Slashdot Mirror
Dutch Court Orders Lycos to Reveal Client
linumax writes to tell us InformationWeek is reporting that the Dutch Supreme Court ruled against Lycos last Friday stating that they wrongly protected the identity of a user who posted "slanderous allegations" against an internet postage-stamp dealer. From the article: "The dealer and claimant, identified in court documents only as A. Pessers, took Lycos to court in 2003, seeking the details of its client so he could pursue financial damages allegedly resulting from the allegations."
It'll all come back to music and movie piracy. That's not in the slashdot summary, but may really be the largest impact of this.
The Brain Institute, which represents the global entertainment industry in the Netherlands, said in a statement that the ruling will enable it to seek damages from people who illegally swap copyrighted software, music and movies over the Internet.
BTW - does anyone else find it interesting that the "Brain Institute" represents the entertainment industry in the Netherlands?
-Pete
Soccer Goal Plans
Just what we needed. The Dutch music industry is thrilled with this verdict. They will use it to go after each and every P2P user, blogger and industry critic they can find. As if 'Brein' doesnt' have enough extortion power already 8-(((
To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
Honestly, I'm happy about this verdict - how is the internet different from any other form of communication, you are responsible for what you say period. Now, don't get me wrong, I don't like the idea of "the big boys" telling others who I really am... but in some situations I believe it is warranted. If you owned a company that someone slandered repeatively online how would you feel?
LINUX ONLINE POKER: Linux Poker
Yes, finally, a story in which the not-as-big guy gets to squash the little guy and his free speach without the biggest guy getting in the way!
And that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be bannana-shaped.
It's interesting that Lycos seems not to have argued that they never would release data; only that the standard they wished to uphold was that the underlying dispute must be a criminal action, not a "mere" civil suit.
[Quoting from article]: "...a sweeping rejection of Lycos' argument that personal client details should only be released if they are suspected of a crime and the information is wanted by the police..."
This may be good or it may be bad. Naturally The State will always insist on its right to get data in a criminal suit, and it's scarcely worth the bother of arguing over that right.
The Big Question is the right of private parties to get 3P information in a lawsuit such as is described in the article. Is a libel suit enough, or is a better remedy for publishing false information simply more information? Is publishing on a website enough of a libel to break privacy protections? What if the "libel" is published on a password-protected site ... but the password is shared freely? What if the "libel" claim is protected by our American 1st Amendment but not by whatever law they have in the Netherlands ... or in China?
I don't have The Big Answer but if privacy is to mean anything, I suggest the bar against private suits should be a tough one.
--- Attorneys Assisting Citizen-Soldiers & Families -
You don't suddenly become free of the responsibility for things you say just because you say them on the internet.
Of course, when the internet comes into play, legal situations can get kind of tricky - if I post a slanderous message while I'm in Country A, onto a server in Country B about a person in Country C, where does the crime take place? What if the statement is legal in one of those countries, but illegal in the others?
Game dev and music blog
You haven't much experience with civil litigation in the states. Two years is nothing.
I think we're severely stretching the term "human right" if we're now to beleive that people have a right not to be called names, racist or otherwise.
There is not a single one among you Americans who have any idea how it is to have ones country occupied by a hostile nation. Imagine SS setting up head quarters in the White House. Most european countries with a WWII occupation history (my dad was a freedom figther and several of my family died in KZ camps, one of my relatives were the local Gestapo boss and was extremly hated for his cruelty. This is not Holland btw) made a promise that this would not be repeated and hence outlawed nazism. I fully support it and i also support restrictions in free speech since all countries have restrictions, even USA have severe restrictions on free speech (yes, i have lived here for about 10 years).
Stop bragging about USA and free speech, it's not more free than most other countries, it's just that you, the average American, believe otherwise because you have been told so all the time and that doesn't necessarily make it true.
If you mod me down, I *will* introduce you to my sister!
Big or little does not change the rights.
I should be able to make any truthful or opinionated statement about a person, corporation or government anonymously. I have no love for Microsoft, the RIAA or their tactics.
However, when I make false statements that damage your business, livelihood or personal life, I should be held accountable. It should not matter whether I am attacking you as a private person, some celebrity, Microsoft, or the RIAA -- I should not be allowed to make damaging false assertions without being held to account -- especially if these damaging false assertions could be profitable to me.
Sure, a big company will have more money for lawyers to come after me, but they still must convince a judge that the assertions are false. As a small plaintiff, it is not that costly, and the presumption will be on the side of the small guy. Moreover, the truth is an absolute defense against charges of libel (written) or slander (spoken).
A rapidly rising problem in this area of anonymous online speech is stock scammers making false damaging blog and message board posts. They get it in their head that the stock should go down, or feel that they have been wronged, and they start making false accusations, and do so in groups, creating a nasty buzz. That will do nothing against giants like Microsoft, but can create a serious distraction and unavailability of capital for small companies recently gone public, and can cost people their jobs. Shouldn't these people at least have the threat of being exposed and having to answer for their statements?
Similarly, some cow-worker decides that you wronged them and wants to get back at you, so kludges up some false photos and email trails and makes sure your spouse/SO is made aware of it, damaging your home life. Shouldn't you be able to identify them and make them answer for it?
I like neither big government, big corporations, nor the excess power they can wield. But, I do not think that their potential power is sufficient reason to create a lawless zone on the Internet where anyone can libel with impunity.
Since you seem to think you have the freedom to say anything you like, why do you use 'the N-word' instead of the real McCoy? Afraid somebody might sue you? I actually am in the Netherlands, and have no reason to disguise words. I can say nigger or its translation, nikker, and much, much more. Hell, I can even say fuck or see tits on public television, if I like. You Americans had us worried some time ago about your freedom, with that ridiculus wardrobe-malfunction and the ensuing bruha. We called Amnesty International, but they said you had much more pressing issues than your Freedom To See Tits On TV.
Did you know that making a racist remark is against other people's human rights? Freedom of speech is not the only human right, you know.
You have NO right not to be insulted.
If such a right existed, you could not have been given
the results of your IQ test.
I'm dutch too and i too lived in the US (for two years).
r ders below for instantance Mauritius and Mali, Benin and El Salvador but JUST ahead of Bolivia. The Netherlands can be found 40 places higher in this list on number 4 after three Nordic countries.
Your argument about political parties is irrelevant and bordering on dumb: (1) Political parties have agenda's. What party members say has to fit the party's agenda. If not, then they're possibly member of the wrong party and in any case not suited to represent the party (2) you're talking about ideas that are "not mainstream", this is a far cry from "freedom of speech" which was the more the issue here and (3) don't make the mistake of comparing the tolerence displayed by humans in a political party with the constitutional rights a person has.
But even if you DO go the political way: be sure to mention the McCarthey period in the US: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism or recently: "If you are not with us then you are against us."
But back to freedom of speech, and tangentially related: freedom of press. Also make sure to mention that currently the US ranks #44 on the Worldwide Press Freedom Index http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reporters_Without_Bo
Don't let your personal ideas on a topic be clouded by prejudice.