Slashdot Mirror
Dentist Who Used Copyright To Silence Her Patients Drops Out of Sight
According to a report at Ars Technica, a dentist named Stacy Makhnevich, who billed herself as "the Classical Singer Dentist of New York," threatened patients who wrote bad Yelp reviews with lawsuits, along the same lines as the online dental damage-control outlined in a different Ars story in 2011. This time, though, there's something even stranger than bargaining with patients to forgo criticism: when a patient defied that demand by describing his experience in negative terms on Yelp, Makhnevich followed up on the threat by seeking a takedown order based on copyright (putatively signed over to her for any criticism that patients might write, post-visit) — then disappeared entirely when lawyers for patient Robert Lee filed a class-action lawsuit challenging the validity of the agreement.
Who knows what's up with this dentist. But the company who provides the form paperwork is really the people that the lawyers should be going after. D. Makhnevich is only one of many many who use this company's services / products.
Also this points out why I never pay much attention to Yelp: This dentist is rightfully getting a lot of heat over this business, but most of the "opinions" about her on Yelp are by people who have almost certainly never used her services. This is how it goes when businesses get bad publicity, everyone runs to trash them on Yelp regardless of if they have ever done business with whoever is the target.
There are a number of other sites that specialize in doctor ratings from patient that have a significantly different score for this clown.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
In order to be a valid contract, there has to be "consideration" on both sides.
What is the "consideration" given to the patient, in exchange for giving up copyright? Clearly it isn't dentistry, since that could be had elsewhere without the requirement of waiving copyright.
So what did Makhnevich give patients in exchange for that? If nothing, then there is no contract.
I suppose it's remotely possible that the patients were trading their copyright for dentistry, but that seems a pretty thin argument.
Most patients, when walking into the office of a new medical provider, are given a stack of forms to sign by a harried receptionist who expects them to just sign the paperwork and hand it back. Few people actually read them.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Likewise. I actually refused to sign the boiler plate at a new dentist after I moved. Upon close reading, the forms insisted that I agree to undergo any procedure the dentist thought necessary for the care of my teeth. So, don't want that root canal the dentist says you need? Too bad - you've already agreed to it. So, I crossed out those parts and corrected the language until it was something I was satisfied with. I called it to the attention of the receptionist and said "I don't agree to these terms as is. I have modified it in the following way, as noted on the form." Signed and handed it back. Not a peep out of them - they were as surprised as I was! They likely had no idea that clause was even in their paperwork, probably inserted by an over-zealous lawyer at some point.
Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
"I always do. I read absolutely everything that I sign, because there are too many unscrupulous people out there. You never know what bullshit is in those contracts, and I've even refused to sign some, and some they've changed or removed clauses"
Me too. And I have a good story. You should be aware that this works both ways, and you can use it to your advantage.
Years ago, I had to take a pee test for a pre-employment "drug screening". I have a strong philosophical objection to that practice, but I wanted the job so I did it. (I don't do that anymore, but that's another story.)
So I got to the clinic, which specialized in doing pee tests en masse. Big waiting room, lots of chairs and people, window with a woman behind it. She handed me a form to sign on a clipboard, and I sat down and read the whole thing. And it amazed me. The form said that the clinic could tell anybody (not just the company) anything they wanted about my pee test, even if it was wrong, and I waived any right to hold them responsible in any way.
I went up to the window and asked the woman: "Do I understand this correctly? You are in the business of doing these tests, yes?"
"Yes"
"But in order for you to test me, I have to waive any right to sue you or hold you responsible, even if you screw it up?"
(Annoyed look) "It's just a standard form."
I said "Well, I don't think it is. I think I'd like to own a business where nobody could hold me responsible for actually performing the service they pay me for. Seems like a pretty sweet deal." She looked pretty pissed off.
I sat back down, looking it over. And on the second page of the fine print, where it said I could not hold them responsible, I penned in "Except in case of negligence."
I signed the form and gave it back to the woman. She didn't even look at it... just signed and dated it, and threw it into the pile of papers to file.
Hahaha. I could have written in "And I get to fuck your brother" and nobody would even have noticed. But it was just as legal a contract as anything THEY handed ME.
"What's most surprising about this story to me is that any patients would sign such a contract."
Read the Ars Technica piece by the writer who tried to say "no" to such a contract. In short: he gets booted out the door. Now imagine you're in pain and maybe scared about a possible medical emergency (as the patient in the lawsuit here was). Situations like that is why oversight of a time-critical service like this is needed.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/05/all-your-reviews-are-belong-to-us-medical-justice-vs-patient-free-speech/
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
IANAL, however I think modifications to boiler plate contracts have to be initialized by both parties to be valid. And that's for your benefit or they could add whatever they wanted after you signed it and claim it was there all along. So, funny story, but unless you pointed out your addition to them and got someone to initial it, you probably didn't really accomplish anything.