Lets ask law enforcement to prosecute the NET charges against the MPAA and RIAA agents that violate the terms of use and copyrights of websites while they search for pirated software.
"Actually, if it's not true, you have no constitutional right to do so. It's called slander, and is very much illegal."
" Even if it not true, but a reasonable basis for it, it would not be slander. Ie. if he got sick after eating there, but could not prove it conclusively. As food poisioning would be something of a public issue, then it would be if it was not true and he/she either knew it or should have known it to be not true.
Of couse the exact standard would be based on jurisdiction.
As Seltzer said, it is not an issue of a message board being a public place.
You could consider websites more like a store or mall. That you are given an implied invitation to visit as long as you comply with their rules, if the rules are not illegal, discriminitory, and unreasonable.
This is a case where this person was told to leave, then came back using other names. The McDonalds manager could ask you to leave if you are sleeping on the table after eating your Taco Bell dinner and if you don't leave, the manager could have you arrested for tresspassing. You could be required not to take pictures in an establishment, as part of the rules of entry is not to take pictures -- even if it does not violate copyright.
Just because there is no bolted door on the front and there is a public sidewalk attached does not mean you can go into and do anything you want.
I was thinking that the law may be better in Ok, but there was no California case law mentioned to counter. I was thinking about cases on terms on terms of use of a site. In Califonia, there has been a a case on tresspass to chattel that includes email (Intel v. Hamibi) which may support Google's position.
Before making any changes, we should know what we are doing and all the ramifications. Then once we know that, we should then consider if we should change.
Given the protections for natural habitats and that people are hit with large fines for plowing fields because that impacts wetland noone legally can change weather. That is if it is though through.
Re:I wonder if the framers of the constitution...
on
Dow vs. Parody
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Nope, for two reasons. First, they didn't have the right to say what they said in the first place; false representation and defamation are illegal...(Parody is, of course, but this work was not a parody. It was fraud.)
To be defamation, or more precisely, libel Dow would have to show false facts. What are the false facts that have been published?
Second it is not false representation. Parody by nature requires one to create an image of what you are making parody of. To be fraud, they must be attempting to get something of value.
Second, this activity wasn't a government action at all; the government was never involved. Rather, Dow complained to Verio and asked that they enforce their AUP, and Verio complied. The rules were laid down right from the beginning; Thing.net chose to ignore them, so they lost their service.
Asking a court to restrict someone's right or penalize someone for their speech is an infringment of the first amendment. Using the threat os this should also be considered the same.
I doubt that the Supreme Court is going to answer the question on the legality of the DMCA or the issue of consumer rights versus the right of the MPAA to screw us.
Make these terms of the contract. The cost to run the charge and deal with a dispute on the credit card will be included as part of the penalty cost. Pointing the website to a static page that says that it is shut down for spamming and locking the account is the same effort would be no more than the effort to clean up an account that has been closed.
Allowing the spammer's information to be given out may be what hurts a spammer more. Let 1000 spam victims file a lawsuit against them for spamming.
Of course there will have to be some defense to a joe-job.
By contract, an ISP can require payment by a company that spams. If a spammer uses an ISP to either send spam or to provide services to a site advertised by spam, they can charge the spammer for it. Similar to what happens when you return a rental car with a big dent in the door. This is not a big labor issue.
Stop crying and take action!
on
ISP Chief on Spam
·
· Score: 5, Informative
ISPs are able to take action against spam!
They can implement strong AUPs that will do the following:
If a spammer is hosting on your system, you don't shut down the server/domain/site, but redirect it to a page saying it has been shut down for spamming while locking them out from changes or accessing the data.
Implement a stiff fine/cleanup fee.
Provide people who complain the real information on the spammer.
Confirm credit card information to make sure that the credit cards are not stolen.
Back in 1938 the Supreme Court (Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U.S. 444, has given the lonely pamphleteer the protects as a newspaper. If it is printed, then it does not matter if you print on a sheet of toilet paper and hang it in the men's room or a full page advertisement in the New York Times.
The tort of libel has never depended on the number of readers, but on the issue.
Only some states have SLAPP statutes. And these SLAPP statutes have varying force. In New York the SLAPP statute only deals with statements made to government agencies, otherwise the Pets Warehouse case would have been kicked immediately.
Even in states with anti-SLAPP statutes there is still a cost in defending it. The anti-SLAPP statutes provide costs of defense as damages against the SLAPPer, but that does not deter large SLAPPers from abusing the courts.
Slashdot Mirror
Lets ask law enforcement to prosecute the NET charges against the MPAA and RIAA agents that violate the terms of use and copyrights of websites while they search for pirated software.
When they have hundreds of people showing up at their office, they can't hit the delete key.
What about cars? You can use this to adjust the amount of tint on the windows depending on the brightness and if you are driving the vehicle.
Maybe have all windows go completely dark when parked, or 30% when driving in bright light, 0% at night.
There are talking of adding RF monitors of temperature and preasure. All we need is some way to disable the unique ID transmission.
Once the PM's email is made public, he will get tons of spam.
How long do you think it will take them to write laws to kill spam and execute spammers?
We have to take the spammers' money away from them.
How many spammers use real addresses?
The problem is that they use an AOL connection to get online, then spoof through a korean SMTP sever.
I like the idea. But, also do it for most of the dial-up services. Cable and DSL does provide a way back to the spammer's home.
Even if it not true, but a reasonable basis for it, it would not be slander. Ie. if he got sick after eating there, but could not prove it conclusively. As food poisioning would be something of a public issue, then it would be if it was not true and he/she either knew it or should have known it to be not true.
Of couse the exact standard would be based on jurisdiction.
If they took told this person to leave the store the person would then be tresspassing.
Now, if they are tresspassing and then take the markers and papers, it would be theft or conversion since they have no authorization to take those.
You could consider websites more like a store or mall. That you are given an implied invitation to visit as long as you comply with their rules, if the rules are not illegal, discriminitory, and unreasonable.
This is a case where this person was told to leave, then came back using other names. The McDonalds manager could ask you to leave if you are sleeping on the table after eating your Taco Bell dinner and if you don't leave, the manager could have you arrested for tresspassing. You could be required not to take pictures in an establishment, as part of the rules of entry is not to take pictures -- even if it does not violate copyright.
Just because there is no bolted door on the front and there is a public sidewalk attached does not mean you can go into and do anything you want.
I was thinking that the law may be better in Ok, but there was no California case law mentioned to counter. I was thinking about cases on terms on terms of use of a site. In Califonia, there has been a a case on tresspass to chattel that includes email (Intel v. Hamibi) which may support Google's position.
Google's terms states a jurisdiction of California? Why didn't they not argue that?
And what about a counterclaim for fraud because they are ursuping the page ranking system and for adding pages for commercial purpose.
Given the protections for natural habitats and that people are hit with large fines for plowing fields because that impacts wetland noone legally can change weather. That is if it is though through.
To be defamation, or more precisely, libel Dow would have to show false facts. What are the false facts that have been published?
Second it is not false representation. Parody by nature requires one to create an image of what you are making parody of. To be fraud, they must be attempting to get something of value.
Asking a court to restrict someone's right or penalize someone for their speech is an infringment of the first amendment. Using the threat os this should also be considered the same.
I doubt that the Supreme Court is going to answer the question on the legality of the DMCA or the issue of consumer rights versus the right of the MPAA to screw us.
My earliest memory was when I was 2 years 7 months.
The theories do not change over time. Though there may be new languages, methods do not change much.
This is like someone asking, "are you a mainframe group or a PC group?" Most of it is the same, except if your mainframe crashes, heads will roll.
My vote is for the Solotrek XFV. I would have loved one. Who would not have loved a working version for their daily commute.
Allowing the spammer's information to be given out may be what hurts a spammer more. Let 1000 spam victims file a lawsuit against them for spamming.
Of course there will have to be some defense to a joe-job.
By contract, an ISP can require payment by a company that spams. If a spammer uses an ISP to either send spam or to provide services to a site advertised by spam, they can charge the spammer for it. Similar to what happens when you return a rental car with a big dent in the door. This is not a big labor issue.
They can implement strong AUPs that will do the following:
The tort of libel has never depended on the number of readers, but on the issue.
Even in states with anti-SLAPP statutes there is still a cost in defending it. The anti-SLAPP statutes provide costs of defense as damages against the SLAPPer, but that does not deter large SLAPPers from abusing the courts.
They forgot the old standard of Twas the night before implementation.
Haven't the /. crowd RTFM'd