Slashdot Mirror

This was predicatable; they should adopt the same strategy as that used in the McLibel Trial.

http://www.mcspotlight.org/case/

The McLibel trial was widely regarded as the biggest publicity disaster to every hit McDonalds.

This case is so peripherally connected with file sharing, that it could sour the public on the recording industry. Specifically, if England, if they go to trial, the can subpoena the record company executives to testify at trial. There is no end of embarassing documents that might come up.

It's not always expensive to litigate. The classic example is the one against McDonald's.

I can't figure out from that article why they would have been worse off with representation.

Er... I didn't even read the article really, before i linked to it! But i did follow the case while it was going. Apart from anything else, they would have been much worse off financially because they would have had to pay a vast amount for representation over what was the longest running trial in English history. If they'd been represented, it probably would have become financially impossible to continue with it for that long.

But there was also a definite PR benefit from being unrepresented and standing up to the might of a multi-national corporation. And, ultimately, the case was a total fiasco for McDonalds - even though they initially "won" most of it.

The full story's here http://www.mcspotlight.org/case/trial/story.html

Back in '96: http://www.mcspotlight.org/media/press/herald_7oct96.html

"a guy" == Lord Godfrey McDonald (chief of clan McDonald, aka 'McDonald of McDonald')

Sort of, I guess. (I'm sure someone else posted this in the thread, but if not:) Anyone remember in '96 when McDonalds sued a Scottish Clan named McDonald?

from this lot:

http://www.mcspotlight.org/

It's remarkable that large corporations don't seem to realise that after enough people cave in to their crap, someone, probably poor, with nothing to lose will turn around and deliver a legal kick in the nuts.

Good luck to this person. McDonalds won on technicality but lost massively in PR terms. If the RIAA can make a big enough arse of themselves in public people may start to realise how redundant they actually are.

Hmm, that sounds great in theory. The problem comes when the better-represented party, rather than the party in the right, wins. Not that I disagree that an organisation pursuing frivolous lawsuits should foot the cost of those lawsuits when they're found wanting for whatever reason, but neither system is perfect.

On the other hand the only trial of multinational-vs-regular folks I could think of, outside the RIAA/MPAA/IFPI etc sphere, was the 'McLibel' case. In which the defendants won. Despite the litigious might of McDonalds. So I might've shot myself in the foot...oops.

Until that company gets nailed for a willful neglect.. then they will get hit hard...."oh, so you ignored the unnecessary danger..."

Which they won't. You need to read Fast Food Nation . You'll learn all about companies such as this, that don't give a flying fuck about their employees and the employees are too poor to do anything about it. Also in most cases that DO get exposed, the government looks the other way. It's a sad world. :(

This is a lot like the McLibel case in the UK. McDonalds were using the UK Libel laws to shut up various media outlets including the BBC and some newspapers by threatening to sue if they published information that painted McDonalds in a bad light. All these organisations decided to not publish or broadcast the information. Then a volunteer organisation wrote a pamphlet about the things that McDonalds do wrong, and got sued. Two of the members of that organisation refused to settle out of court, and decided to defend themselves against the million dollar lawyers that McDonalds hired to take them to court.

What proceeded was the longest ever court case in British legal history and in the end the court agreed that indeed, McDonalds do, quote: "exploit children with their advertising, falsely advertise their food as nutritious, risk the health of their long-term regular customers, are "culpably responsible" for cruelty to animals reared for their products, are "strongly antipathetic" to unions and pay their workers low wages."

From http://www.mcspotlight.org/case/trial/verdict/inde x.html

So not only can uninformed consumers not make a good choice, but when people try to inform consumers of FACTS, money-laden corporations can shut them up most of the time. So on the whole, markets don't work properly in these cases because no consumer can be adequately informed about absolutely every product that some corrupt corporation is selling.

Likewise with the RIAA Mafia, most people cannot afford to defend against them or have the money to inform the public of the other side of the story - i.e. how the damage that RIAA claims P2P causes is largely exagerrated.

It's only the free market fundamentalists that think markets are sacrosanct, and "informed" consumers can defeat corrupt organisations through consumer power, despite the wealth and power of some of the players involved. Unfortunately, there appears to be rather a lot of those in America. No wonder the Middle East thinks America's corrupt.

Defending yourself in court can be a real challenge that would pretty much require making it a full-time job.

The Wikipedia article only says:
... the two had no formal post-secondary school education, and few financial resources. Furthermore, they were denied legal aid by the courts. Although the pair were deemed no legal match for McDonald's enormous legal assets, they represented themselves, receiving much free legal advice, and doing enormous amounts of research in their spare time.
however I recall reading in a Sunday broadsheet at the time that the case dragged on for a couple of years (I think that was just the first case!) and that the two represented themselves in court for 8 hours a day, then spent several hours of an evening preparing their briefs for the next day.

Faced with legal action by a corporate behemoth like McDonalds, there was really no other affordable way to defend themselves, and I am in awe of their commitment - 3 other defendants were named in the initial proceedings, but they retracted the statements in the disputed pamphlet and apologised for its content. I believe that Steel & Morris gave up their jobs as a postman & as a gardener in because they refused to back down.

IIRC none of the defendants were the authors of the leaflet - the group they belonged to was very ad-hoc, meeting weekly in a pub, and the court case was brought a couple of years after the leaflet had been distributed; Steel or Morris was quoted in the article I read as saying they didn't remember who did write it, as it was only one of many activities the group undertook. This seems to me to quite a reasonable assertion after two years, considering that someone might've only attended only a few of the meetings over a period of a few months - you might well remember faces but be unable to put names to them, and be unable to provide contact details for Mick or Joe.

Stroller.

In England, it's not unusual for trains to be blasting about at 125mph. Also, sheep farming is largely confined to the Pennines, the Dales and the Cotswalds, which means lots of mud and slopes. The sheep are much better behaved, having grown up on a diet of James Herriot. Quite possibly literally, given the usual attitude of British farmers.

I hope the case runs and runs, and gets lots of coverage.

Remember the McLibel case? While McDonalds were successful on a number of issues, by contesting the case they ensured the allegations got widespread coverage, and in the end it was a disaster for them.

Now think about the coverage this case would get. Think about the OpEd pieces which will be written: "The record companies have the law on their side, but are having to use the law to prevent their death". "The record companies are using the law to distract attention from the fact that they don't matter any more".

All the time that people are paying up, they can assert that those people are admitting they are in the wrong (which, in law, they are) and that the current model for music distribution should continue (which it shouldn't). But as soon as there are daily column inches from a trial, the discussions around the subject (such as the relevance of record companies today, the contracts they sign bands up for, etc.) will hit the mainstream media.

Can't wait.

Perhaps you'd care to read the referenced version of the allegedly libellous factsheet - which includes factual and textual citations for the claims.

(Some of which are from McDonald's-internal documents; others from such international bodies as the WHO and WWF.)

One additional point, though, just to drive the full absurdity of the UK libel system home;

Look at your original post:

"My local newspaper had an editorial that was basically cheering for the guys who libeled McDonalds.

That was when I decided that, if they care that little about the truth, I didn't really need to read that newspaper any more."

You are clearly implying that the McLibel defendants are themselves liars; and this is a fairly clear example of defamation - since you can't really claim any of the three defences below;

"1. - (1) In defamation proceedings a person has a defence if he shows that-

            (a) he was not the author, editor or publisher of the statement complained of,

            (b) he took reasonable care in relation to its publication, and

            (c) he did not know, and had no reason to believe, that what he did caused or contributed to
                    the publication of a defamatory statement."

Congrats, you could (on some vague and theoretical level) be taken to court in the UK for libel (since web traffic is seen in the UK, too).

Now, in practice, simply saying that you didn't know it was defamatory isn't a defence unless you can prove undeniably that you tried to check your facts first; and in this example, you'd lose; because calling someone a liar in public is defamation pretty much everywhere; and it's known to be defamatory.

And, as I've already said, libel in the UK is stacked quite heavily in favour of the plaintiff; and your ability to fight such a case is usually proportional to your capacity to pay legal bills.

Now imagine that your opponent is not some theoretical entity, but is one of the wealthiest private organisations in the world.

In the UK, if you have assets to lose, then it is simpler to post a retraction of your statement - even if it's true - than it is to risk having your assets destroyed by an expensive lawsuit. That's why SLAPPs worked when McDonald's sued various UK national media and NGOs (including the BBC and Channel 4). The tactic only failed when they tried suing people who had no real assets to lose.

Oh - and not being in the UK doesn't make you safe; due to our libel laws, we get 'libel tourism' - where British citizens like Richard Perle initiate libel proceedings against the New Yorker in a UK court - because UK readers might see the allegedly libellous material.

If you put something in the public domain that might be seen by UK citizens, then you can be sued under UK libel laws.

Perhaps you'd care to read the referenced version of the allegedly libellous factsheet - which includes factual and textual citations for the claims.

(Some of which are from McDonald's-internal documents; others from such international bodies as the WHO and WWF.)

One additional point, though, just to drive the full absurdity of the UK libel system home;

Look at your original post:

"My local newspaper had an editorial that was basically cheering for the guys who libeled McDonalds.

That was when I decided that, if they care that little about the truth, I didn't really need to read that newspaper any more."

You are clearly implying that the McLibel defendants are themselves liars; and this is a fairly clear example of defamation - since you can't really claim any of the three defences below;

"1. - (1) In defamation proceedings a person has a defence if he shows that-

            (a) he was not the author, editor or publisher of the statement complained of,

            (b) he took reasonable care in relation to its publication, and

            (c) he did not know, and had no reason to believe, that what he did caused or contributed to
                    the publication of a defamatory statement."

Congrats, you could (on some vague and theoretical level) be taken to court in the UK for libel (since web traffic is seen in the UK, too).

Now, in practice, simply saying that you didn't know it was defamatory isn't a defence unless you can prove undeniably that you tried to check your facts first; and in this example, you'd lose; because calling someone a liar in public is defamation pretty much everywhere; and it's known to be defamatory.

And, as I've already said, libel in the UK is stacked quite heavily in favour of the plaintiff; and your ability to fight such a case is usually proportional to your capacity to pay legal bills.

Now imagine that your opponent is not some theoretical entity, but is one of the wealthiest private organisations in the world.

In the UK, if you have assets to lose, then it is simpler to post a retraction of your statement - even if it's true - than it is to risk having your assets destroyed by an expensive lawsuit. That's why SLAPPs worked when McDonald's sued various UK national media and NGOs (including the BBC and Channel 4). The tactic only failed when they tried suing people who had no real assets to lose.

Oh - and not being in the UK doesn't make you safe; due to our libel laws, we get 'libel tourism' - where British citizens like Richard Perle initiate libel proceedings against the New Yorker in a UK court - because UK readers might see the allegedly libellous material.

If you put something in the public domain that might be seen by UK citizens, then you can be sued under UK libel laws.

Oh, and there's one other thing I forgot - the defendants weren't being prosecuted for making the leaflet.

They were being prosecuted because they handed out the leaflet in question.

Something that McDonald's paid spies also did.

McDonald's prosecuted people for doing something that they actually paid other people to do as well.

"A diet high in fat, sugar, animal products and salt and low in fibre, vitamins and minerals is linked with cancer of the breast and bowel and heart disease"

"If it is being directed to the public then I would say it is a very reasonable thing to say."

Yeah, that's what I was thinking. The McLibel case was very bad for McDonalds, and by sueing, the company risks a huge PR disaster which would not have happened if they had let things be. Oh, and for more on mclibel check out the McSpotlight site.

I have to agree. We are finding out that segmentation of forests by roads and fields can hurt wildlife. So can plots of monoculture pine. And lets not even talk about the chlorine based chemestry and the release PCB's in the water. Oh and how about those chemical fogs that cause accidents on I-75? Bring on the e-paper.

I did think that the McLibel case was the biggest PR disaster a corporation had ever got involved in ..http://www.mcspotlight.org/
Well done to the RIAA , they have just managed to out do McDonald's PR disaster .
I really did not think they would be that stupid , Even if they win their reputation will be completely destroyed .I do not think any media organisation is going to let up on this one .

What are you babbling about? You are seriously suggesting HP make an OS that doesn't suck, with a text installer? What are you, like 200 years old? And HP makes hardware, not operating systems, so suggesting they make such a mythical thing as "an OS that doesn't suck" would be like telling McDonalds to sell groceries. Read a book on market anaysis jackass.

* Most corporations are corrupt

Which will happen when you set up an environment where anything goes as long as it increases shareholder value. For a funny satire on this, try reading Jennifer Nation.

* All governments are corrupt

I don't think the British government is corrupt, even though I don't agree with many of their policies. I guess with governments it doesn't matter how many bad apples there are, just how high up they get?

* Individuals are powerless when the two get together, unless they get together, too

Some look at the Internet today as some kind of lucky accident, but one has to wonder if nature was trying to find some kind of balance ;-)

* Resistance is not futile, but is bloody

And produces some unlikely heros. Take for instance the McLibel case.

* You will be assimilated quicker if you buy Nikes, eat at McD's, use MS products ...

See book mentioned at top of post...

Phillip.

This reminds me of the famous McDonalds name incident from some years back, where McDonalds tried to force a restaurant named McMunchies to change it's name. That's when Lord MacDonald of the Clan Donald got into the act. Quoting from a press release at http://www.mcspotlight.org/media/press/clandonald_ jan97.html:

Lord Macdonald of Macdonald, premier clan chief of Clan Donald, has appointed Ronald W McDonald to be Sergeant-Major at Arms of the Guardians of Clan Donald: the linear descendant of the chief's bodyguard. It will be open to all Macdonalds and their septs, dependents, and descendants, who are in good standing in the community. Successful applicants will be enlisted as Sergeants at Arms and issued with a Warrant in the form of a Certificate which is suitable for framing. The cost of membership is £1 (postal orders please) or £2 sterling for overseas applicants.

Needless to say, history was on their side even more than it was with the Tiger name here. If you don't use an original name, don't expect to be protected like an original name.

I'm American and I tend to favor the American versions (plural because it varies state by state) of the libel laws. If you're interested about the British libel law and why it's bad, check out the McLibel trial brought by McDonalds.

Precisely. When some demonstrators in England were sued by McDonalds for defamation for claiming that thier animal-raising practices were cruel, and the food was unhealthy, among other things, they didn't win - even after 7 years, and 16 million dollars legal feels, against two self-represented defendants. It was not conclusively proved that their animal practices were not cruel, and that their food was healthy. http://www.mcspotlight.org/case/trial/verdict/wolf son2.html

Leaflet

Considering a lot of what they are saying and implying, I can understand why McDonalds's is suing. Lets start with McDonald's is directly involved in this economic imperialism, which keeps most black people poor and hungry while many whites grow fat. Hmm... like I've never seen a black person eat at Mics before nor a skiny white guy.

I think that in a decade's time you'll see movies with one or two commercial-filled 'intermissions' under the pretense of letting elderly folks use the potty. Just watch.

Not to mention product placement. I really enjoyed watching I, Robot at the cinema, except before it started, an advert told me to "hate piracy" (no kidding), and right at the beginning, the protagonist got some "vintage 2004 sneakers, a thing of beauty".

Films are set in an alternate universe where everyone drinks Pepsi and uses Apple Macs!

Or should I say, will they use the money saved to buy ACTUAL meat?

yeah well, all joke aside, the problem is that it REALLY is MEAT, and that it comes from billions of cows feeding over crop that used to be RAINFOREST .

And now we sadly realize that open source or not, the computer is not our friend ...

re salads - McDonald's Salad Fattier Than Burgers

Set aside the sucky iTunes song quality, and the fact they screw over musicians. , and setting aside that Fatty Fast foods are addicting, and bad for you. The cost of a Big Mac is in upwards of 3 dollars, and one song on iTunes is $1.00. Why not buy two songs from iTunes, and go buy a hot dog from a hot dog stand.

And right now some law firm could be tracking down every use of the phrase 'Murphy's law' on behalf of the family of Capt. Edward A. Murphy and some other law firm could be tracking down every use of 'Spoonerism' for the family of The Reverend W. A. Spooner... They'll get to Furphy sooner or later, as well.

Not to mention McDonald's absurd claim of trademark on the 'Mc' prefix!

This is the insanity that the concept of 'Intellectual Property' has condemned us to. When will the public get fed-up enough to rebel and prod the Congress to moderate the law?

MacDonalds use Colchester in exactly this fashion (to test new products)

Really? I can't say I had noticed. Of course I haven't been in there since I read that Colchester also tested how well they can carry on working with sewage on the floor

So one big group of companies sues these people, then another big company (oppressive regimes, experimenting on animals) uses these people in an advert for sugar-water.

Just what does it take for people to stop liking big companies?

True, MS has an inherent requirement to defend its mark, but remember also that Mike Rowe has inheent rights on his own name. It will be on M$ to prove that he is intentionally abusing his legal name to profit off of M$. their little tactic would have worked -- when it was original 5 years ago, but has been done so often that it loses potency and shrivels as a defence (is micro, and soft?)

A similar thing happened in Jamaica, when McD's moved in and found that a local restaurant(owned by a fellow called McDonald) was already in business. McD's sued -- and lost. It helped that their menus didn't overlap very much... but McD's was unable to open a store in Kingston until the suit was completed, which was amusing.

In contrast to the parent comment, McDonalds in my local town of Colchester, UK, is famous for working with sewage flooding the kitchen.

Just in case anyone still considers McDonalds worth eating in.

However, according to the dictionary, "Evil" is 1. the quality of being morally bad or wrong; 2. that which causes harm or misfortune. Definition 1 gives people plenty of scope as morality is subjective. Definition 2 however makes it plain that SH is evil, OBL is evil, GWB is evil, the IRA are evil, Blair is evil, Capitalism is evil, the war on (drugs|terror) is evil etc. You and I are also evil from time to time.

Pornography, in its modern sense, while not evil per se, is an evil, exploitative industry where real and lasting harm is often perpetuated against people who, for reasons of ignorance, manipulability, or plain poverty, find themselves in the hands of some very evil men. By funding it through the purchase of pornographic material, you become evil. Much as you become evil by buying Nike shoes, or McDonalds 'burgers' and thus funding the evil that they do. You make the choice to fund these evils, and thus become evil yourself. misery loves the company.

my (euro)0.017 (love that sliding dollar)

There are still other reasons to boycott Gillette, of course.

Heres a few examples which spring to mind.

• Gandhi two long streatches in jail. Malcome X, Martin Luther King.
• Swords into ploughshares three women took hammers to a UK Hawk aircraft, caused several million pounds worth of damage. Did they run, no they just sat down and waited to be arrested.
• Mc Libel Trial a very high profile libel case. Through fighting the case the anti Mc Donalds movement became much more high profile.
• Earth First direct action (breaking the law) for the environment.

In my youth, I engaged in a few actions (locking myself to the houses of parliment and Malaysian airlines office) with 90% arrest chance. And yes I got arrested but not charged. Its a very different fealing being locked up for your beleif rather than for a crime or an injustice. Indeed its even empowering in a way.

This case is a little different. But I hope he will take it in the right way, with dignety. And realise that its part of the process of change. A year (six months with good behaviour) is not than long for your beleifs.

Here's my 10p's (15c) worth:

Dear SCO I'm not interested in your offer because:

a) You have yet to prove in open court that the code you claim is yours. Until a definite state of ownership is decided it is unreasonable and possibly illegal for you to demand payment with threats for goods that may not even belong to you.

b) You were distributing the Linux kernel on your site up to 3 weeks after you announced you believed the disputed code was included. Had you pulled this code on the day of the announcement I would have probably listened. However, by providing a GPL'd kernel for download after stating your belief that your code was included you accepted the GPL and surrendered all rights to charge for your code.

c) If, and I doubt it, you win the court case, I wil be removing my current Linux installations from my machines and will be replacing them with versions in which the offending code has been removed by the kernel developers. This, like step a), is a reasonable thing to do and in complying immeadiately with the courts decision I do not think you will be owed anything.

d) I do not live in the US and I do not intend visiting the US at any point in the future. If you wish to come to the UK to sue me and more like me I promise you this much: I do not own my house, car, or anything else in my posession. I am unemployed and have a minimal income since losing a finger in an accident leaving me with nothing to lose should I be on the receiving end of a court case. As McDonalds discovered, there is little more dangerous to the reputation of a global corporation than a pissed off "true believer" with a point to prove, financial backing from anti-globalisation organisations and time on his hands. McDonalds spent four years in court, won a limited battle but lost the PR war and came out of it looking like a bunch of burger munching litigation monkeys. I have nothing to lose but will gain a hell of a lot of cred in the open source arena.

e) After the revelations over non-existent WMD in Iraq, the number of people outside of the US who believe that your country is the spreader of freedom and democracy as opposed to a global empire building, cash hungry bully is growing and I'm afraid that the kind of brainless behaviour you are displaying is only going to strengthen anti-American sentiment. Our beloved Prime Minister is on the verge of getting it in the neck and GWB is going to find that people who kiss arse that deeply are a once in a lfetime thing so if you want to help fuck up your countries reputation please continue to so.

Nuff said

Bollocks to the lot of you,

linkage here for the "mclibel" trial :)

Right, you mean like these two did?

Terrible waste of time, eh?

.02

cLive ;-)

Nope. Well, maybe, but definitely Scotland

Got the addresses of the hilary Rosen etc. I feel like breaking in and stealing back all the ill-gotten gains they have. Be like a modern Robin Hood.

But Seriously he should have denied it and gone to court. If he lost he could claim he has no money like the people ion the McLibel case.

The picture you paint seems all-too-true of what happens to the "little guy" in courtrooms around the world in these times. But every now and then, cases such as the McLibel trail come along, and we see what can happen when a big Corp pushes the law too far.

It takes a lot of courage to stand up to Big Business, but people have to sometimes, despite it being a terrifying prospect.

As groundless as the accusations may be, and as much as I spit at the feet of SCO for their tactics, I cannot agree with a system that rewards the richest litigant, instead of the one that deserves to win on the merit of the case.

You remind me of the juror that turned up in court in a Starfleet uniform, and was fined for contempt of court when they refused to recognise any law other than the Federation. You don't get to choose which legal system you can use when you get taken to court, you have to use the one that country provides. If SCO are going to play dirty, then the previous poster is right... just leave it to their lawyers to figure out the best retaliation tactics within the framework of the legal system provided.

I guess the US has gotten used to having corporations possessing so much power that it's considered normal to wave it around like a plush toy.

It's always seemed that way over the pond, though they sometimes get a bit of a bloody nose when they try the same over here.

Phillip.

... When will Big Blue buy Sun?

(or is it just too much fun turning the hose on them...?)

You should read the amazing "Fast Food Nation" by Eric Schlosser. One of the chapters talks about the "taste" industry ('flavorists') and all these companies setup along the NJ turnpike. They make a liquid chemical agent that smells exactly like a flame-broiled burger. The reason: the food is so shitty that the taste disappears when it is processed. It has to be added 'back'...
Same idea coming to a Starbucks near you? Great world we live in!

Well, they may have won, Mcdonalds did, after a hell of a long time.

In this case, I say, go Lindows!

I'm not the person you were directing your question to, but try http://www.mcspotlight.org/