Slashdot Mirror
Craigslist Prankster Sued, Argues DMCA Abuse
destinyland writes "Though Sunday's New York Times dubbed him a spokesperson for internet trolls, Jason Fortuny's just been sued in federal court. Fortuny re-published over 180 responses to a fake sex ad on Craigslist in 2006 — but he's finally been located and issued with a summons. The victim argues Fortuny violated his privacy, and that the photo Fortuny re-published was copyrighted. Fortuny argues he re-published the photo to stand up to the victim's bogus DMCA notice, and that the gullible victim had voluntarily provided the photo. In a motion to the court Fortuny even argues that he helped publicize a privacy risk on the internet, whereas 'bringing legal action against me may punish me, but it won't change or even impact online culture.'"
Well, for starters, the "victims" in this are not the people who had the replies posted but the spouses who found out that their significant others wanted to whip a girl till she bled then fuck her bloody ass....
Second, allowing the (in your terms) "victim" to determine the right or wrongness doesn't take into account what their role in it was. Let's look at it from another scenario to make my point. Let's say that someone sends an email in to Company A in hopes of getting help without a support contract. Perhaps he forged the from address or made a free account to fool the casual level 1 tech into thinking he was from a company with a support contract. In the course of correspondence he finds out that those paying for a support contract get a login to a self-help type of site. Turns out, that same content is freely available to everyone else.
Our noble hero then publishes all such correspondence on a LiveJournal site, and it hits the news that the support contracts get you the same help and information as those with out. Company A gets very upset that a revenue stream is being destroyed and makes all sorts of threats to sue, etc.
By your logic, our user is in the wrong because the "victim" is upset. Nevermind that the public is served, by letting the victim's reaction determine how ETHICALLY correct something is serves only the victim.
Yes, that is a real situation. I hate Company A with a passion.