Slashdot Mirror
Steffi Graf Wins Case Vs. Microsoft
scaramush writes: "The AP is reporting that Steffi Graf has won her lawsuit against Microsoft for hosting nude doctored photos of her. Although Microsoft had removed the images when they appeared in June, MS declined to sign a formal agreement that they would not appear again. This is the second loss for MS in this case. Scary precedent."
I was hoping that link would take me to the doctored nude photos. Of course that would probably get slashdot sued, too...
Thank god for Anna Kournikova...
When do we get to see doctored nude photos of Bill Gates...
...never mind
(shudder)
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
Don't know what to think... Microsoft evil... yet... Microsoft right... too much... head pain...
*POP*
Its good to see the MSFT is further branching out its operations to soft pornography...
Interesting. It would seem that this decision is saying that if a publication is sued for libel, it can now be held to also promise that this will never run again. I can hear the tabloids blinking out of existence as we speak...
"Goodness, how did you people live long enough to invent tools?" -Hobbes (the tiger, not the philosopher)
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
Microsoft, as an ISP, hosting someone's pictures, is successfully sued for hosting those images. The point is not that it's Microsoft, the point is that an ISP has lost the case. Although it's definitely of interest that even Microsoft is not immune to this sort of suit. This case is a set-back to ISPs everywhere.
Not to flog the dead horse, but it's more evidence of ways in which the private sector is quite happy to cramp civil liberties for its own purposes, using civil law.
Who wants to see nude photos of Steffi Graf, anyway? Between this and the whole David Hasselhoff thing, I'd have to say that the Germans are weird as hell.
Soon to be bundled with Windows! This will get those linux guys to switch!
how can m$ promise they wont appear anymore? I am reasonably sure I could get a nude pic of graf or anyone else onto a m$ server somehow...
Are you kidding? I would good money to clense the internet of Bill Gates nude photos let alone doctored ones. Talk about blackmail...
This is an unfair lawsuit, just like the antitrust lawsuit..
Slashdot, here to protect all freedoms besides the freedom to choose Windows.
"I told you a million times not to exaggerate!"
Doesn't the DMCA have some provisions covering this sort of thing? It was my understanding that one of the (ahem) positive aspects of the act is that it exempts service providers from liability for content that they host but do not otherwise control.
That's it. I'm no longer part of Team Sanity.
I guess it's a really scary precedent if you're intent on publishing libelous material online.
For the rest of us, Our Rights Online are not affected. Next Chicken Little story, please.
- A.P.
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
Grander said Microsoft is "examining further legal steps.
They used Graf's likeness without permission and they lost the case. When will they just quit already?
It's ironic that they got bitten by the same laws they so sternly uphold. It works both ways, y'know.
I am the evil aardvark!
the charges Microsoft was pressing in which Slashdot was responsible for people who posted some document covered by an NDA. I'd have to agree on Microsoft's side this time, they are true in that the way that this ruling does inhibit some online speech, for example posting on Slashdot. I could see in the future where posts are simply removed because they might infringe on the DMCA or other laws.
"It's even worse if you're locked into a proprietary operating system." -http://www.wehavethewayout.com/scale.asp?rew=0
I want to hate Microsoft, but lately they've been losing cases like this, where they clearly should have won..
ChuckyG
It is amazing with all the lawyers and $$$ that microsoft has that they couldn't win a case like this. It's pretty scary that they couldn't win a case like this.
I run a web design/hosting business... This ruling is damn scary. Too bad they didn't win this ruling... ouch...
Can or can't we see these pictures?
Wow, I took one look at this article and thought, "Hurray! Microsoft lost a legal battle. Chalk one more up for Open Source!" Yeah, then I clicked the link only to find they lost a case dealing with the openness and freeness of the internet. Just think of the precedent this sets if a web site's owner is responsible for the content other, perhaps anonymous users post on his/her website. Wouldn't that make CmdrTaco liable if I posted the source to DeCSS in one of the comments? (just an example, folks)
/. views. Think about it: Well, we generally hate Microsoft, but we also hate censorship on the internet. Here, Microsoft and censorship are on opposite sides. Where does that leave us? Oof, good question.
Well that brings up the interesting case of conflicting
Bottom line: scary precedent.
Hargun
Think nothing is impossible? Try slamming a revolving door.
Its not the criminals fault, its the gun's
Its not the pirates fault, it's Napster's
Its not the poster's fault, it's the ISP's
noboby is guilty of anything, its the tool's fault... doesnt that make everyone feel better about themselves?
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
Does this mean I could sue /. everytime an AC calls me a linux-loving fag?
-Sean
This is a case in Germany, under German law, against the German division of Microsoft. From the article:
- "...Steffi Graf won a court case against Microsoft Germany..." (my emphasis)
Frightening though it may be, this isn't about any of the draconian US laws."...America's great minds of today, teaching America's great minds of tomorrow. Poor bastards." -- A Beautiful Min
As others have pointed out, the scary part is that an ISP (in this case, Microsoft) is being held liable for material posted by its users.
The precedent part is somewhat less relevant as the German legal system does not rely on precedent the same way as the US or British systems do.
-Isaac
I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. For Entertainment Purposes Only.
Slashdot the site by making the link out of the "nude doctored photos" part of the text. I wonder if MS submitted the story that way to ensure that no one who doesn't already hate MS sees the site?
I can't figure out if the desire to trash MS will win out over the anti-DMCA urge. It'll be interesting to see which way the knee-jerks go with this one.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Microsoft Germany spokesman Bernhard Grander said the company disagrees with the court's decision and said it "endangers the existence of live-chat and private (Internet) communities."
I thought MS had a monopoly on this (endangering live-chat... Messenger-bug... Internet communities... IE-bugs, proprietary standards); now they have to share that power with a court. That's funny...
But in al seriousness, as mich as I hate MS's bussiness practices, this time they are right; an ISP should not be held responsible for what their users post; if needed, they can remove the content, but they cannot garantuee that users won't do this again.
Free Mac Mini
Please, enlighten us how an ISP is going to guarantee never to have any customer use its facilities to publish anything that might upset someone.
I guess it's a really scary precedent if you're intent on publishing libelous material online.
Microsoft didn't publish the pictures in question.
Quote from the article: "The photos... appeared last year on the site operated by Microsoft Germany where users could post pictures and texts to share with others".
Microsoft was merely acting as ISP in this case.
Sorry, but you need to look at the fineprint. In their old terms of use they claimed ownership of all contend they were hosting for you. So it became their property, and they were possibly making money of it.
IANAL, but i guess that put them in the same legal situation like a newspaper printing that stuff.
Steffi Graff was having an affair with a German judge who took the photos. They engineered this entire fiasco In a desperate attempt to cover up their affair.
Best Windows Freeware
Microsoft didnt post it, a person on one of their sites posted it "where users could post pictures and texts to share with others"
this precedent, should scare you...
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
MS didn't post them - they were acting as an ISP in Germany, and a customer posted them. They are basically getting sued over not promising to put them there again - how in the hell would they stop it.
It would be like slashdot getting sued over the content of a post - and losing. IIRC, they have been threatened before though
and you europeans say the US is fucked up? With the French Yahoo fiasco, and now this, methinks you should clean up shit on your side of the pond.Eurotrolls begone!
If the pictures are fake, then what's the problem? Having legal ramifications for running a public, uncensored community that can post whatever they want is one thing, I mean we don't want kiddie porn to happen, but come on, there's no harm in a little Gimping around the 'net. I mean damn, look at the Mr. T Vs. Series... that's some serious laughter inducing stuff. People need to take it easy.
~ now you know
This is a good thing because it's a bad thing (yes, yes, I realise that's pompous). The precedent set is disquieting. But it was always going to happen; in either large chunks or small bites (perhaps both) the responsibility of ISPs was always going to be defined this way. People suing because they don't like what they see, and ISPs saying "but we're a common carrier, it's not our fault" in court cases.
So anyway, this is good because it's not a mom and pop ISP. This is someone who can afford to press a point, if it's worth it to them. Thus it opens the potential for a real debate on these issues. If it were an easily-trampled minnow, that wouldn't happen.
In this case, be happy it's Microsoft. Your enemy's enemy and all that...
This is a worst defeat for ISPs than you can consider *because* it goes against a big giant like M$. And if M$.com can be liable, who knows what could happen to the mom-and-pop ISPs with the deep pockets or the legend of lawyers.
That loud SLAPPing sound in the background is getting closer.
Mod Karma -1: I sed bad wurds. If I cep my mouf shut, I wud be at riyses.
As much as I hate to admit it, I have to side with M$ on this case.
./ were to be sued because someone said something that offended Bill Gates (ok, when doesn't that happen?) and ./ were sued to take it off then told that they *must* keep it off forever. Short of shutting down the discussion boards that can't happen.
They can be asked to remove content that is offensive, they can agree to remove such content in a reasonable and timely fashion should it ever re-appear...
...but there is no way in hell they can keep it from *ever* appearing there again. Short of shutting down the site completly, but then that defeats the purpose of having a web comunity.
As much as we dislike M$, we have to keep an eye on this case as this could have serious problems for us in the future. What if
It's scarey to think about
-- Wiccan Army, 13th Airborne Division "We will not fly silently into the night"
Dazed and confused Slashdot readers everywhere were found siding with Microsoft today...
You must acquit!
Strom Thurmond; the dean of the US Senate...
the deadest fart on slashdot.
The set back here happened in Germany, which continues to bring into question the legitimacy of national courts in the international medium of the Internet. Micrsoft does business in Germany and will, of course, comply with the verdict to avoid pissing the Germans off. What if Microsoft had no direct dealings with Germany though?
Eventually a court case will come up in some major venue (the US, or a major eurpoean country I'd guess) that will be promptly ignored by the party involved because they don't operate under that country's jurisdiction. Then who knows what will happen.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
The really scary part is: who would waste time posting pix of that dog instead of Ms. Portman?
This decision pushes ISPs into the role of "Content Cop", which is not acceptable to me. Do really want MS (and every other ISP) to be legally responsible for checking every website it hosts for "bad" things?
"...you can steal my woman, but you ain't done nuthin' smart."
This is one case which we would want Microsoft to win. Microsoft didn't put up the photos themselves, the pictures were put up by users of the website presumably just like we post comments. Microsoft also took down the pictures upon request, the problem came when MS refused to sign an agreement that the pictures would never appear again. In addition
/. having to pay up every time links to goatse.cx or any other sites of that nature were put up, I don't see how this is even enforcable on MS's part. This is a very disturbing preceden and I hope that there are some significant additional facts that the article is ignoring. Then again if you want to cost MS some $$ you know what to do!!
The company would have to pay a fine if similar photos emerge on the site in future, court spokesman Christian Grueneberg said.
From my understanding this would be roughly equivalent to
I stole this Sig
F
Microsoft has a weak backhand.
Okay, who was the wise guy who posted this under "The Courts"? Ha ha.
Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
I can't give you doctored ones, but how about this lovely mugshot of him, after being arrested (yes, it seems to be true) in 1977.
For those of you who want to see the image:
http://www.harvey-mayson.co.uk/steffi.jpg
The photos - computer manipulations that put Graf's head on a nude body - appeared last year on the site operated by Microsoft Germany where users could post pictures and texts to share with others.
The photos were taken down in June at Graf's request, but the company declined to sign a formal agreement that they wouldn't appear again, and Graf sued.
You know, I would be seriously pissed if some guy broke into my house, stole my rifle, used it to shoot and kill a cop, and the police arrested me for owning the murder weapon.
When is our judicial system going to get it through their heads that ISPs cannot control the actions of their users, just like I cannot control who might break into my house. I'm sure Microsoft Germany had no intention of putting nude photos on their website, just like I have no intention of killing someone with my rifle, but I cannot guarantee that it won't happen.
A very similiar thing happened to CS many years ago... nothing to do with nudie pix, but the fact that they claimed publishing rights to the content. As soon as one claims to be a publisher of the content, they are responsible for the content... so, yeah, it's MS's fault for not screening properly... However, MS is right in saying they cannot guarantee it won't happen in the future -- Who can? I say, if you hate MS, now would be the time to get a MSN community setup with fake nudie pics of celebs...
If read the story, you'll see that, much to the chagrin of myself and others who decry Microsoft's behavior in many other venues, Microsoft deserved to win this one.
They are merely permitting users to post. Like Slashdot.
The principle here is exactly the same one that would apply if Slashdot were sued because someone posted links to sites critical of the Church of Scientology, or to places where they could download DeCSS.
I think the best thing here would be if the public provider only agreed to investigate allegations of slander if they are submitted in writing, with no obligation to remove any postings if they are not found to be libelous of individuals.
Postings are expressions of their respective authors only!
"Provided by the management for your protection."
The problem for her though is that the Internet never forgets. Acording to google she still has to get the picture removed from at least a 1000 more sites.
Except that Microsoft didn't publish the pictures any more than Slashdot publishes user comments. They merely automatically reproduced user-provided content and removed the content once a complaint was generated.
Furthermore, while the intent behind the site is unclear, I doubt it was created with the implicit understanding that it would be used to primarily host libelous material (unlike, say, Napster which apparently had a wink-wink-nudge-nudge relationship with music piracy).
Bea Arthur is outraged that they put steffi graff's head on her body.
Let's try that again. I wrote an actual post, previewed it and everything, and when I submitted it, slashdot changed it to the letter 'F'. Great, thanks.
It's a scary precedent because it means ISPs are now responsible for reviewing everything that they host before they host it. If you take this decision to its logical conclusion, there is no way any ISP can provide user-run web hosting, because they are now liable for what their users post. It doesn't make any difference if they take it down as soon as they are notified - Microsoft did that, and they still lost the case because they wouldn't promise that it would never happen again. They can't make that promise without setting up a system where they review each and every page and image that gets posted beforehand.
Let's put it this way: if you post something libelous to slashdot, who should be responsible for that, you or slashdot? If this ruling stands, slashdot is responsible. I hope you see how wrong that is. It has the potential to eliminate free speech on the internet.
The precedent is not "One ISP gets sued for one particular type of offensive content" the precedent is that ISPs can be sued for the actions of their customers. This is *bad* because the only way they can protect themselves is to examine and censor *everything* that people publish through their service online.
If I say something bad about the chinese government, and my ISP is an international company, will I be censored because my ISP wants to be in good relations with Beijing?
To normal, thinking adults, there is a pretty obvious divide between juvinile and offensive libel and the free speech worth protecting. But remember, we're not dealing with normal, thinking adults, we're dealing with lawyers, zealots, politicians, and corporations. If you don't think there's a possibility that this case will translate into real-world free speach violations, then you fail to grasp the way legal precedent works in practice.
Oh well... just my $.02, until Slashdot gets sued into removing them, that is.
In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
Isn't there normally a clause that says something like: We are not responsible for content of the sites that we host. In addition we do not allow pornographic material to be posted to our site.
Why is Microsoft responsible? I am not a MSFT lover, but blame who is to blame. Who doctored the photos? Who posted them? Isn't that defaming her image? That's illegal right? So why is Microsoft the one in jeopardy over this?
I know that the posting of "we aren't responsible for stuff on our site posted by users" doesn't always fly legally, but don't they have a responsiblity to know who their users are?
Does anyone think that for a company as big as Microsoft that to trace down a person, well having IP logs of where the person came from, because they posted to their web server.. (Or does IIS log anything..). With a court order shouldn't they be able to trace that ever through 'anonmyous' proxies? Come on MSFT, use that technology and find that sicko.
I think Adobe wants to talk to him as well, because he's probably running a pirated copy of Photoshop on his computer.
Tibbon
tibbon.com
"This week Microsoft are the good guys. Who are the bad guys, anyone? How 'bout Lucent, we haven't been slandering them in a long time."
Sigged!
In an former article about this case, it was said the reason why the judge made M$ responsible, was that M$ is claiming the rights for all stuff that is published in the MSN forum.
There is some legel stuff in the rules for the use of the forum that any content published goes over to M$.
And of course, if it is yours, you are responsible.
Here's the pics you want
This one is really good
I'd bang her...
Zoot!
There is one specificity in this case, which does not make it al out "ISP is responsible for user content" case. MSN Germany had, at the time, a clause in their user agreement, that gave MSN the rights to the content that users published. Also, one of the court's points was, that MSN published the user's content framed with links and ads by MSN.
We have to wait for the written court record to be published for complete arguments.
Heise online has an article (in german)
Why is Microsoft responsible for this? Why doesn't this fall under the Common carrier provisions? AOL wasn't held responsible for their user posts.
scott
from what i remember i read about it there was an eula to access/post images/write stuff that you had to agree with before getting you login data.
it happens that in this eula there was a part that said something along the lines of "all content postet/written goes over into microsofts ownership".
so when the pics were postet microsoft got ownership and so microsoft was sued because hosting said pictures that they claimed ownership for through their eula.
the eula was changed shortly after.
so there.. read it up before coming up with german/nazi like acusations.
How about suing Adobe Photoshop used to make this image (or some other imaging tool)?
http://dtum.livejournal.com
Consider, for a moment, the alternative. Right now, countries around the world are allowed to apply laws generally according to geographic boundaries. What's the alternative to this? An international organization/body that would most likely be given the ability to dictate law at an international level. As things are now, people like the members of RIAA, MPAA, etc., would have to bribe- err, 'finance' politicians of each country in question, to further their agendas. But suppose there were only one body to deal with...?
The DMCA is in effect, the CBDTPA is on the board (and will most likely be pared down to 'show a positive, cooperative attitude, willing to come to the table and compromise' - BS ), and who knows what we'll face in the US in the future. They've done it in the US, just imagine if these same groups could do it internationally with relative easy (read, 'plenty of $')...
"As it was with the Romans conquering new lands, so is it with installing software packages. One must learn who and how to worship for each one, lest the accompanying patron god smite thee..." - me
There's no wrong way, to eat a Rhesus...
This is how you use this precedent to MAKE MONEY FAST from home, AND hurt big bad Microsoft to boot:
1. Find nudie pics on the internet. If you fail this, kill yourself immediately.
2. Put pictures of your own head on the naked bodies.
3. From an internet cafe, create an account with a fake name on Microsoft Germanies photo sharing/whatever site. Upload the pictures to this site.
4. Sue Microsoft Germany for posting fake nude images of you on the net. Tell them to sign a formal agreement that they will not appear again. If they won't, you get money. If they do sign, post the images again and sue them for breach of contact, and get money.
5. Repeat until rich.
the idea that ISPs are responsible for the content of the web pages that their customer's put up will have consequences.
The only way to comply with German law is for the ISP to review every single web page before it is posted so that they can remove any content that they feel might be offensive and you can forget about dynamically generated pages.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
Perhaps everyone should quickly upload as many doctored images of 'Nude Steffi' as they can to msn.
This would have the following effects:
1) Steffi would wish that she'd never have started down that legal road.
2) Microsoft would shit a few kittens.
3) The arising publicity would help to ensure that free speech is protected in the long run.
4) We'd all have a laugh at both Steffi's and Micro$oft's expense.
Patrick Doyle
I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
The scarey truth (and I'm sure the parent realizes this) is that the way to guarantee that noone posts anything libelous (or wrong in any other way) is to prevent posting anything at all. Why the hell can't these people go after the people DOING the illegal activity instead of the people that unknowingly facilitate the activity by providing a valid and extremely valuable service to valid and perfectly legal posters. Watch out, next MS will be suing /. for all the unsupported MS bashing that is scattered all over the forum.
"You can now flame me, I am full of love,"
Let's examine your statement by looking at the 3 examples you gave:
NAPSTER: Used for sharing bits of data over wires, harmless.
ISP: Used for sharing more bits of data over wires, also harmless.
GUN: Used for killing things...
try to use better analogies.
:|
ZERO
the US will beat up the terrorists and the countries that host them.
Mode (3) smart-aleck mode. Press * to return to main menu.
In the terms of service of said website, Microsoft claimed ownsership of the material presented. Why? Who knows. Censhorship / advertising, not sure.
In doing so, however, they also assume responsibility for said material. The judge did the correct and just thing, and Microsoft should learn to be a little less obtrusive in the future.
I know, I know, we can only dream...
Can someone please post doctored photos of me so I can sue M$ too?
thank you
god.. finally
Best Windows Freeware
The real reason why Microsoft lost this case is simply their greediness.
? url=/newsticker/data/cgl-07.12.01-000/default.shtm l&words=Steffi
The judge actually said this: "In their EULA for the (German) MSN service they grant themselfes all the rights for the contents of their users. Also the user pages are embedded into frames of MSN and look like geniue MSN content. This is why Microsoft Germany is responible for this content." (my translation).
The original Text can be found here: href="http://www.heise.de/newsticker/result.xhtml
So this means it's still safe for ISPs to host their users content as long as you don't want to have all rights to your users content.
It's simply Microsofts fault and their greediness which dug their own grave.
--
Andre
the woman on this one. Honestly, freedom of speech is one thing, but I think it's quite another to be posting nude pictures of people without their consent. If this were to become permissable, then are we really moving towards civil liberty? It seems as though we would just be taking ourselves one step closer to allowing unconditional (perhaps even telescreenesque) monitoring of everyone, all the time.
Think about it. Today, Microsoft can post nude pictures of people on their sites. Tomorrow, they can use this new feature in Flash 6 to capture your audio and video inputs (and you can't turn it off). What will be next? This could just have been the first step down a slippery slope, at the bottom of which lies an Orwellian fantasy world.
Nothing graphic in nature... but skin nontheless:t / raf,%20Steffi.gif
b / ages/4/steffi_graff.jpg
_ 001.jpg
http://www.allegaatjes.nl/AFBEELDINGEN/bekendbloo
http://www.ads.aveit-media.co.uk/jokes/content/em
http://www.garisquash.yucom.be/images/steffi_graf
Enjoy.
So like you wouldn't sue the paper manufacturer for something illegal/libellous/slanderous/defamatory that appeared in a newspaper printed on said paper, even though the paper made it possible in the first place, you shouldn't be able to sue the company providing the web server.
So if a user X puts material on the web via their ISP, X is the publisher, not the ISP. You cannot get the ISP to veto every "sheet of paper made" after their customer has "printed on that sheet" - that would be ... highly illogical and time consuming, making paper (i.e., web hosting) cost about 500 times the amount it does currently.
And yes, Microsoft are free to use this argument if they want to, as are any other ISP who gets into a similar dilemma. Of course, there are probably a load of holes in the argument, but hey, there is always the Chewbacca argument.
Am I the only one upset that the link in the story _doesn't_ link to "nude doctored photos of her".
If Nalgene water bottles are outlawed, only outlaws will have Nalgene water bottles.
Can't believe I missed that one. :(
Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
I wonder what the outcome would have been if the ISP hadn't been Microsoft? MS is wealthy enough to devote staff to monitoring content without going out of business. That, coupled with a dislike of MS could have affected the outcome. Still a bad precedent, though. Can't see that working as defense in future cases: "Yes, your honour, but the precedent applied only to wealthy evil. My client is unwealthy good."
Didn't Microsoft have a license which stated that their users content belongs to them to do with what they pleased?
Think **very** carefully about your citizenship and the Bill of Rights! Use them all, do not let the political wonks erode those rights under the guise of "anti-terrorism" or any other convenient and timely "national threat".
To quote harry browne:
"if you're not frightened, you just aren't paying attention."
This is really no different than holding the operators of slashdot responsible for what is posted on the forums. And that they are required to keep it from happening again? Can you say "government enforced moderation"?
This is scary, Chicken shit. I suggest you wake the fuck up.
Got Freedom?
Thinking?
Please choose one of the microsoft.com pages:
- Windows 2000/XP
- Bill Gates
- Steffi Graf's nude pics
- MS Office XP
- Developer tools
- Fun & learning (see also #3)
...when you have google!
---
Duff-Man says "Oh, yeah!"
It seems that most of the other posters have missed this important point. If M$N claims all rights to user content, they must also accept all responsibility.
The real question is who is the greater enemy, take them out first. Personally the German Court seems to be a greater threat. Bad companies come and go, within years or decades. Bad laws live for centuries.
I recall when IBM was the great-satan that Microsoft is today. Then one day they become a partner with Apple to make PowerPC chips. Steve's reality distortion field gets a little tweaking, Mac users quickly readjust. Slashdot will readjust as well when Microsoft is no longer it's personification of evil. Or another way to look at it, Slashdot is highly political and political allies can easily change.
..actually *protect* ISPs from this sort of thing.
If this were Wisconsin I'd be worried. Who gives a rats ass about other countries. Hell if we gave a shit we wouldn't have the death penalty, Europe doesn't. Just one more case of irrelevent news for the average US reader.
If for no other reason, it makes a difference because the internet is more global than any other medium. If an ISP stops hosting some sort of content, or starts clamping down on content in general, because Germany (or France) wants them to, then no one in Wisconsin gets special privelages unless the site wants to make an exception (...but then, the exceptions might be accessed from anywhere, so it's only a matter of time before the foreign obscene content is brought up in court locally for being displayed locally.)
Be worried, give a rats ass, because the internet does not only exist in your country. Because those rulings in other countries will begin to affect the content you have access to and the freedom you have to publish whatever you'd like online.
Do something about world hunger. Click here
blah blah lameness filter
*-*
oh yeah
The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
I don't want to be here.
Congratulations, Germany, for saddling yourselves with substandard ISP services. Way to drive the customers elsewhere.
or is Micro$oft loosing more cases than it should?
I don't mean I support Micro$oft's actions, but I support these other people less. An ISP should not be required to filter its uploads. Another thing I hate, sorry if I go a bit off topic, is this damn Lindows crap. I hoped and prayed the M$ would win that one. Come on, a child could have seen that that was intended in a way that makes it a trademark infringement.
Micro$oft is just the worlds political toy. You want money and sympathy at the same time? Accuse Micro$oft. Its as simple as that.
Yet another signature that refers to itself. The irony and humor is dead.
Makes me happy I live in Canada...
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
When is our judicial system going to get it through their heads
"Our" judicial system has nothing to do with this one. This is a German case.
Ladies and Gentlemen of this supposed jury, Microsoft would certainly want you to believe my client is wrong in suing them, and they make a good case. Hell, I almost felt pity myself. But Ladies and Gentlemen of this supposed jury, I have one final thing I want you to consider.
Ladies and Gentlemen, this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk who carried a gun and ran from the mob. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it. That does not make sense. Why would a Wookiee, an eight-foot-tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor with a bunch of two-foot-tall Ewoks. That does not make sense.
But more important, you have to ask yourself what does this have to do with this case. Nothing. Ladies and Gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case. It does not make sense. Look at me. I'm a lawyer defending a poor, victimized woman and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca. Does that make sense? Ladies and Gentlemen I am not making any sense. None of this makes sense.
And so you have to remember when you're in that jury room deliberating and conjugating the Emancipation Proclamation, does it make sense? No. Ladies and Gentlemen of this supposed jury it does not make sense. If Chewbacca lives on Endor you must award my client lots of money.
I know it seems wrong. But ladies and gentlemen this is Chewbacca. Now think about that for one minute. That does not make sense. Why am I talking about Chewbacca when a woman's dignity is on the line? Why? I'll tell you why. I don't know. It doesn't make sense. If Chewbacca does not make sense you must find in our favor. Here look at the monkey , look at the silly monkey.
The defense rests.
Nathan's blog
Somebody please karma whore this and post the URL of the nude doctored photos.
AOL has been busted with the same suit, also in Germany. Some AOLuser posted porn on their private web space and AOL was found liable. That case was 2-3 years old. As much as I despise AOL, I think the ruling is ridiculous. There is simply no way an ISP can monitor everything its lusers do.
Well, at least with this ruling Microsoft might be able to buy some polititians to get the law changed. But then I would have expected AOL to do that a long time ago. Any Germans care to comment?
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
The only 2 sites I use outside of the US are liberation.fr and lemonde.fr. If they go away I could care less. Just french language practice. Their laws in no way infringe on me or my rights. You are right the internet doesn't exist in my country but their laws dont exist in my country either. There is no way their laws can affect me as you say. I stand by my execution statement. We kill everyone here in rural america. No execution laws in Europe have no effect on Texas, Oklahoma, Missouri, ... Watch me post pix of doctored nudies of Graf. I'd fix her nose however, other than that she's okay.
She won the Gerichtsprozess.
You think Microsoft doesn't have any business in Germany? Learn to read.
I mean shit if you're going to mod up his retraction at least mod down the original comment. For christs sake he got 7 points on essentially 1 post. Mothafuka.
What I was getting at is that in this instance, Microsoft intends to comply with the ruling because they operate in Germany and thus can't get away with ignoring it. What I was getting at is what happens when a country like Germany makes a ruling like this and the defendant in the case just ignores them. Essentially I was envisioning this exact same court case but with Microsoft telling the German government to get bent because there's nothing they can do about it.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
German Politics
1 Cup Fascism
2 Cups Socialism
1 Cup College Student Activism
1 Cup Democracy
Mix all ingredients togeather and bring to a boil
until freedom evaporates. Let cool. Serve with beer.
Way up. and fuck you and your 20 second post limit. SOme of us dont have to hunt and peck like you, ass.
I'd like to opine that this is something that Microsoft richly deserves, and it likely won't be much of a precendent at all.
We've read several news stories about MSN's TOS that gives them ownership of everything on customers' web sites. We've read the stories about their lifting images from customers' web sites and using them in ads. Microsoft's attitude all along has been that they own everything on their machines.
So it's not at all odd that they should be held legally responsible for images that they claim to own.
Lawyers have been pointing out for some time that the way out of this is for ISPs to simply declare that they are merely "carriers" and aren't responsible for the contents of customers' files or communications. A century of precendent with services like the phone system supports the idea that a common carrier can't be made to police the communications over its lines. The communications are the property of the customers, not the company.
Similarly, the corporations (mostly governmental) that maintain the streets and highways aren't responsible for the legality of cargo carried by users' vehicles.
It's likely that the real outcome of this will be to stop Microsoft's attempts to claim ownership of everything produced by their customers. If they persist in making such claims, they will be held liable for the contents of their files, and will be forced to hire staff to examine each and every file on every customer's web site. This will be so expensive that they'll have to either give up the ISP business or declare that they don't own customers' files.
What we want is a situation where we can all put whatever we want on our web sites, and the ISPs can't interfere. Legality should be strictly between a site's owner and the local governments. We want the ISPs to keep their noses out of our content.
Microsoft has just had its nose slapped.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
By the way ... if you identify photos as clearly faked and as a parody you shouldn't get into trouble.
In this case, it's simple. You are either for free speech, or not.
If you are opposed to free speech for your enemies you are not for free speech.
I think Voltaire said it best a few hundred years ago:
"I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
"First lesson," Jon said. "Stick them with the pointy end."
Now if somebody posted fake nudes with Bill's face and Graf's body, who would sue whom?
I have a fucking T-1 where my contract immunizes the ISP against anything I (or my company) posts. So we can post anything. So again explain how this affects me?
Ok. The linked article lacks relevant information. Here's a slightly longer version. You might want to translate it from German, using the fish.
The written reasoning of this judgement will only be released in two days. But when those images were posted, the old version of the MSN EULA was active. It stated that the copyright of any material posted via MSN would be transferred to MS.
If MS has the copyright on the material, they are IMO partly responsible for whether or where it is published. The same is not true for a normal ISP. MS can't have it both ways. (Although I kind of wonder whether an EULA like that is really enforceable in Germany.)
Freedom of speech simply means that you have the right to express your ideas and government will not stop you. It doesn't mean that owners of private property can't stop you from expressing your ideas on their own property.
"Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?"
Its not the criminals fault, its the gun's
;^)
This is more of a gray area than people realize. Certainly, it's the criminal's *fault*, but there is a logical argument to restrict the enabling technology if the result of its use is particularly destructive.
For instance, if you wanted to carry a nuclear weapon in a backpack around NYC, you could theoretically use the same argument: so long as the radioactive material is properly shielded, there's no harm done to anyone unless you detonate the bomb. However, the consequences of you using it are catastrophic, so it's illegal for you to possess such a device (at least I sure hope it is!).
Now, gun control seems like such a divided issue because people are divided over the severity of what happens when they are used. Many people do actually choose to use weapons in harmful ways, and yes, it is THEIR fault. However, since you can't easily stop someone from shooting you if they already have a gun in their hand, the idea of gun control is to eliminate the risk by not giving you the opportunity.
Certainly, there are lots of arguments on both sides, including one of feasibility... supposedly there are more guns in the U.S. than there are people, and you aren't going to just tell people to turn them in and expect them to do it. That wouldn't work.
Getting back on topic, this article is kind of the same: force the ISP to check all content before it goes online. This prevents a malicious user from posting malicious content, but seems to put blame on the ISP, when we know it should be put on the user him/herself. Again, we need to assess the risk of damage caused by a malicious user, and compare it with the cost to all the non-malicious users.
Personally, I'm pulling for the free speech side here, but I'm just a silly Canadian, so don't mind me.
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
Sorry, but you missed some points:
. shtml?T=Stef fi
1. Microsoft was NOT sued as ISP but as contend provider, because their old terms of use claimed ownership of all pictures etcetera someone posted to their forums.
2. Microsoft made money of those faked naked Picures of Steffi Graf by puting advertisments on the same page
3. Microsoft blured the origin of the contend
4. German Law (BGB) is from 1900, so compared to the much older angelo-saxon law it has less "Bugs" a lawer for a big company could use to get a case dismissed
See for yourself (in german language):
http://www.heise.de/newsticker/search
It would be called:
Microsoft Boob(tm)
Get it?
If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe. -- Carl Sagan
What are the ramifications for ISPs here? I would think nothing. This happened in Germany, and has no legal impact on our laws. Someone here can't argue legal precendent has been set in Germany.
In the US, we can argue fair use, interpretation of original art, or any other First Amendment arguement. What are the equivalent arguments in Germanym, if any?
The only possible arguments would be libel or slander, which are clear violations of the First Amendment.
You can avoid the German government by not going to Germany ... It's a lot harder to avoid Microsoft.
:-)
Your argument fails:
1. Avoiding Microsoft, stick to Open Source. Or are you suggesting Open Source is lacking?
2. Avoiding Germany, not as simple as you believe, buying German products supports the German Courts.
My point is, just because a lot of things won't work in conjunction with this ruling doesn't mean it's bad. There have been countless /. posts blaming the Music Industry for trying to enforce an obsolete business Model and for being out of touch with the way things are. Sites and ISPs will just have to work with this ruling, not against it.
What's in a Sig?
Now all I need to do to get rich is continually post fake nude pictures of myself on a Microsoft site and sue them!
Who would want to see "doctored" pictures of Steffi Graf? Wait a second, that's why the Anna Kournikova virus was so effective...
:p
Must be something about tennis players.
PayPal $$ if you sign up for free offers (eBay, cred cards, e
There are lots of worse things that being naked.
Would a picture of her head grafted onto some poor innocent donkey's ass make her happier?
Would some video of her proclaiming violent death to California otters make her any happier?
She's a pubic, uh, public figure. If she doesn't want to be fantasized about, let her shed the little white outfits (in private of course,) and wear a "chador."
That might excuse her fading game but it still wouldn't stop the abuse of her image. Some people fantasize about fucking mud. She a cut above that. (I could make some really crude comments about first and second seed here...)
Get used to it. Bee-atch.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Where are all the nude Steffi pics now that MSFT is out of the business? Seems like the answer is, as with most things, if you want something done right, Do It Yourself.
This guy seems to do it himself on a too regular basis.
A beginners' guide to Portland, OR?
In an former article about this case, it was said the reason why the judge made M$ responsible, was that M$ is claiming the rights for all stuff that is published in the MSN forum.
There is some legel stuff in the rules for the use of the forum that any content published goes over to M$.
This is a huge point, it sounds like MS lost because of their crazy idea to own the rights to anything posted there. Just like MS to have a policy like this, and if this is the reason they lost, they got what they deserved.
Compare that policy to Slashdot's posted comment policy for instance...
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way
If MS did claim rights to the photos uploaded, then they basically brought this on themselves
NEVER! PLEASE DEAR GOD. NO!!!!
Then again it might put Richard Simmons out of business.
Thinks that make you go Hmmmmm.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Generally speaking, laws in Germany protect internet providers from the actions of users like in this case.
However, Microsoft Germany put a header on each page with their community banner.
The court argued that by advertising the user's web pages as "their" [Microsoft's] community, Microsoft becomes responsible for the content on their pages.
So the easy way out (for Microsoft) would be to display the web pages of its users unmodified and without any banner that claims it is Microsoft's content.
This is in no way surprising considering the German legal system has a perverse reverence for Steffi Graf. The guy who stabbed her biggest rival in the early 90's got off with a slap on the wrist from a German judge.
I think I'll let Triumph answer this one.
P.S.: Here's a spoiler -- you will die alone!
--
#nohup cat
They should completely get rid of Internet access to Germany.
Send a message to these kangaroo courts: enforce ridiculous regulations and we will just leave.
Instead of getting an environment where online services are warm and fuzzy, they'll just get an environment without online services.
Then they will have to decide, as a country, what is more important, keeping the (assinine) regulations or getting back access to the Internet.
Losing access to the Internet WILL hurt them economically and general quality of life.
Yes, it hurts Microsoft economically, but so will them paying (possibly monsterous) fines for activities they can not control (unless they pre-approve every posting - and someone could always embed the forbidden photos using steganography - which could possibly also result in a fine). Pre-approving posting is very time consuming, it costs the ISP a lot, and it means images or posts will not appear until the ISP approves them. That kills any chance of having a smooth running board where people can respond in a timely manner.
They need to be taught in the only language they understand.
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
Shes a tennis player. Not like she contributes to society. She needs to go back to licking carpet with the rest of her tennis buddies. These are computers, there beyond the ability of people who arent athlethic enough to compete in real sports.
And NOOOO, a LVAD will not keep a dead heart alive. As I said, I work in cardiac surgery. A LVAD (left ventricular assist device) or RVAD or BiVAD will only help if the heart is still alive. The key word being ASSIST in "left ventricular assist device".
Now, if you wish to argue the definition of alive, but according the definition that we have used in this discussion, what he said was fairly correct.
At least we get to see doctored nude photos of George W!
my blog
this post deserves a +5 informative and should go into the update section in the story.
The USA has something like 20,000 laws covering guns, their possession, transporting them, using them, carrying them, etc.
The problem is that laws don't magically affect reality. You can pass a law making it illegal to carry a gun; and all the criminals will carry a gun anyway. Criminals know they will get into trouble; they are planning to get into trouble. They want to have a gun when the trouble occurs.
So, if we look at guns from the "pragmatic" point of view, we can judge whether additional gun laws would make the world better; and the answer is no.
But we don't look at our other freedoms from the "pragmatic" point of view much. When people say hateful things, we don't pass laws repressing the freedom of speech. When people invent kooky religions, we don't pass laws repressing freedom of religion, even when sometimes the kooky people commit mass suicide or something. The Second Amendment protects our right to own and carry guns; as with other basic freedoms, this right carries some costs with it, but as with the other freedoms, it's an important right that shouldn't be infringed.
I agree that nukes, deadly viruses, cluster bombs, and missiles that make the Sun explode should be illegal.
steveha
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
--
Ask the Ya-Hoot Oracle Anything!
Forget Steffi, where are the pictures of Anna Kournakova ???
"the site run by Microsoft Germany where users could share pictures and text with others."
Quick - someone call the MPAA !
"The battle of the Giants"
Toon Moene
Even evil dictators occasionally do things like start Volkswagon, or comission the Autobahn.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
Don't know what to think... Microsoft evil... yet... Microsoft right... too much... head pain
:-)
Microsoft is evil. In this context, Stefi Graf is simply more evil than Microsoft, no small feat, that.
What I want to know is, where can I see the pictures of Stefi's cum-splattered face?
Seriously, if you disagree with this ruling (and, as someone who actively dislikes Microsoft, I do disagree with it and agree that Microsoft should have won), then a little object lesson to Ms. Graf would be in order, by distributing said material far and wide throughout the non-German world. People who want to set speech-chilling precedents in order to protect their own pathetic public image deserve to have, as a direct consiquence of their actions, the exact opposite to occur.
So, I ask again, where are the pics of Stefi Graf's cum-splattered face? Anyone have any links?
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Microsoft was merely acting as ISP in this case.
This has been said many times in this article, so I'm not picking on you specifically. I just picked this post to respond to.
MS was *not* acting as an ISP in this situation. Do you see where you said "on the site operated by Microsoft". In this situation they were a hosting provider. The picture was posted on some MSN community or similar. No one said that whoever posted the picture used them to dial up to the internet.
Further MS claims in their terms that they own all of the content on the site. So they are the host of the material and further they claim to own it as well. This makes them the publisher. In this case MS's draconian license scheme backfired and they *are* liable. If they had some disclaimer like at the top of this page:
then they would *not* have been liable. Since they provide the web space *and* they feel that this entitles them to ownership of anything anyone else makes and posts there, they got screwed in this case.
Is it just me, or am I just paranoid?
Seems to me that Microsoft is in a battle against the Internet - what better way to subvert the 'net than to cripple its effectiveness?
I mean, maybe they didn't intentionally bring this suit about, but perhaps they are only appointing their first year paralegals and one lawyer who hasn't won a case since 1977 to this case?
Yes, perhaps I *am* a bit paranoid, but since MS is trying to "take down" the internet, what better way than to cripple the competition?
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
There is some important information missing in the article (as far as I remember):
The reason Steffi Graf was even able to sue Microsoft in this case was that all copyright on content uploaded on this type of account is automatically transferred to Microsoft. (That's what MS require in their general license agreement.)
So, if the faked nude photos are the intellectual property of Microsoft, then (the court argues) MS is responsible for them... a remarkable irony.
<Devil's Advocate>
Is this necessarily such a bad thing?
In every other medium, those who are damaged by inappropriate material have a legal recourse. You cannot just go around publishing false information that damages people's professional credentials, nude pictures snapped from 2km away with a telefoto lens or claims that you slept with some guy's wife when you didn't. This is a Good Thing. With freedom of speech comes the responsibility not to abuse that freedom, as it should.
Obviously, today's Internet makes it easy for Joe Public to publish whatever he likes, but at present, this is widely abused (and often defended inappropriately on the basis of "freedom of speech"). If you don't want to force ISPs to monitor what they present to anyone visiting, or make them at all liable for the content, what check is there to balance the abuses?
I think many people are too quick to defend freedom of speech without considering how to make people responsible for what they say.
And just to preempt the obvious counter-arguments...
No, this won't automatically lead to government-enforced censorship. The government of many countries would love to be able to censor the media arbitrarily, but freedom of the press has pretty much won thus far.
And no, it really is not difficult for ISPs to automatically scan photos they publish for explicit flesh content, which is arguably all this case covers. We do have the technology; several major players use similar techniques to prevent such things (and viri, trusted company secrets, etc.) being sent by e-mail all the time.
Now, if this had been a case where the ISP had taken reasonable and responsible steps to prevent the publication of obscene or defamatory material and it had just leaked through, and then they'd lost, that would be more of a problem. But right now, the ISP's defence is one of ignorance, and while there's an argument in favour of that, it isn't necessarily good law.
And finally, it sounds as though MS were not nearly as innocent as the cited article would claim, either; other sources seem to suggest that, for a start, they claimed ownership of anything posted on that site. Ownership without any legal responsibility? Now that would be a dangerous precedent.
</Devil's Advocate>
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
The USA has something like 20,000 laws covering guns, their possession, transporting them, using them, carrying them, etc.
This is likely very true. There are also laws against posting nude photos of Steffi Graf on the internet, but that didn't stop someone from doing it. I'm not an expert, but I don't think that any of those 20,000 U.S. laws prevent anyone from obtaining a gun - they just say what you can/can't do with them once you have them. From an idealistic standpoint, I would agree that this is the "right" type of law.
I don't want to get into a religious argument here, and please understand that I don't think that banning guns in the USA would actually help anything. However, up here in Canada, the laws go further - you can't buy a handgun here, and you can't own one without a LOT of permits. As a result, a small time criminal finds it much tougher to get a handgun (you can't get them in a store, and they're much more expensive on the street - good old supply and demand). If you want to walk down the road with a shotgun, or rifle, go ahead, but at least your victims can see you coming. (Well, that's the idea anyway).
We admit that people still get shot in Canada (after all, if you can't get one here, just go to the US and buy one!). However, even though there is nearly as much violent crime in Canada, less of it is committed by guns, and more importantly, there are fewer accidental deaths, particularly with children shooting themselves or someone else.
You can pass a law making it illegal to carry a gun; and all the criminals will carry a gun anyway.
There are laws (I presume) which say that you cannot build (or buy) parts for a nuclear weapon. It seems reasonable to assume that those laws do help prevent nuclear weapons from being prolific. I think that if you have a law that says you can't buy a gun (or nuke), then criminals (or terrorists) will resort to knives (or hijacking planes) to commit their crime (or act of terror). My point is that passing a law that honestly restricts access to a certain technology does reduce the proliferation of that technology. However, people are resourceful, and they will use whatever they can get their hands on. For instance, only passing a law that bans knives to prevent crime would be pointless, because using a gun is more effective and more destructive. Similarly, passing a law to make airplanes illegal, but allowing people to build or buy nukes would also be pointless.
The good news here is that you are happy to be living in the US with your system, and I'm happy to be living in Canada with our system. Are we both wrong, both right, or ignorantly blissful? Any way, I'm glad we're both content, and even with these differences, we aren't all that far apart.
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
Fine, what do YOU do with your old non-functioning Sun Server then??? When one dies on me, I shoot a missile into it, and watch it explode!!!
(Sometimes I forget how we got so many pinko asinine laws in this country, then I read stuff like this and it all comes back...)
The moral of this story is pretty simple:
If the German court system is going to hold an ISP liable for content posted by users, then multi-national ISPs should pull out of Germany. If they did that, then the German courts would have no jurisdiction and no ability to confiscate company assets should they claim jurisdiction. If enough high-tech businesses pull out of Germany that it affects their economy and citizens, then the German government will have to pass legislation granting the ISPs the same immunities that they enjoy here and elsewhere.
Now that's just what we need, concealed nuclear weapons laws.
Bet we could get some passed in Texas.
For those of you who want ludicrous conspiracy theories:
Where most would believe that Steffi Graf has bought the judges ruling with sex or the like, I propose that it was actually Microsoft the purchased the judges ruling against themselves. Sounds too far fetched? Look at the pros and cons of the outcome. On the downside Microsoft has to pay fines. Gee, that has to hurt. Although, on the upside, Microsoft gets tons of great press. How great is this press? So great that even die hard slashdotting Microsoft haters are now feeling compassion for the monopolistic giant they have sworn to destroy. Now thats press worth paying for.
Opinions Expressed by Me should be Forced on Others - PbHead
This ruling does not actually apply to all forums. For instance, Slashdot would not be affected. The court's explanation (google translation) clearly states that the decision was based on the fact that Microsoft has "acquired" the posted information by closely integrating it into their site and, more importantly, by claiming rights to it.
Don't you get it? Microsoft didn't post it, an individual posted it on a USER portion of one of Microsoft's websites. This is like sueing google for having conterfeit porn under their image search option, and winning.
P.S. Google saves a copy of all the images under its image search - although at reduced quality. The image displayed on the search page is loaded directly from google's server. So in essence they are just as liable as Microsoft is here.
don see dem photos anywhere. where der links, now that we really need them. pant pant.
bill gatez to sue many antiMickro sites for messing wit his pictre next. WHAHFFF !
Posters should be responsible for what they post, not ISPs or forum hosters. This could be the beginning of the end of a free speech internet.
... to Photoshop some clothes onto the offending pictures.. ;)
Seems Bill "Crashkid" Gates was quite experienced in causing crashes even before he "invented" DOS.
For instance, if you wanted to carry a nuclear weapon in a backpack around NYC, you could theoretically use the same argument: so long as the radioactive material is properly shielded, there's no harm done to anyone unless you detonate the bomb. However, the consequences of you using it are catastrophic, so it's illegal for you to possess such a device (at least I sure hope it is!).
You know, I recently looked around ATF and NRC's websites to see whether it was, in fact, illegal to own a nuclear weapon (research for a K5 article). Now, these sites are very informative. You can own pretty much any kind of convnentional weapon or explosive in the US, but the more powerful ones are highly regulated. You must store them in such and such a manner, inform the regulators when you move them permanently or take them across state lines. It's a remarkably tolerant policy.
However, nowhere on these web sites does it come out and actually say, "you cannot own a nuclear weapon." Maybe this is because it simply goes without saying. Or maybe because it is not literally forbidden or they are avoiding bringing up second amendment issues. It turns out you cannot posses Special Nuclear Materials (SNMs) without a permit; this includes the kind of stuff you would make fission bombs or dirty bombs out of. Your permit application must state why you want to have it; perhaps they simply don't let you have it if it looks like you're making a bomb. If so it would be a kind of back door regulation -- like regulating chemicals that could be used to propell a bullet.
Does anybody know whether it is, in fact, illegal to own a nuclear weapon?
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
German judge: Microsoft, do you promise not to do it again?
Microsoft: No, we can't help it.
Anti-trust judge: Microsoft, do you promise not to do it again?
Microsoft: No, we can't help it.
The relevant sentence in human-readable English:
Because MSN in its general terms of service reserves the rights to use contents contribituted by users, and because the Community contents, by virtue of frames and logos, look as if they are MSN's own content , Microsoft GmbH must ensure that no more naked Steffis pop up in Microsoft Network.
It still seems very unclear to me that German ISP's are off the hook.
that's what they make anonymizers for
no links to the pictures????
Liberty uber alles.
As much as I don't like M$ how can u hold a host responsible for what is posted ? I also agree that they should not sign a blanket agreement that they have NO WAY of assuring is adhered to.
Requiring that kind of control will KILL the internet.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
In an ideal world, my ISP would give me connectivity and I ALONE would be resopnsible for the things I served. In this stupid world we live in, my ISP offers me ten megs of hard drive space, censors it, and makes themselves responsible for the content. Stupid them? The more burnt they get, the more restrictive they will be.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Thank god they didn't post DeCSS on the MS site.
Microsoft was slapped not because they are held responsible as an ISP , but because their TOS included that all what was posted belonged to them. And as so, they are held responsible.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Since the photos have been taken down, can I get a URL to these photos?
Not at all threatening. I work for a german ISP, and I host one of the largest DeCSS sites. I'm not worried at all, and here's why:
a) The argument about precedence is flat. German law is very unlike british and american law and doesn't give prior cases as much importance. In fact, a judge may or may not consider prior cases as guiding him, but they have no legally binding character. There is no such thing as a precedence in the german legal system, not in that sense.
b) As pointed out by others, M$ claimed ownership of the stuff. That's when they made the move away from being "just the ISP". You can't have the cake and eat it, too.
c) While not being as prominent, the german law does guarantee freedom of speech and publication. For all the bruhaha, I'm not sure if the US free speech laws really are that superior - I have been sued for my DeCSS site in California, but so far the only interest among german authorities was that the guy who handed me the documents the California court sent them said something like "this sounds interesting, I've gotta visit your site".
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
I'm not an expert, but I don't think that any of those 20,000 U.S. laws prevent anyone from obtaining a gun
No, lots of those laws have to do with who isn't allowed to have a gun.
up here in Canada, the laws go further - you can't buy a handgun here, and you can't own one without a LOT of permits. As a result, a small time criminal finds it much tougher to get a handgun
Down here in the USA, laws on cocaine go further -- you can't buy cocaine here, you can't own any (and there aren't any permits). As a result... people with a cocaine habit buy cocaine whenever they want to. And they need to buy more every week, while one gun will do for a long time for a criminal.
If we can't stop drug users from buying drugs every week, we sure as heck can't stop thugs from getting guns. Guns are easy to smuggle, and actually easy to build. Peasants in third-world countries have been known to build working AK-47 rifles using nothing but scrap metal and hand tools.
It turns out that social factors have a lot to do with crime, and simple availability of guns has little. Most homes in Switzerland have loaded assault rifles in them, yet there is little violent crime there. Handguns are tightly controlled (completely illegal with very few exceptions) in Washington, D.C. but you are statistically more likely to get shot there than in my home town (where the average citizen can own as many handguns as he likes).
People claim that England is a good example: tight gun control, low crime. The history looks more like this: low crime, then tight gun control, then low crime. See the book The Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy for details and supporting statistics.
I'll repeat the one point I feel is most important: we don't give up our basic rights for pragmatic reasons, and self-defense is an important basic right (just as free speech is).
steveha
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
you are missing the whole point: microsoft was sued guilty because they had a phrase like "all your content belongs to us" in their license agreement.
if you want to create a homepage at them, you are losing all your rights on your content. so the judge argued, "this is m$ content, so this is m$ responsibility what it is, so this is m$ fault."
In France, Valentin Lacambre provided a free hosting website (altern.org).
Then a user put nude picture of a French topmodel Estelle Haliday.
Her lawyer asked the picture to be removed, which was done (the account was closed).
Nevertheless the lawyer made a lawsuit which found Valentin Lacambre guilty.
To summarize, he would have to check everything posted on the thousand of website hosted, clearly it was impossible so he closed shop.
Just don't use a missile. An axe is more fun anyway.
Microsoft keeps being right lately! This must be having geeks everywhere scared stiff!
For your information, freaking Germany has one third the population of freaking USA, and many of them read Slashdot.
NO! This is exactly the point. I'm German and able to understand the court's decision.
When you publish stuff to your MSN homepage, copyright and ownership are transferred to Microsoft. And therefore Microsoft is the one to blame. Not the user. The court has been very precise on this.
Bye egghat.
-- "As a human being I claim the right to be widely inconsistent", John Peel
MS claimed ownership of the pictures
They really did.
MS claimed ownership of the pictures
It was in the EULA
MS claimed ownership of the pictures
Greedy company.
MS claimed ownership of the pictures
Eat your cake and have it.
MS claimed ownership of the pictures
Poor Steffi.
MS claimed ownership of the pictures
MS claimed ownership of the pictures
MS claimed ownership of the pictures
MS claimed ownership of the pictures
MS claimed ownership of the pictures
MS claimed ownership of the pictures
MS claimed ownership of the pictures
MS claimed ownership of the pictures
MS claimed ownership of the pictures
MS claimed ownership of the pictures
MS claimed ownership of the pictures
Do I make myself clear?
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
You make many good points. I'll check out that book.
self-defense is an important basic right
Yes, it is. However, a gun isn't the only way to defend yourself or your home. I would suggest that owning a dog is more effective of a deterrent to a burglar than owning a gun.
Anyway, thanks for the thought provoking conversation.
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
However, a gun isn't the only way to defend yourself or your home. I would suggest that owning a dog is more effective of a deterrent to a burglar than owning a gun.
Depends on the dog, and the burglar.
But I am reminded of something Massad Ayoob once said: "The bad guy may wonder whether your gun is loaded, but he won't wonder whether your dog is loaded."
Anyway, thanks for the thought provoking conversation.
Thank you, too.
steveha
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
Apparently (and undocumented in the article referenced by the first post), at the heart of the suit is the fact that MS claims ownership of anything that is posted on their website.
They own it; they disseminate it; they're responsible for it. Suite and simple.
Because MS is trying to get greedy with the content, they don't have much choice. If they disclaim ownership of the content, then their contract with (possibly unsuspecting) users would be useless, becsuse anybody who didn't like MS having rights to their software would be able to point to MS's claims in this lawsuit, and MS would be estopped from claiming otherwise. Thus, MS had to defend the suit without disclaiming ownership of the stuff that got posted by one of their users.
In other words, this lawsuit would not apply to the likes of slashdot that acknowledges that doesn't try to get greedy with it's posters' IP.
MS got hoist by their own greedy little petard. Get out there and party in the streets -- and when you're done slobbering over those (fake) nude Steffi pics on MSN (that MSH claims ownership of), be sure to send a copy to her lawyers.
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
If the criminal breaking into my house is armed with an attack dog, then a dog may be a good way to defend yourself. Since he is more likely to be carrying personal arms, that will also be the best defense.
Owning a good guard dog takes a lot of maintenance. Owning a gun takes very little in comparison. You guess which one is preferable.
As with the police, having a dog for protection is putting your trust in a third party. (Though the dog would probably have a better response time.) No, thanks, I'll provide my own, directly.
Constitutionally Correct
I couldn't have said it better. With your rights come responsibilities. Your rights are powerful things that can be used for good or for ill. Society trusts you to use them for good. If you use them for ill, you should be punished, but other people should not have their powerful potential to do good limited just because you chose to do ill! It's about personal responsibility. Don't blame someone else when you do something wrong. Limit the person, not the right.
Constitutionally Correct