might have a good argument for fair use. That kind of legal threat is clearly a intended to silence public discourse, not to protect some lawfirm's property. I'm not alone in that thinking, but who knows where such a thing would actually end up. While I could find references to the threat of a suit over publishing C&D letters, I didn't actually find the outcome of any such action. The threat itself is the chilling effect, though.

Michael Crook hit with a lawsuit for fake DMCA takedowns
http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2006/12/04/update-michael-crook-responds-to-eff/

Diebold paid $125,000 for false DMCA takedowns
http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/diebold-inc-v-online-policy-group

Universal: EFF SLAPPed us with dancing toddler DMCA lawsuit
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2008/04/universal-eff-slapped-us-with-dancing-toddler-dmca-lawsuit.ars

DMCA takedown backlash: EFF sues Viacom over Colbert parody clip
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2007/03/dmca-takedown-backlash-eff-sues-viacom-over-colbert-parody-clip.ars

Some facts that might get in your way:

* Newspapers have experimented with specialty devices -- and premium/pay services -- for years. Doesn't work. Generalized computing devices and free services have flooded the marketplace and there's no turning back.

* Newspapers are already dropping print editions all over the country. Gatehouse itself announced yesterday that it's killing the printed Kansas City Kansan, and going online-only. I have yet to see a case in which this is anything other than a desperation move by a failing business. In the case of the Kansan, I think they only have 7,000 monthly unique users on the Web. That's not a viable business, regardless of what you might "save" by not manufacturing and distributing a printed product.

* Gatehouse's complaint -- and I've read it -- contains a laundry list of issues, some of them in direct conflict with one another. But there is one charge that isn't easily dismissed. The Boston Globe is essentially creating a derivative product to enter hyperlocal markets where it previously had no presence. Gatehouse points out that nearly all the links on the local Globe products are Gatehouse content. That may flunk the fair-use test. (On the other hand, that argument effectively puts Gatehouse in a position of claiming it's entitled to preservation of a monopoly.)

* Gatehouse licenses its content under a Creative Commons no-commercial-use provision. Defining what's commercial use is a big hairy mess, but it's not possible to argue that the NYT company is a noncommercial effort.

Other perspectives:

Mark Potts: http://recoveringjournalist.typepad.com/recovering_journalist/2008/12/gatehousegate.html

Dan Gillmor: http://www.citmedialaw.org/blog/2008/gatehouse-v-ny-times-co-not-so-simple-after-all

Citmedialaw.org has some info about it.

Not in WV according to:
http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/documenting-your-vote#StateResources

I think this is actually her site:

http://www.sheboyganspirit.com/

(According to here, anyway: http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/city-sheboygan-v-reisinger)

G.--

If you read the C&D letter http://www.citmedialaw.org/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/Sheboygan%20Cease%20Letter.pdf then you'll see that they never claimed that it was illegal, just that the way the link was used suggested that the linking site was somehow endorsed by the linked-to site; then they asked that the link be removed to avoid this confusion.

A moron, IMO, would be someone who comments on the specifics of a C&D letter without reading it. YMMV.

The claimant is suing because she says that that letter infringed on her first amendment rights. I don't see it to be honest. She could have left the link in place and if she were bothered simply added a line "not authorised by Sheboygan City or it's associates".

The article appears to show that rare thing - journalistic integrity. Why do I say that?

Well, peppered throughout are statements about the source of any particular bit of information. The only source is the lawsuit which has been filed.

"The cityâ(TM)s actions torpedoed Reisingerâ(TM)s Web site marketing business and led to death threats against her, according to the lawsuit."

I can't see how getting a C&D letter and acting on it lead to death threats? Then there's this curious part:

Reisinger said she felt intimidated by McLeanâ(TM)s letter and removed the link. Then a police lieutenant told Reisinger he was investigating her use of links to city government sites, the suit says.

What, did a police lieutenant just ring her up to tell her? The claim that her business suffered loss of earnings because she had to remove this link is laughable.

It appears that Reisinger was performing a smear campaign against Mayor Perez (note the bit about photoshopped images). Perez probably complained and the police would naturally of investigated the complaint to see if anything illegal was happening.

My /prima facie/ view is that Reisinger sounds like a bit of a nut-case trying to grind a huge axe and use it to cut up some immigrants. But the reports don't give us enough to establish verity of any of the lawsuits claims.

I don't quite understand the [apparent] forcefulness of your [lysergic.acid's] response; what other information are you privy to? If people trying to conduct a nationalistically motivated slur campaign back down I think that's probably a good thing. Again, what am I missing?

---
Note that: http://www.sheboyganpress.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080826/SHE0101/808260434/1973 gives a link to download the C&D letter, http://www.sheboyganpress.com/assets/pdf/U0116421825.PDF, which seems both fair and reasonable to me. Without seeing exactly how the link was used it's hard to say if she should have acted on the letter or not.

See also http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/city-sheboygan-v-reisinger

I am not sure if this will help, but I have mentioned it to people in the past as to if it is 'legal' for them to record something.

http://www.callcorder.com/phone-recording-law-america.htm

This varies from state to state. The following is also helpful for noting particular oddities by state:

http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/state-law-recording
http://www.rcfp.org/taping/states.html

If anyone knows if this covers video recording as well and if it doesn't has a link, please let me know. I like keeping a list of such things.

It doesn't appear, however, that AP is continuing to pursue its "hot news" claim against Drudge Retort, and for good reason. ... in National Basketball Ass'n v. Motorola, 105 F.3d 841, 844 (1997), one of the few cases to address a "hot news" claim, the Second Circuit set an exceptionally high standard for such claims to be viable, requiring, among other things, that the information be time-sensitive; the defendant be in direct competition with the plaintiff; and the continued publishing of the "hot news" would so reduce the plaintiff's incentive to produce the product or service that its existence or quality would be substantially threatened.

source.

Won't be able to do that if this legislator has any say.