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
the supreme court told lycos, 'go get it!'...
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
Brain (or Brein in Dutch) is a government-appointed foundation which acts as the 'watchdog' of the Dutch entertainment industry. Unfortunately they get way too much power and act like the Gestapo. Paying Brein is like paying off the mafia for protection money.
To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
st4mp_h8r_2005: ur stampz r gay
a_pessers: >:-(
a_pessers: *sues u*
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
I speak Dutch, and searching in google for the seller's name and "postzegels" (Dutch for stamps), I found a thread on the forums of ebay (also in Dutch): http://forums.ebay.nl/thread.jspa?threadID=1000006 05&tstart=120&mod=1093984729600.
Basically there seem to be some complaints, mainly that the guy is too slow (reads his e-mail once per 10 days), he only accepts US$ and no Euro's, a complaint about conversion rates, and one person on the forum had his stamps delivered with some damages. The seller is a lawyer, so going to court is second nature to him.
If only he read his e-mail more frequently and tried to be a salesman instead of a lawyer, this would have been unneccessary it seems.
"It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton LaVey
What are you sayin? That the dealer ain't so good at his job? This sounds dangerously close to slander to me, buddy. You are SO sued!
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
I wonder how they are going to _prove_ they suffered damages. In the Netherlands it's vital to prove loss of income due to the commited fact, for each individual case.
Just like offline, If I call a radio station and slander someone on the air, the radio station and / or the phone company can track it if asked in a legal way, If I post signs on light poles and an officer, or servaelance camera sees me, the company can in court supenas the tape or for the officer to testify, if there is a technical way to provide the tape (i.e. it hasnt been recorded over) and the owner of the tape will not hand it over, that is contempt. What is differant online?
Brein is not a government-appointed foundation, it's a foundation which is set up and paid for by the music-industry. They act like they have the authoroty to prosecute just like the RIAA does, but they have just as much right to do so like every other individual. One of the founders of Brein is the organisation BUMA/STEMRA which is the dutch organsation for collection and distibution of royalties for the componists, bands and producers. Over here if, as a componist or a band, you don't become a member of BUMA/STEMRA you can't have cd's made. You'll have to burn them yourselves or you have to go abroad. When you become a member you'll have to pay quite some money, so only the real popular bands will be able to gain some money.
It is no longer government-appointed. Just about the only good thing our Justice minister did was removing the special powers Brein had.
Another key point is that they can't do mass subpoenas based on this verdict: Each and every one has to be checked by a judge, so there will be no mass suing of 10 year olds. Furthermore, we don't have hundreds of thousdands of dollars in statutory damages per MP3 shared.
And downloading is still legal. I'm not losing sleep over this.
About the ruling itself: Generally, in Europe, free speech isn't as protected as in the US, and slander or libel or hate speech WILL get you in trouble. This ruling is in line with the general spirit of the law.
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.