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."
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*
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.
Are you kidding? I would good money to clense the internet of Bill Gates nude photos let alone doctored ones. Talk about blackmail...
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
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...
Doesn't the DMCA have some provisions covering this sort of thing?
The DMCA doesn't exist in Germany, where the court case was held.
Does this mean I could sue /. everytime an AC calls me a linux-loving fag?
-Sean
Um, they didn't use her likeness. One of their customers used her likeness. That's a big, big, big difference.
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.
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 can hear the tabloids blinking out of existence as we speak...
For a PUBLICATION such as a tabloid, what reason would they or should they be permitted to not sign such an agreement. The problem HERE is that USERS are posting the photos and Microsoft is removing them as requested.
Stefi Graf says Microsoft should promise that it will examine every photo and won't allow these pictures to be posted. This has very bad implications for user based public forums (I.E. everything must edited by the host company or it is liable for damages.
So close and yet so far from the world's perfect ID number
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.
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...
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.
God forbid if Dell, Gateway, IBM and all the other retailers of computers stood up against Microsoft and told them to stick their OEM agreement up their ass.
If anybody else bent over and signed a stupid ass contract like that we would call them stupid. The computer retailers do it and we call in the government and blame MS.
Free Mac Mini
Dazed and confused Slashdot readers everywhere were found siding with Microsoft today...
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
Yes exactly! What an evil bait to link the words "hosting nude doctored photos of her. "!!! Would I have clicked the link if I had known it was just a boring press release? NO, NO, NO!!! ;-)
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
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
If this is true, then this court case is absolutely on the money. We should give our German friends the benefit of the doubt.
MS can't have it both ways. I assume they demanded ownership of the content so that they could remove content they did not want posted - like anti-MS rants etc. However, when they were held responsible for the "property" they demanded, they tried to claim it was the website "owner's" responsibility.
This is not a frightening precedent at all, and it doesn't apply to any ISP with normal terms of service. MS just got exactly what it deserved.
I repeat - SHOULD NOT APPLY TO THE REST OF THE NET. Move along. Nothing to see here.
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!
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.
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 US will beat up the terrorists and the countries that host them.
Mode (3) smart-aleck mode. Press * to return to main menu.
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
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.
Microsoft didn't post anything. Pictures were posted, by users, on a Microsoft community site. This is like saying that Geocities is responsible for making sure that no pictures that are hosted on a Geocities site are illegal.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
This is an interesting statement. It involves some esoteric ideas of publication rights, ownership, and online communities.
When you have a photo, story, or article published as a freelancer, typically you sell first publication rights or some limited publication rights, and you retain ownership and copyright of the content. There are exceptions such as work for hire. On line, the terms of such a deal become strained because unlike a printed magazine, the publication can live, universally accessible, forever. Thus, first publication rights amount to first-and-always-available publication rights.
Posting to a community web site further strains the idea of publication rights. In many community sites, the notion is that the site operator has no control over the content. But the statement above indicates that Microsoft set itself up as essentially having publication rights... by uploading the photo, the user implicitly entered into an agreement whereby they granted publication rights to Microsoft in return for... nothing, I suppose. Like a vanity press of sorts. Microsoft immediately, upon upload, became the publisher of the photo. Whether they took it down later or not, they published it just as if Time magazine had published it and later issued a recall of all those printed copies.
If this is the case, then Microsoft was officially a publisher of the photo, and they should be held completely liable for the content. Also, if this is the case, then they deserved to get burned--it is another example of Microsoft trying to grab as much as they can until someone bites them.
It's for this reason that anyone setting up a community always puts in acceptable use policies and disclaimers saying they don't own or control the content.
He looked at me and said, "Kid, we don't like your kind, and we're gonna send your fingerprints off to Washington."
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?
how about this:
if the home owner provides a large wall facing the public, with a sign which says "draw something" and several pieces of chalk. the home owner is then responsible for whatever graffiti is scribbled.
your example seems to be vandalism, itself a crime.
-rp
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)
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.
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
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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
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.
She won the Gerichtsprozess.
How do you protect YOUR house? windows (not microsoft) are trivial to break with a hammer. Locked doors can often be picked. A good saw ($150 or less from home depot) can get through most walls. So are your valuables really prtected?
The best gun safes are rated as 30 minutes protection against an attacker who knows what he is doing. (but several hours against someone who doesn't)
the poster said "someone broke into my house", so you can assume reasonable mesures were taken. What more can you do if the door was locked?
[sniker]did he offend you?
Let's examine the thread so far:
night_flyer said: Its not the criminals fault, its the gun's
and in response you say: GUN: Used for killing things.
[ducks as night_flyer's point zooms over your head]
We are talking about responsibility, but if you want to talk about gun control: fyi, it is often the threat of being killed that prevents others from doing the killing in the first place.
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.
What I'm saying is that Microsoft might start taking down your "pix of doctored nudies of Graf" or banning you because that's been ruled against in Germany. Now, you wouldn't want that, would you? Their laws may not touch you directly, but if they touch the company you're leaning on, they may as well.
Do something about world hunger. Click here
You are right the internet doesn't exist in my country but their laws dont exist in my country either
Unfortunately, the rest of the world can't say the same thing. (ie Skylarow & The decss-kid)
But pointless borderline US-bashing aside, this sets a really crappy precendent. I live a lot closer to Germany than you, and since Germany is a major player in the EU this may spill over on me.
And if this becomes standard practice in the EU, there is a posibility it might eventually affect the US too.
And Germany is not the only country to set a crappy example. I regret to inform you that a major newspaper in my country (Sweden btw.) was recently convicted, and sentenced to pay fines for racist statments submitted to their public discussion forum.
In other words: A site like slashdot could concievably be shut down in parts of Europe!
How is that not scary?
Help us fight it now, or some day they'll come for you too... The US may be strong on free speech today, but there are no guarantees for the future.
I bet a lot of US corporations would like the right to SLAPP with impunity.
...and according to the postings on slashdot those are the ones that sets at least parts of the political agenda.
You have been warned.
"First lesson," Jon said. "Stick them with the pointy end."
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."
Nah, I just think companies that are at risk will choose a country other than Germany to operate out of.
This has no affect or precedent in the United States. It happened in Germany and Microsoft lost in Germany.
Remind me not to care...
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.)
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
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?
The case I would have been referring to if I had been having a brain-fart would be if Steffi Graf had used an intellectual property claim against Microsoft in a civil court. That would have been a case of a private-sector use of litigation to cramp free speech, if it meant that ISP's have full liability for the uploads of their customers.
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.
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
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!
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.
As has been pointed out, this was a German case, and so the DMCA doesn't apply. But the provisions you're referring to are part of the Communications Decency Act (CDA), not the DMCA.
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
You have a nice Japanese nick, but I wonder what you say is true.
Why do I feel nervous being in Germany sometimes?
Recently, in two days in a row, I encountered violence in Hamburg. The first time was when a guy was kicking another guy in the middle of downtown. No man was stopping him! It must have been going on for at least a couple of minutes. and that's a busy street full of pedestrians. And no guy was trying to hold him back. Why did I have to be the guy to hold him back? I'm quite small in German standard.
The next day, I was riding a subway. The train arrived at the station where I was going to get off. Two girls ran into the car, and a guy ran into the car and tried to drag one of the girls out. She got off the car and ran away. The guy chased her. And he apparently caught her up. When I got to the place where they were, a black guy was talking to the guy preventing doing further harm. Why is that? Why did not all the German men act?
I felt horrified and still am. I can't tell these episodes to my German friends. It's not only the xenophobia that worries me, but the attitude (indifference) of men when evil is in progress.
I sincerely hope I happened to encounter very peculiar incidents.
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.
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.
Pathetic knee-jerk rhetoric from a gun avocate isn't any better. You listed several effects, some of which are derived from the fact that guns are designed to kill, as if they were independant uses from the fact that guns are made to kill. A gun is good for defence ONLY because it is designed to kill. A gun makes someone think twice about breaking in ONLY because it is designed to kill. Look, I support gun ownership, but you guys have to learn to stop using this really dumb argument that makes your side look bad. There is one reason and one reason ONLY that gun ownership must remain legal, and that is that if the technology to make such killing devices exists, that technology must not remain only in the hands of those who will abuse the power it gives them (government, and criminals.) All this pretend "Oh, guns aren't designed for killing, really, they're not" crap just waters things down and ruins your credibility. Yes, guns are designed to kill. That's *why* they mustn't remain solely in the hands of the government and the criminals.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
The purpose of a gun is to fling one or more projectiles at deadly velocity, so it can damage its target. Using it to murder is not a "misuse" any more than using it to hit a clay pigeon is. And the fact that it is a deterrent is *because* it is designed to damage the things it hits. You can't seperate the two as if they were seperate needs. If guns weren't made to kill, they wouldn't be a very powerful deterrent. Does this mean I support outlawing guns? No. I'm just sick and tired of this unworkable argument being used by people who have otherwise good points, and who's position would be stronger without resorting to it. Guns mustn't end up being ONLY in the hands of the government, precisely BECAUSE they are designed to be killing machines.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
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.
<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.
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.
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.
no links to the pictures????
Liberty uber alles.
Under your matress?
Protect the pubic domain!
-Sorry, I could not resist.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
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.
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
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.
But slashdot has deleted content on at least one occasion.
When they got hit with the DMCA by the Scientologists...
"First lesson," Jon said. "Stick them with the pointy end."
Under your matress?
... well, that's probably more information than anyone wants.
heh!
Actually, I keep my porn in my closet, right next to
Unfortunately Stefi Graf's cum-splattered face does not (yet) grace my collection.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
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.
Note I was careful not to say murder. I said "kill", leaving off whether the killing is a murderous one or a self-defence one. And, no the purpose of a car is to get people and things from point A to point B. The fact that the method used to do this ends up propelling a mass at deadly speeds is a side-effect of that main purpose. When a gun is used by someone to kill someone else, that *is* precisely what it was built for. It's not a side effect. Its the main effect.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
My side is the same as yours, buffoon. Try reading the post next time. I just take exception to using that *particular* argument you are using, because it makes all gun advocates look dumb by association. And a target pistol is merely a tool to practice how to use the real thing. They wouldn't even exist if they weren't meant to be practice for the real thing.
And, yes, beer *IS* designed to get you hammered, too.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
The whole lawful/unlawful demarkation is irrelevant if the argument is about what is ethical and what isn't. After all, screwing open-source developers with the DMCA is perfectly lawful, pretty much by definition. Giving someone an open-source DVD player is unlawful, yet perfectly ethical. The original act of the American colonies breaking away from England was quite unlawful. What is lawful is irrelevant to what is ethical.
And the original poster never brought law into it. You did, just now, for the first time.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
Your premise that the purpose of a gun is only for ethical behaviour remains unproven.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
I don't have the burden of proof. I'm not making claims about putting limits on the intended purpose of the item. I'm claiming it's made to injure or kill, without qualifications as to what type of killing - ethical or otherwise. The fact that the manufacturers have to cover thier asses and claim it's only for ethical purposes makes such claims meaningless in this context. They'd say that whether it was true or not, for liability reasons.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
But my point was that the opposite position is NOT a claim. It incurs no burden of proof to say "I don't specify what type of killing they are intended for." It does incur a burden of proof to say "I claim they are only meant for ethical types of killing." Your position is like asking an atheist to prove there's no god, when such proof isn't necessary. Atheism is the natural default stance when evidence for god is lacking. It requires no evidence of it's own, and in fact you wouldn't expect any. You can't prove something does not exist, even if it happens to be true. And no amount of evidence can support "I don't specify the type of killing the gun is used for." - because it's a stance that is actually made *stronger* by a lack of evidence either way.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
I don't know how you got that impresion I agree with that when I said the exact opposite of that. Yes, there is an incentive on the manufacturer to claim the product is only meant to be used in certain legally safe ways. Even though it's wrong, it's a fact that our society now has a tendency to blame the manufacturer when a device is used to harm someone. So, yes there *is* a huge incentive to cover one's butt legally by making such statements regardless of if the statements are honest or not. The fact that a company states publicly that their product is only for ethical uses is meaningless. They would say that whether they believed it or not. The fact that they make the statement fails to shed any light on whether or not they really mean it.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
It is not necessary for there to have been a *successful* case against gun manufacturers for them to feel an incentive to make such statements. All there needs to be is the precedent that people will try to sue them over it.
And this has *everything* to do with your claim that you have the ESP necessary to know what purpose the manufacturers have in mind for the guns they produce.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.