Hulk Hogan Settles With Gawker For $31 Million (go.com)

Gawker Media, which filed for bankruptcy after losing a lawsuit brought by the former professional wrestler Hulk Hogan, has settled the case. The settlement, which court documents indicate is for $31 million, comes less than eight months after a jury awarded Mr. Hogan $140 million in damages in an invasion of privacy case lawsuit over Gawker's publication of a video that showed Hogan having sex with a friend's wife. From a report on ABC: Settlement documents filed at a New York federal bankruptcy court stipulate that Hogan, whose real name is Terry Bollea, will get $31 million plus share with other creditors 45 percent of any additional funds that come into the bankruptcy court by virtue of third-party claims brought by Gawker. Hogan's camp said in a statement: "After almost five years of litigation all parties agreed it was time to resolve this matter. This will allow people to go about their lives and concentrate on things more important than continued court proceedings. As in any case involving negotiation all parties give-and-take. We would like to thank everyone involved in the process." In a blog post on the settlement, Nick Denton, the founder of Gawker Media, wrote: "After four years of litigation funded by a billionaire with a grudge going back even further, a settlement has been reached. The saga is over."

Comments

Poor Nick Denton

[HBI]

His company was destroyed because he ignored the law. Let's all feel sorry for him. I'm playing the world's smallest violin.

A boil has been excised from the ass of humanity.

Re:Poor Nick Denton

[aevan]

Hey now, Nick had standards! He went on record to state he would 'definitely not publish a sex tape of a four year old. Probably.'

A pillar of the journalistic community has fallen. Now if only the rest of the rags in that collective of cybertrash would.

Re:Poor Nick Denton

[KiloByte]

His company was destroyed because he ignored the law. Let's all feel sorry for him.

Well, let's see how ignoring the law works for, let's say, Clinton. Hmm... perhaps some animals are more equal than others?

Re:Poor Nick Denton

[ganjadude]

yeah sorry but..... no you got things backwards. I take it you were ok with the fappening as well right?

IMO gawker fucked up by saying the hulk video was fine but not the fappening. either both are, or neither

Re:Poor Nick Denton

[interkin3tic]

Sorry, I phrased that very poorly. No, the sex tape shouldn't have been released, the fact that Hogan and Thiel are assholes doesn't make invading their privacy okay. I was only responding to HBI's suggestion that Nick Denton is an asshole so that makes this a good thing.

"Don't want to get in trouble with your spouse? Don't commit adultery. Don't want to get fired from the WWE for racist comments? Don't use the N word" in particular were absurdly overstated.

I'm not okay with the fappening. I don't think sending nude pictures of yourself to someone is morally wrong, wheras what Hogan did is. I know though everyone on slashdot is not a lawyer but for some reason assumes everything is put in legal terms, so no, Hogan being a douche shouldn't justify invading his privacy either.

Re:Poor Nick Denton

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

People funding other people's lawsuits is an old practice, and it's very valuable. Without it, the ACLU wouldn't be able to help people sue in civil rights cases, for instance. There's no more possible damage to freedom of the press for this than there is for other lawsuits; if it's without merit, it won't get far, and if the case has merit, then we should celebrate justice happening. Gawker wasn't sued because of good reporting; they were sued because they broke the law and also defied a judge's order to take the tape down after the fact. This case sets no real precedent, and whining that Gawker got punished for breaking the law flagrantly and without remorse is just silly.

Re:Poor Nick Denton

[vadim_t]

Yes, tell yourself this was all about one particular asshole and there's no collateral damage possible to freedom of the press or freedom of speech.

You intend as sarcasm, but that's entirely correct.

Peter Thiel is straight up evil. By all means, sue gawker for invasion of your privacy, outing a billionaire is not very nice I suppose. Billionaire responding by funding lawsuits against the news organization until it shuts down is censorship by any useful meaning of the word though.

Thiel did nothing more than exactly the same thing that's done by the EFF and the ACLU: supporting somebody who has a grievance, but lacks the money to pay for lengthy litigation.

I would have agreed with you if Thiel was supporting completely unfounded lawsuits that had no other purpose than making Gawker lose money by paying for lawyers. But that wasn't the case, Bollea had a very genuine grievance with Gawker, and all Thiel did was contributing money to it. It's not any different than when people fund litigation through aligned organizations (EFF, ACLU), friends and family, or crowdfunding. There's nothing illegal or immoral about it.

Furthermore what is actually disturbing is the implication that money makes right, and the right situation is where one loses a lawsuit not due to lack of merit, but due to the lack of funding, and that there's something wrong with a third party counteracting this.

Re:Poor Nick Denton

[Cruciform]

Exactly. Even if you don't like Hogan or Thiel, the funding of legitimate lawsuits is hardly unethical.
If he was bombing them with nuisance suits for death by a thousand cuts it would be different.
But Gawker was in the wrong. Allowing those who have grievances with them to proceed freely does absolutely nothing to limit "freedom of the press".

Re:Poor Nick Denton

[ganjadude]

that makes much more sense. I find it a tough line. i would wager damn near everyone has said or done something they regret, that shouldnt be grounds for ruining people

yeah, cheating on your wife with yourbest friends girl (even if he was cool with it and from bubba side before he went silent on the matter he said he was cool with it. and yes he said he didnt want his daughter to marry a n@$%#) is never a good idea. but should doing so get you blacklisted from your job??? I think thats a step too far.

Re:Poor Nick Denton

[lgw]

Well that depends on who you Americans vote for in the next what? 7-8 days...doesn't it. Then again, if you elect Hillary, you could see the first women president impeached too.

80% of "Democrats" and "Republicans" are just the Establishment Party, agreeing on the fundamental principle of taking bribes to funnel taxpayer money in return. Oh, they put on a show about stuff they don't care about at all, like gay marriage (where's the money in that?), but they agree on everything "important".

An angry 20% will never impeach anyone.

Re:Poor Nick Denton

[bluefoxlucid]

Uh, they posted a video of an event that occurred and was factual. That's not defamation, libel, or slander; it's reporting on the life of public figures. It's long-established that being a public person cuts away a substantial amount of your privacy protection. What laws were broken?

A Florida Jury found that Gawker violated Hulk Hogan's privacy. Other juries and judges have determined that public figures's privacy can't be violated in that way in many situations. Unless Gawker produced the tape (including hiring someone to have it made, thus invading privacy), it's been long-established that this is simply public gossip about a public figure: a tape was made by Clem (husband of the chick Hogan banged), Clem gave it to Gawker, Gawker published it after Hogan's divorce.

By early 2012, rumors began circulating “in the radio community about a sex tape starring Hogan and Heather Clem,” Peirce said in his deposition.

A month later, still images from the tape appeared on the website The Dirty — and Bubba now recognized the canopy bed as his own and knew it was his tape.

In the fall of 2012, Gawker’s then editor, A.J. Daulerio, received a phone call from Tony Burton, a lawyer who claimed a client of his was interested in mailing him something. A package arrived at the Gawker offices between Sept. 27 and Oct. 4, 2012. There was no return address. Daulerio was on vacation at the time, so the site’s then-managing editor, Emma Carmichael, opened the package and watched the recording inside — it was the sex tape.

So the sex tape was already a matter of public gossip, some stills were out there, someone sent it to Gawker, Gawker published it. Also Hogan had denied that he would ever bang Heather several times--he liked to talk publicly about his sex life.

Hogan made his affair with Heather Clem a public matter. He talked around it, he talked about his sex life in general, he pointed out that she was hot but claimed he wouldn't get on her because she's another dude's wife, and so forth. "Turns out you fucked her brains out!" is actually reasonable information to publish, and somehow that sex tape got made and got floated around.

It's a thin case for you and me; and it's a completely-different ballgame for someone famous who's baited the public interest.

Re:Poor Nick Denton

[bluefoxlucid]

How is what Hogan did morally-wrong? Bubba Clem was watching and operating the camera while Hogan fucked his wife! He brought her over for the pow-wow!

Re:Poor Nick Denton

[tlhIngan]

Uh, they posted a video of an event that occurred and was factual. That's not defamation, libel, or slander; it's reporting on the life of public figures. It's long-established that being a public person cuts away a substantial amount of your privacy protection. What laws were broken?

A Florida Jury found that Gawker violated Hulk Hogan's privacy. Other juries and judges have determined that public figures's privacy can't be violated in that way in many situations. Unless Gawker produced the tape (including hiring someone to have it made, thus invading privacy), it's been long-established that this is simply public gossip about a public figure: a tape was made by Clem (husband of the chick Hogan banged), Clem gave it to Gawker, Gawker published it after Hogan's divorce.

By early 2012, rumors began circulating âoein the radio community about a sex tape starring Hogan and Heather Clem,â Peirce said in his deposition.

A month later, still images from the tape appeared on the website The Dirty â" and Bubba now recognized the canopy bed as his own and knew it was his tape.

In the fall of 2012, Gawkerâ(TM)s then editor, A.J. Daulerio, received a phone call from Tony Burton, a lawyer who claimed a client of his was interested in mailing him something. A package arrived at the Gawker offices between Sept. 27 and Oct. 4, 2012. There was no return address. Daulerio was on vacation at the time, so the siteâ(TM)s then-managing editor, Emma Carmichael, opened the package and watched the recording inside â" it was the sex tape.

So the sex tape was already a matter of public gossip, some stills were out there, someone sent it to Gawker, Gawker published it. Also Hogan had denied that he would ever bang Heather several times--he liked to talk publicly about his sex life.

Hogan made his affair with Heather Clem a public matter. He talked around it, he talked about his sex life in general, he pointed out that she was hot but claimed he wouldn't get on her because she's another dude's wife, and so forth. "Turns out you fucked her brains out!" is actually reasonable information to publish, and somehow that sex tape got made and got floated around.

It's a thin case for you and me; and it's a completely-different ballgame for someone famous who's baited the public interest.

Not really.

You ignored one simple fact - Gawker was ordered to take down the video. They said they won't.

Sure the tape may be factual evidence, but when a judge orders you to take it down during your lawsuit, you take it down.

It doesn't matter who's right or wrong in the matter - the judge said to do it, so you do it to avoid the wrath of the judge.

In fact, this one act of defiance likely is what brought the damages up. Gawker got away pretty light - the judge could've found them in contempt and instead all they got was enhanced damages.

Re:Poor Nick Denton

[immortalcrab]

Damn editors and their self censorship!

Re:Poor Nick Denton

[johanw]

Legal authority? US judges are known to keep the tradition that Roy Bean (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Bean) alive.

Re:Poor Nick Denton

[Wuhao]

Oh, I'm sorry, did Peter Thiel force them to illegally publish a sex tape? Did Peter Thiel then force them to openly defy court orders to remove it? Did Peter Thiel force them to repeatedly mislead the court in such a way that the judge could not in good conscience allow them to post a bond to delay payment until their appeal could be processed?

No, of course not. Peter Thiel did none of those things, and yet, those are the things that put Gawker in this position. So instead of being mad at Peter Thiel, who critics still can't puzzle out a way to actually accuse of any real wrongdoing other than "he helped a victim of a serious crime get justice from the serial offenders who wronged him," perhaps you should be mad at the ACTUAL evil people who will unlawfully publish secret recordings of people having sex and saying things post-coitus that aren't popular so they can profit off the destruction of their careers.

Re:Poor Nick Denton

[AvitarX]

I know plenty of black wrestling fans.

Re:Poor Nick Denton

[arth1]

A Florida Jury found that Gawker violated Hulk Hogan's privacy. Other juries and judges have determined that public figures's privacy can't be violated in that way in many situations.

I don't think any juries and judges have ever considered having sex in private as one of those "many situations".

Re:Poor Nick Denton

[Kkloe]

Well yes, any other questions?

Re:Poor Nick Denton

[Mashiki]

Then you're probably better off voting for the non-establishment candidate, that has pissed everyone off aren't you? And hope he leans on the FBI and gets rid of the corruption at the top of the DOJ so that indictments can be put into place.

Re:Poor Nick Denton

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

Ha! Well, I can't say I agree with everything the ACLU does, but they have been useful and I'm glad they can help people who may need it.

Re:Poor Nick Denton

[angel'o'sphere]

You seem to miss the point that we are talking about a sex tape here.

Reporting about public figures only matters for public events, not for their private live or their sex life.

Perhaps you should reread your court rulings very carefully to understand the difference.

Re:Poor Nick Denton

[interkin3tic]

I was under the impression that Hogan's wife was not okay with the thing. I think it is wrong to hurt your spouse like that. And racism is morally wrong.

Re:Poor Nick Denton

[lgw]

Oh, I agree. I think the US has a limited number of years left to get a credible non-establishment foothold in government before less appealing options than democracy start unfolding. I don't think it will be Trump, but his supporters aren't going anywhere, and I'm hopeful we'll see less crazy non-establishment candidates in coming election years.

Re:Poor Nick Denton

[lgw]

WTF is with /. mods these days? Pointing out the US government is pretty darn corrupt is "trolling" now? Really?

Re:Poor Nick Denton

[bluefoxlucid]

Oh, I didn't catch that Gawker disobeyed a prior court order.

Re:Poor Nick Denton

[bluefoxlucid]

I'm not arguing whether Gawker is worth a shit or not; I'm arguing whether or not they violated what we expect as our law here. I didn't know they were ordered to remove the video (fat lot of good that does, anyway; and I have issues with that, without more data), and have no defense for that; and for the simple concept of "invasion of privacy", it's been well-established that public figures have less privacy, and sex tapes and other embarrassing publications have happened frequently enough.

To say Gawker invaded Hogan's privacy would tangentially also imply Linda Tripp invaded Bill Clinton's privacy. The President's job is foreign policy and executive branch office; getting a blowjob from a 19-year-old intern falls squarely outside "newsworthy", except for gossip about the President as a celebrity. That did actual damage: it caused a useless impeachment trial, largely because Clinton lied under oath about something irrelevant anyway.

The simple difference is we didn't have pictures of Clinton. As for pictures of Hogan... he denied he'd ever bang another man's wife; accusing him of doing just that under the pretense that you have a video you won't show "for privacy" is essentially bullshit. Meanwhile, nobody's claimed Gawker invaded Heather or Bubba Clem's privacy, and claiming they haven't in this argument would be logically-inconsistent; at the same time, claiming Gawker publishing only a text column detailing what they can confirm of Hogan's sex life without a video is any different in terms of privacy from publishing the video is also logically-inconsistent.

We don't crush people we simply don't like. Tolerance is a level-4 defense mechanism, categorized as a "mature" behavior; that means grown-ups complain about things they don't agree with, but allow them so long as they don't affect us directly. Immature, overgrown children lash out at people and behaviors they don't like; and separating similar behaviors so you can categorize one invasion of privacy as "good" and the other as "bad" is pathological. The fact is the press reports on anything they can find out about celebrities, most of which is none of our damned business, and most of which nobody has a problem with even though it's an enormous cost you pay when you become famous. Crying that Gawker wasn't good-people and deserved to be blown out of existence for behaving in ways we don't like is childish and uncivil.

Re:Poor Nick Denton

[bluefoxlucid]

There have been a lot of private naked-photos and celebrity sex tape leaks; and we get to hear all kinds of gossip without pictures, like when Bill Clinton got a blowjob. If the press found out Angelina Jolie was cougaring up a college football team, they'd have it on the front page of everything that would print it--and it would just be "news" (well, what passes for news), and not "invasion of privacy".

Re:Poor Nick Denton

[bluefoxlucid]

Reporting about public figures is a constant. Have you never been to a supermarket? Magazine covers are full of gossip about who cheated on who, who has a secret sex-party life, who is getting a divorce, and whatnot. If the Olsen Twins get drunk and take turns screwing three guys at a party, the press will have it on ABC, CNN, and Fox News the next day, if they can get an interview with anyone at the party. They'll even publish someone's cellphone recording of the girls walking off into the back room with studs in tow.

Of course Ashley is a little angel; it's Mary Kate who's the cocaine-fueled nightmare whore, and I think she's since broken her crack habit.

Re:Poor Nick Denton

[bluefoxlucid]

I haven't heard his wife's position on everything. The last I heard was that Hogan was already going through rough times and facing divorce, while Heather was all over him--a common enough behavior, where a girl gets wind that your relationship is over and she's already trying to get on your dick before you finish signing the papers. Maybe that wasn't what was going on; but it's what I heard. As it stands, though, I simply ignore that point because the information I have on it is thin and doesn't have iron-clad credibility.

Whether boning another woman is okay when your current girl has already decided you're done is a grey area. People do stupid shit like both concluding that the relationship is ending, and then considering themselves still in a relationship for weeks or months once they've already decided it's over, before finally officiating it. I think that's a lot of horse shit.

Re:Poor Nick Denton

[david_thornley]

I don't know. Name a time Clinton deliberately ignored the law and we'll talk.

You know what would happen if you were negligent and let classified data out? You'd have a good chance of losing your clearance, perhaps temporarily. You could lose your job. Your annual review probably will not be pleasant. You won't get prosecuted.

Re:Poor Nick Denton

[david_thornley]

There's been a lot of leaked nude photos and sex tapes, but that doesn't mean they were legal. Also, there's a difference between a juicy report of Jolie and the team and a video of the activity in the locker room.

Re:Poor Nick Denton

[KiloByte]

You're assuming negligence where malice is obvious. She did it to hide her illegal actions from possible prosecution. The US isn't Russia, yet -- she can't assassinate, spy on and otherwise abuse government agencies against her political opponents in the open yet. She does deeply envy Putin, though, and does everything she can do turn most of the western world into a Russia-like hellhole. Her and her buddies' tentacles reach far beyond borders of the US.

Her opponent is merely an incompetent buffoon, quite a step down from the Second Coming of Adolf. And I'm not joking here -- take a look at Eich, Thiel, Snowden, Assange -- the rhetoric and actions of Hillary's supporters are dangerously close to what Jews of 1933 faced.

Re:Poor Nick Denton

[angel'o'sphere]

Does mot make it leagal when the photos or phone records are aquired by illegal means ...
And no, I don't read those magazines ... I'm to concerned about my next hardware I want to acquire :)

Re:Poor Nick Denton

[Mashiki]

I'm hopeful we'll see less crazy non-establishment candidates in coming election years.

This thing has been building in the US for at least a decade now. The previous non-establishment candidate you guys had was Ron Paul and all his crazy, with the BS being pushed by the elites? Trump is probably the least extreme candidate you're going to see. It's only downhill from there, if you need a primer or example? Look at the state of Europe with the rise of actual fascist parties again, and said parties gaining because the left and establishment are either attacking them--or saying "things really aren't that bad."

Re:Poor Nick Denton

[david_thornley]

In other words, you're constructing cloud castle indictments in your mind. You are assuming you know her motives, and apparently that she deliberately set things up to leave classified documents on her server, which is ludicrous. She hasn't assassinated anyone; she's just known a lot of people who have died of various causes. I haven't heard anything serious about the State Department spying on people, and the only serious abuse of government power I've seen has been Comey's against her.

Having devoted some time to studying Hitler's rise to power, much of Trump's rhetoric is similar to Hitler's. Trump doesn't appear to be an ideologue like Hitler, and he's definitely not as smart. He is appealing to the same sort of people.

It is possible to get people angry at you without Clinton having to intervene. I haven't noticed Clinton or her campaign getting involved with Eich or Thiel. Snowden has plenty of people both for and against him, and Assange is, among other things, a paranoid anti-US asshole - you know, the type that Republicans hated when I was a kid. The other big difference that you're missing is that vituperation against an individual, for something the individual does, is very different from vituperation against a race or religion.

Re:Poor Nick Denton

[KiloByte]

much of Trump's rhetoric is similar to Hitler's

Newsflash: it's not Trump who's acts like Hitler.

Re:Poor Nick Denton

[bluefoxlucid]

The report, published as news, of a non-celebrity would be an invasion of privacy. Also, is it an invasion of privacy when a well-known video already being circulated is in question? You've already lost control of that.

Someone suggested it'd be copyright at best. They're probably right.

Re:Poor Nick Denton

[david_thornley]

Not from where I sit. Trump pushes an irrational ideology, with lack of specifics, extreme nationalism, and vilification of identifiable minority groups. Clinton doesn't do that.

Re:Poor Nick Denton

[bluefoxlucid]

Actually, once someone has published something not claimed as a copyrighted creative work, it's no longer private and no longer acquired by illegal means. It must be an illegal video (child pornography) after that point.

Before Gawker received the video, it was already circulating without the authorization of Hogan and Clem. Gawker put it into wider circulation, which is technically the same thing as what anyone who distributes anything at any point ever is doing; however, there is an argument that Gawker put it into significantly-wider circulation, moving from "a thing you can find if you dig enough, which most people have been hearing about and only a significantly-large minority have actually obtained" to "it's in everyone's hands now". That is most likely more of a defamation issue, whereas the original acquisition and distribution would have been considered theft.

These cases are largely a matter of venue. If you get a sympathetic judge and jury, they give you different outcomes. "Secret videos" and "leaked photographs" have been mainstays of cheap celebrity gossip for ages, and have gone unchallenged largely because every challenge is essentially laughed out of court. That doesn't mean a judge won't occasionally bring the hammer down or, in this case, that a defendant won't stupidly elect for a jury trial so the plaintiff can cry sympathy.

Re:Poor Nick Denton

[angel'o'sphere]

Actually, once someone has published something not claimed as a copyrighted creative work, it's no longer private and no longer acquired by illegal means.
That is nonsense. Publishing does not remove copyrights. Otherwise every movie in the theaters had no copyright and all about the DMCA etc. would be mood.

Re:Poor Nick Denton

[bluefoxlucid]

Laura Schlessinger sued for copyright infringement and privacy invasion when her boyfriend sold her nudes to a porn site in 1998. He had a judge preside over that trial. The judge told her copyright infringement doesn't work and she's a public figure and doesn't get that kind of privacy protection.

Gawker published Hulk Hoagan's naked sex video in 2015, and then got sued. The idiot lawyer requested a jury trial, and the plaintiff cried crocodile tears for sympathy.

Do you see this post? I'm publishing this post. If you copy and paste it elsewhere, I can't sue you for copyright violation. Slashdot posts at the bottom: "Comments owned by the poster"; however, by publishing this into a public forum, I'm not only publishing a written work not claimed as a copyright work, but I'm publishing in a manner which is common-law considered to be non-copyrightable due to the nature of the material. This post isn't a creative work.

Your titty pictures and private sex tapes aren't creative works, either. Generally, unless it's a pornographic production you created for publication, sex tapes and nudie photos aren't creative works and aren't claimed or claimable as copyrighted.

By contrast, movies in theaters are creative works published as copyrighted material. They're made for publication--they're works. People did work to make them for the purpose of creating a creative work. Their existence isn't incidental of someone's drunken frat party, nor is it selected after-the-fact to be publicized as a property of the creators. At no point prior to its publication was it worked--produced as a creative work, or evaluated for publication as a creative work.

Think about that next time you send a text message: your text message isn't protected by copyright.

Re:Poor Nick Denton

[angel'o'sphere]

Laura Schlessinger sued for copyright infringement and privacy invasion when her boyfriend sold her nudes to a porn site in 1998. He had a judge preside over that trial. The judge told her copyright infringement doesn't work and she's a public figure and doesn't get that kind of privacy protection.
Then the judge was wrong.

Of course she could not sue on copyright issues, as obviously the BF made the movie so most of it was copyrighted by him. However as a participant (regardless if voluntarily or not) she also owns copyrights.

Regarding being a publics figure, the judge/jury was wrong. Period. Private is private, and not public.

Generally, unless it's a pornographic production you created for publication, sex tapes and nudie photos aren't creative works and aren't claimed or claimable as copyrighted.
This is an extremely far sketched idea ... might be true perhaps in the USA ... not true in Europe.

Think about that next time you send a text message: your text message isn't protected by copyright.
That is wrong. Of course it is protected by copyright. You can cite it, but not copy it. And if you are referring to /. I suggest to scroll down the page and read what is written in the lower right corner.

Re:Poor Nick Denton

[bluefoxlucid]

Well it's been determined and upheld that public figures have less of a claim to privacy because everybody is trying to get in on their private life. You seem to not like this, but legally you're wrong.

Of course it is protected by copyright. You can cite it, but not copy it. And if you are referring to /. I suggest to scroll down the page and read what is written in the lower right corner.

Do you mean the part where I said, "Slashdot posts at the bottom: 'Comments owned by the poster'"? Yes, I said that in my last message. Read it again.

I also said you will lose any copyright case in any court attempting to claim copyright infringement on comments you made in a public forum. If I copy a bunch of Slashdot discussions into a book and sell it as an omnibus on social commentary, Slashdot has no claim because they don't own those messages. If the individual posters come to sue for infringement, they will all lose because their statements in a public forum are not copyrightable.

Your comments here are non-copyrightable for the same reason everything you say is non-copyrightable. If you are at a party and you start talking at length about the presidency, someone can publish a book with a written transcript of everything you said, and it's not copyrightable; yet if you publish a written transcript of song lyrics, speeches, or the dialogue of plays and movies, that is covered by copyright--even though those things were not delivered as written transcript, but as spoken language. A transcription is a derivative work.

Your comments here are not a creative work; they're dialogue. You can copyright literary works; musical works, including any accompanying words; dramatic works, including any accompanying music; pantomimes and choreographic works; pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works; motion pictures and other audiovisual works; sound recordings; and architectural works. Impromptu speeches and discourses delivered are not considered copyrightable; because dialogue is made in text on the Internet, dialogue in a discussion forum is an impromptu speech or dialogue, and non-copyrightable.

This is all legally well-understood.

Re:Poor Nick Denton

[angel'o'sphere]

also said you will lose any copyright case in any court attempting to claim copyright infringement on comments you made in a public forum.
And you are wrong with that.

I might lose in some obscure court in the US. But definitely not in all of them and absolutely not in any European court.

Your comments here are non-copyrightable for the same reason everything you say is non-copyrightable

I suggest to simply read the copyright law. Facepalm. It is obvious that everything I write is copyrighted. You must be absolutely not familiar with such laws.

Your comments here are not a creative work; they're dialogue.
What a creative work is, is defined in Copy Right Law, I suggest to read it. There is no particular "level of creativity" required.

because dialogue is made in text on the Internet, dialogue in a discussion forum is an impromptu speech or dialogue, and non-copyrightable.
This is nonsense. Especially as not every public post in a forum is a dialog. What is the next level of your idiotic? A blog post is no longer under copyright? And when I change the web address of my hosting site to "New York times dot com" it suddenly is again under copyright?

Re:Poor Nick Denton

[bluefoxlucid]

Here's the thing: comments on a forum have never been successfully defended in U.S. courts. Speeches--being the creative work of a speechwriter--have been defended; but the USCO has determined speeches given but not written down aren't copyrightable because they aren't a fixed work--even though those speeches are recorded through the incident of being at a public event. The recording is copyrighted--to whoever owned the camera (e.g. CBS); the speech wasn't prepared and fixated, so isn't copyrighted.

Were you to record your speech and then televise it, the recorded speech and its transcript would be copyrighted. It's also copyrighted to you if you have your own people record it, if you had planned to give a speech; yet doing the same in a debate fails to produce a copyrighted work for the speaker, because the speaker's dialogue wasn't a prepared work, and is an incident of the venue (but not owned by the venue).

So the law essentially says speeches are copyright, but not if they're basically given on-the-spot or from memory of a worked speech which you hadn't previously fixated by writing it down or recording it yourself, except in the case where you had appeared on the occasion for the purpose of giving a speech and having it recorded as a fixed work.

Slashdot is a venue. You're having a discussion, which is dialogue. That dialogue is becoming a fixed work at that time. As per the above behavior with speeches and debates, this would be non-copyrightable; and, additionally, the venue only engages through the medium of a fixed work--that is, you can only communicate on the Internet by creating a fixed work (a recording, text, etc.)--therefor jurisprudence would suggest that copyrightability of publicized discussions on the Internet should examine if they are substantially-similar to verbal public discussion. They are.

The only people who have ever claimed forum posts, youtube comments, and the like are copyrightable are forums operators and forum users discussing the copyrightability of their posts. No court has ever found in favor of copyright action against the impromptu text of a forum discussion--although any images you upload as attachments and whatnot, or any works contained therein (e.g. poetry), are obviously copyrightable because they are a separate work embedded into a discussion.

Copyrightability hinges essentially on what is considered a "creative work". A discussion is not considered a creative work. To claim copyright, you must claim that something isn't a discussion.

Re:Poor Nick Denton

[angel'o'sphere]

In most parts of the world, courts are irrelevant for simple matters like this. The law is relevant.
And regarding copyright or Urheberrecht (in german) all my posts are under (my) copyright, and so is anything I do with my mind and express with my mouth, body, fingers or any tool at hand.
It does mot matter if it is in a discussion, and your way to bring this topic forward makes no sense to me. But perhaps you are right in your judisdiction, I pitty you then.

Re:Poor Nick Denton

[bluefoxlucid]

America has the concept of case law, in which we determine what the law was supposed to do, and whether it makes sense in context. That's why we have things like the reasonable person test, and why we might identify that "conversation is not copyrightable" and "conversation is only possible via written word in this context" would lead a court to decide that said written word is not copyright, while also pointing to a poem in the middle of said written word and claiming that is a creative work and is thus copyrighted even though everything else in the message isn't.

If it didn't work that way, you could lie in courts and commit fraud under the defense of freedom of expression. A lot of Americans like to abuse the ideal of freedom of speech and claim a bunch of legal shit because of a lack of understanding of the law like that. That misunderstanding is also why we got the whole religion argument (e.g. a courtroom can't display a religious symbol like a cross or a statue in America): people interpreted "freedom of religion" by way of "congress shall make no law restricting the free exercise of religion" to mean "freedom from religion", and claimed separation of church and state is in the constitution, and that the government can in no way display any sort of religion-related thing. The courts actually upheld that one, even though it's ludicrous.

Our legal system is complex because case law overrides all law, including constitutional law--the Supreme Court will rule on if a ruling or law is constitutional, and thus decide what the constitution means by what it says. State law trumps Federal law, except we pretend it doesn't; and constitutional law outlines the limits of Federal and State legal powers, including that any powers neither explicitly granted to the Federal government nor forbidden from the States fall to the States or the people in the states. Then you have loonies who think the Constitution is a perfect, inviolable, holy scripture that can in no way be incorrect or sub-optimal, and claim anything they don't like is wrong because "it's unconstitutional". They seem to forget the constitution originally allowed states to ban women and black people from voting--things we fixed by a complicated legal process of ratifying new amendments to the constitution by a vote of the states.

Our laws are complex. Our legal system has some serious flaws.

Cry me a river, Nick.

[Anonymous Coward]

Jennifer Lawrence pics = BAD AND EVERYONE WHO LOOKED AT THEM SHOULD FEEL BAD. Hulk's sex tape = FREEDOM OF THE PRESS.

Live by the douchebag, die by the douchebag. And this big ball of dirt keeps on spinning.

Re:Cry me a river, Nick.

[AmiMoJo]

The guy got off lightly. In some places publishing video of people having sex without their consent is a crime.

How can the media go on?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a sad, sad day for media outlets, and journalism in general.

How can we exist as a democracy when the public isn't going to be allowed to see stolen sex tapes of washed up celebrities? This is going to have a chilling effect on news outlets everwhere.

Think of all the sex tapes hidden from the public of washed up celebrities that will now never come to light because of this censorship! There could be sex tapes of Charo giving a blowjob to John Davidson stolen by Danny Bonaduce, and we'll never see them! It's shocking, shocking I say! There could be a sex tape of Corrie Haim giving a reacharound to Corey Feldman! A double Correy sex tape, and we may never see it! How will modern journalism, nay democracy survive!

Re:How can the media go on?

[interkin3tic]

You missed their brilliant expose that Donald Trump's hair was probably an absurdly expensive, shitty looking weave.

Anyway, I get it, we should wait to cry foul when a real, respectable news organization gets taken down by a billionaire with a grudge. Just so we're clear, which news organizations are the good guys? I want to be ready, so I'll need a list of the good ones.

Re: How can the media go on?

[Anonymous Coward]

You can start with the ones that don't publish stolen sex tapes

Re:How can the media go on?

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

We can start by saying the ones that publish sex tapes without permission are not the good guys, and deal with other cases as they arise. Thiel was helping someone who had a legitimate grievance against Gawker get justice. It's not like he filed a bunch of illegitimate lawsuits to try to bankrupt them with legal fees.

Re:How can the media go on?

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyway, I get it, we should wait to cry foul when a real, respectable news organization gets taken down by a billionaire with a grudge. Just so we're clear, which news organizations are the good guys? I want to be ready, so I'll need a list of the good ones.

It doesn't matter whether they're 'good' or 'bad'. If they act the same way then they should be treated accordingly. If the BBC had posted the Hogan sex tape instead then absolutely they should be paying the damages. Is this really that confusing for you?

Re:How can the media go on?

[interkin3tic]

Your sig points out "nobody is always right." I suspect that every single news organization of any decent caliber, that has been around for much time, has people who think they have legitimate grievances. All of them seem to be made up of people, and in my experience, all people make mistakes.

I'm not sure what the best way to resolve Hogan's fair complaint with making sure news organizations don't get shut down, but that WAS Thiel's stated goal here, if I'm not mistaken, was to shut down Gawker.

The Washington Post published Valerie Plame's identity as a CIA operative, ending her career. To me that's more serious an offense than leaking a sex tape. Should the Washington Post be closed for this mistake?

Re:How can the media go on?

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

Your sig points out "nobody is always right." I suspect that every single news organization of any decent caliber, that has been around for much time, has people who think they have legitimate grievances. All of them seem to be made up of people, and in my experience, all people make mistakes.

I agree with this so far.

I'm not sure what the best way to resolve Hogan's fair complaint with making sure news organizations don't get shut down, but that WAS Thiel's stated goal here, if I'm not mistaken, was to shut down Gawker.

Here's the thing: Thiel apparently did want to destroy Gawker, you're right. However, it wouldn't have been possible for him to do so if they weren't making more than their fair share of mistakes. They might not have had to file for bankruptcy if they had taken the trial seriously from the start - Nick Denton's (allegedly flippant) comment about probably not publishing the sex tape of a four year old didn't do them any favors, and neither did refusing the initial order to take the tape down. All throughout, they acted unrepentant.

More to the point - sex tapes are covered by additional laws relating to publication, while identities of government workers/operatives are not. Things that are in the "public interest" are okay, like telling people Anthony Weiner was sexting inappropriately, but publishing the images themselves would likely not have been. If Gawker had stuck to telling people that a sex tape exists, they would have been fine. That's the line we've drawn as a society. You can argue that they shouldn't be considered that different, but that's separate from this discussion.

I guess ultimately I'd say that Gawker got (partially) destroyed not because they made one mistake, but because they made a lot of them, flagrantly and without remorse until it was clear they would lose.

Re:How can the media go on?

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

Release of sexually explicit images without the consent of the person(s) depicted is not, at this point, Constitutionally-protected speech. Gawker did a lot of things *wrong*, but the judge - who probably has a lot more legal training than you do, and has heard the arguments - found that what the suit also had enough merit to succeed.

Re:How can the media go on?

[Rakarra]

The Washington Post published Valerie Plame's identity as a CIA operative, ending her career. To me that's more serious an offense than leaking a sex tape.

Gawker would not have gotten into much trouble if they'd just reported that Hogan had extra-marital sex. That would be the analogy to Valerie Plame.
But Gawker published the tape. And then they refused a court order afterwards. I don't think there's really any parallel to the Valerie Plame case in that situation.

The party I have the least respect for

[Anonymous Coward]

after reading this, is Terry Bollea. The fucker cheats on his own wife and that of his friend, then plays the victim to the tune of $140 million, as if that would be a fair amount of the DAMAGES CAUSED TO HIM. Money-greedy petty fucking Americans.

Re:The party I have the least respect for

[Anonymous Coward]

He is just a well payed pawn in this.

If your Business is pissing off people rich enough to sue you out of business, Be careful who you Piss off.

Re:The party I have the least respect for

[mattyj]

Doesn't matter, status of the relationship, regardless of how skeezy it is. In the US, you can't publish a sex tape without the consent of everyone that's in it. That's really the only question here. I'm not a fan of anyone in this story, but Gawker willfully, purposely, knowingly, blatantly broke the law. I'm no celebrity but as someone who likes his privacy, I'm pretty glad they got sued and lost.

It's interesting. When you see these 'leaked' sex tapes of celebrities that _aren't_ suing Gawker media, that's not a leak. That's a consensual, for-profit marketing ploy for said celeb.

Re: The party I have the least respect for

[Anonymous Coward]

In a just society the little people gawker bullied, fucked over and broke the law exposing (like a college student sec tape she begged to have taken down) would have shut this company down years ago. The sad thing is a bigger billonaire bully had to be annoyed before justice could be done against the mere millionaire gawker assholes who repeatedly broke the law and caused misery to line their pockets.

Re:The party I have the least respect for

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

His friend was fine with it; it was an open marriage. I don't think Bollea's wife was okay with it, but I still have less respect for Gawker than I do for him.

The $140M wasn't just because of damages caused to him (although it did hurt his career, and he was well-paid at one point); it was also because Gawker refused a judge's order to take down the tape. Punitive damages are a thing, and judges tend to get mad when you don't listen to them.

Re:The party I have the least respect for

[dj245]

Doesn't matter, status of the relationship, regardless of how skeezy it is. In the US, you can't publish a sex tape without the consent of everyone that's in it. That's really the only question here. I'm not a fan of anyone in this story, but Gawker willfully, purposely, knowingly, blatantly broke the law. I'm no celebrity but as someone who likes his privacy, I'm pretty glad they got sued and lost.

It's interesting. When you see these 'leaked' sex tapes of celebrities that _aren't_ suing Gawker media, that's not a leak. That's a consensual, for-profit marketing ploy for said celeb.

Or an entity that can't be sued (anonymous torrent post, etc). But I agree, in most cases, sex tapes are probably authorized by the C-list celebrity.

Millionaires

[Princeofcups]

A millionaire sued another millionaire and millions changed hands. Everyone is scum in this situation. Plaintiff, defendant, and lawyers. Just an average day in America.

Re:Millionaires

[kuzb]

Except now Nick Denton isn't a millionaire, so it's wins all the way around.

Re:Millionaires

[rhazz]

Cue Hogan theme song... "I am a real American..."

Before anyone crows about this ..

[whoever57]

Who invented email? This settlement includes $750,000 to Shiva Ayyadurai and removal of the article that debunks his claim that he invented email.

Does anyone think that part of the settlement is justified by anything except Thiel's money?

Re:Before anyone crows about this ..

[Virtucon]

Tomlinson.. I was using rudimentary store/forward e-mail in 1976..
Don't however confuse that to a lawyer making an obtuse argument of invention to get money. I would have argued that since e-mail is a concept and not a product that it's not subject to ownership but maybe copyright.

Re:Before anyone crows about this ..

[SuricouRaven]

Francis Ronalds, 1816. First practical telegraph.

It may not be email in the way we use it today, but it is a text message transmitted electronically to destination address specified in the message header, and that sounds like email to me.

You need to shut up.

[Anonymous Coward]

You're making me way horny. And I can't be distracted by arousal while I'm working. Mrs. Clinton isn't going to win this election all by herself.

Re:quick

[ganjadude]

he did before his wife took half and he got blacklisted because of gawker.

just because someone has something doesnt mean if they are wronged they should just deal with it

Re:Should not have been doing his friend's woman

[ganjadude]

his friend knew about and was ok with it.....

Good

[kuzb]

Seriously, fuck Nick Denton, and fuck Gawker. The only way it could have turned out better is if Hogan ended the court case with a leg drop. Peter Thiel is a hero for helping to take out this tabloid that insisted on masquerading as a legitimate news agency.

Re:Good

[arth1]

Seriously, fuck Nick Denton

There's not enough Astroglide in the world.

Re:quick

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

Supermarkets shouldn't have to just deal with it; we should punish (but not execute, not sure where you're pulling that from, but it says a lot more about you than it does about the person you're replying to) shoplifters when we find them.

$750,000 to Shiva Ayyadurai

[XXongo]

Who invented email? This settlement includes $750,000 to Shiva Ayyadurai and removal of the article that debunks his claim that he invented email.

That part is missing in the article linked, but is in other articles on the settlement:
http://nordic.businessinsider.com/gawker-settles-with-hulk-hogan-2016-11/
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20161102/10054035947/ridiculous-nick-denton-settles-remaining-charles-harder-lawsuits-agrees-to-delete-perfectly-true-stories.shtml
https://nickdenton.org/a-hard-peace-e161e19bfa
http://www.politico.com/media/story/2016/11/gawker-reaches-settlement-with-hulk-hogan-004844

Re:Should not have been doing his friend's woman

[ganjadude]

true, but so many here hating on him seem to forget that he didnt screw his friend, his friend screwed him

Negotiations...

[dasgoober]

Hogan: How much ya got?
Denton: 31 million dollars
Hogan: I'll take it, brother!

Re:quick

[bluefoxlucid]

Actually, Gawker published the video after their divorce.

justice?

[srw]

It's a sad state of affairs when you need a billionaire with a grudge backing you to get any justice.

Re:justice?

[retchdog]

VOTE TRUMP!

Re:My net worth is $41,550,000

[raind]

With all that money you spend time reading /.
Lol -- that's rich!

Some same old news wrapped up in this

[Chewbacon]

I was listening to the radio yesterday and they were talking about Peter Thiel paying for some of Hogan's legal fees because "even as a single-digit millionaire, Hulk Hogan does not have adequate access to the legal system." Hulk Hogan may have been unsuccessful in his litigation because his pockets, his deep pockets, still weren't deep enough to get damages he deserved.

And fuck Gawker. Good damn riddance. If you make enough enemies, they will pool their resources and bring you down. But the only people hurt by that will be the working class. The big-wigs there will just have their egos hurt.

Re: quick

[ArmoredDragon]

There aren't any laws against adultery, however there are laws against privacy violations.

Remember

[Ryanrule]

It wasn't about the sex tape where he fucked the wife of another man while the man filmed, it was about his racist comments which came out afterward.

Re: quick

[Fragnet]

You complete fucking moron. What are you talking about?

Re: quick

[Outta_the_way_peck!]

There aren't any laws against adultery, however there are laws against privacy violations.

Actually it is illegal in 21 states.

Re:quick

[Rakarra]

So right, let's execute shoplifters for stealing food from supermarkets, because the corporations that own the supermarkets have been wronged, and they shouldn't have to just deal with it like shoplifting is a cost of doing business.

You don't execute shoplifters, but sometimes they get prosecuted, or at least they face a legal penalty. This judgement came down due to the severity of damage (Hogan's reputation and privacy loss), but far more than that, because of Gawker's willfulness and public mocking of court orders they refused to follow. Do that, and punitive damages will be high.

Re: quick

[david_thornley]

Adultery is illegal in my state, although if anyone tried to enforce that law it would be struck down so fast.

What's interesting is that adultery is when a married woman has sex with someone she's not married to. I can go out and screw all the young unmarried woman I physically can and not commit adultery.