What about the statement of "do anything you want..." in the CPHack document?
The Mattel / MSI press release states, "The company did not file the lawsuit to prevent publication of the CyberNOT filtering list". They also say, "Microsystems did not object to the essay or any of the other material posted by the defendants that was not obtained or derived by violating Microsystems' copyright.".
Since they have said that, I am asking the company if they have a problem if I publish the essay and the CyberNot list. If they are telling the truth in the press release, then they will authorize me to publish it.
I didn't need to read CPBreak. Just because you can, does not mean you have to.
The reason why I say not to, is it takes away from the Mattel Spin Machine.
Mattel/MSI was claiming that CPHack destroyed the value of the product and allowed children on porn sites. But, by not including it, it takes that spin away from them. It still can show the list.
I could fertilize my lawn for at least a year with it.
Mattel claims that it is not to prevent the publication of the CyberNot list or the Essay. They claim that it is to prevent the publication of the "copyrighted source code for the product" and "primitive software product derived directly from the reverse engineering of the source code"
Based on this, I guess that Mattel does not mind if websites put up the essay, or the CyberNot list.
Yesterday, many people talked about the authors of CPHack Wimping Out!
Now, since it was GPL'd, take out the password decryption (so they can't argue that you are disabling the product), and publish it yourself if you dare. Then you fight Mattel and their hordes of lawyers. Will you wimp out?
That is of course if it's your position that it is legal! I'm not saying to break the law.
Talk is cheap, unless you are talking to a lawyer, then it's $200/hour.
I see everyone talking about being brave and standing up, now lets see who is full of shit.
Mattel can be beat! I won two rounds against them, I am working on winning round three against them!
It's one thing to talk a tough game, it's another thing to DO!
Thought I am not a fan of Mattel, I am not into scamming them.
That if you, or someone else, decide to build a new CPHack, don't give a user the ability to disable the product (though there are many ways to already), but allow the list to be critized and exposed.
If you don't decrupt the passwords, you will destroy their argument that you are invalidating the product.
If there was no conspiracy (for you conspiracy buffs), then it would be a matter of just caving in.
If you were in your early 20s and a large multi-national company threatened to litigate you into bankruptcy, would you cave in?
This is what they tried to do to me. Mattel offered to drop their libel claim against me, if I would agree to SHUT UP. And if I broke that agreement, I would have to pay Mattel $50,000 per blab.
Depending on how much the list encryption has changed (if it really did), some other hacker can write a new CPHack program. But if someone does, this person should not decrypt the passwords, only the list, also don't make the list exportable. That way, they cannot claim that the new hack program disables the program, causing no harm to the children. Or that it allows a competitor to use the list.
What the Supreme Court says is whatever the person who interprets it says it means. I had one lawyer say that the ADA is dead due to the rulings last year. I disgree, it's just ill.
I see the case he cited, not as a libel case but more towards a "hate speech" type of issue.
This case is regarding a class of citizens, not an individual (or company). This is like saying that all blacks are child molesters. This is not saying Joe Smith is a child molester.
But does criminal libel exists (and more importantly enforced) now or within the last 20 years?
IANAL (but have learned because of Mattel). You left out what proceeded "sometimes Brown sneakily changes his name", which was "My teacher also pointed out". Now if he lists "Brown" at one point, and at another point "Curzon-Brown" that could be considered sneaky.
If Brown can show this professor did not feel that this was sneaky, then he may have a case.
As for reasonable care, it's an automated process. The site points out that these are the opinions of the authors. This is not a newspaper that takes something that was sent in and via manual process inserts it into the galley sheets.
It has been decided in a case with AOL (ZERAN v AMERICA ONLINE INC) that 230 (from the CDA) immunizes computer service providers. In Zeran, it was being argued that AOL did not remove the defamatory information quick enough. Even if this did not provide protection, Brown would have to show that they had notice of this. It does not look like he is making this argument.
As to the public figure, there is also limited public figure. That is if it is an issue of public concern. The quality of teaching could be considered public concern.
It is clearly marked that the information is opinion. Though you can't say in my opinion, X is a child molester and claim that it's only opinion and not actionable. The statements must be taken in context. Pritsker v. Brudnoy 452 N.E.2d 227 (1983), Cole v. Westinghouse 386 Mass 303 (1982).
I have my summary judgment motion regarding my case available for you to read.
Defamation (Slander or Libel) is a civil tort. It is brought by an individual or corporation. It is punished by paying money.
A crime is brought by the government (the people, the state, the commonwealth, etc). It is punished by locking the wrongdoer in prison (sometimes just a fine). Defamation is not a crime in the United States. Maybe in other countries.
Slashdot Mirror
Since you accept it by clicking and not signing...
Damn, all these evil thoughts keep popping up.
The Mattel / MSI press release states, "The company did not file the lawsuit to prevent publication of the CyberNOT filtering list". They also say, "Microsystems did not object to the essay or any of the other material posted by the defendants that was not obtained or derived by violating Microsystems' copyright.".
Since they have said that, I am asking the company if they have a problem if I publish the essay and the CyberNot list. If they are telling the truth in the press release, then they will authorize me to publish it.
That's why title insurance is such a big business. :)
The reason why I say not to, is it takes away from the Mattel Spin Machine.
Mattel/MSI was claiming that CPHack destroyed the value of the product and allowed children on porn sites. But, by not including it, it takes that spin away from them. It still can show the list.
I could fertilize my lawn for at least a year with it.
Mattel claims that it is not to prevent the publication of the CyberNot list or the Essay. They claim that it is to prevent the publication of the "copyrighted source code for the product" and "primitive software product derived directly from the reverse engineering of the source code"
Based on this, I guess that Mattel does not mind if websites put up the essay, or the CyberNot list.
1. Threaten legal action.
2. Take legal action, even if baseless.
3. Offer to drop it for confidentiality agreement.
4. Litigate until a decision is made.
5. Drop it, with threat of comming back later.
This is what they have done with me. I suspect this is what they did with Barbie Benson, and Eddie and Mathew.
Mattel was aware of the program, the mirrors, and the essay that says you can do what you want.
They gave Mattel what remains of their rights.
There are somethings going on behind the scenes that I can't discusss yet.
So, does the GPL hold? Or does the good faith following of their instructions hold?
A lawyer dies and is at the pearly gates.
St. Peters: "Well, you have had a good 70 year life."
The laywer:"70?? But I am 35!"
St. Peters:"Your billing records, it shows that you must be 70 years old."
Now, since it was GPL'd, take out the password decryption (so they can't argue that you are disabling the product), and publish it yourself if you dare. Then you fight Mattel and their hordes of lawyers. Will you wimp out?
That is of course if it's your position that it is legal! I'm not saying to break the law.
Talk is cheap, unless you are talking to a lawyer, then it's $200/hour.
I see everyone talking about being brave and standing up, now lets see who is full of shit.
Mattel can be beat! I won two rounds against them, I am working on winning round three against them!
It's one thing to talk a tough game, it's another thing to DO!
That if you, or someone else, decide to build a new CPHack, don't give a user the ability to disable the product (though there are many ways to already), but allow the list to be critized and exposed.
If you don't decrupt the passwords, you will destroy their argument that you are invalidating the product.
If you were in your early 20s and a large multi-national company threatened to litigate you into bankruptcy, would you cave in?
This is what they tried to do to me. Mattel offered to drop their libel claim against me, if I would agree to SHUT UP. And if I broke that agreement, I would have to pay Mattel $50,000 per blab.
This may be what happened here.
I emailed them, and got a reply from one of them, that he would not need legal representation in Boston.
The CPHack program did encourage people to upgrade.
I wonder.
What the Supreme Court says is whatever the person who interprets it says it means. I had one lawyer say that the ADA is dead due to the rulings last year. I disgree, it's just ill.
I see the case he cited, not as a libel case but more towards a "hate speech" type of issue.
IANAL, I just play one in my lawsuit with Mattel.
Of couse the ACLU won on that, otherwise it would not have been mentioned on their website.
This case is regarding a class of citizens, not an individual (or company). This is like saying that all blacks are child molesters. This is not saying Joe Smith is a child molester.
But does criminal libel exists (and more importantly enforced) now or within the last 20 years?
If Brown can show this professor did not feel that this was sneaky, then he may have a case.
As for reasonable care, it's an automated process. The site points out that these are the opinions of the authors. This is not a newspaper that takes something that was sent in and via manual process inserts it into the galley sheets.
It has been decided in a case with AOL (ZERAN v AMERICA ONLINE INC) that 230 (from the CDA) immunizes computer service providers. In Zeran, it was being argued that AOL did not remove the defamatory information quick enough. Even if this did not provide protection, Brown would have to show that they had notice of this. It does not look like he is making this argument.
As to the public figure, there is also limited public figure. That is if it is an issue of public concern. The quality of teaching could be considered public concern.
It is clearly marked that the information is opinion. Though you can't say in my opinion, X is a child molester and claim that it's only opinion and not actionable. The statements must be taken in context. Pritsker v. Brudnoy 452 N.E.2d 227 (1983), Cole v. Westinghouse 386 Mass 303 (1982).
I have my summary judgment motion regarding my case available for you to read.
Opinions cannot be libelous, unless they imply libelous facts. In other words you can't have a wrong opinion. Or at least legally.
You can always win nominal damages ($1), if you prove that it is libel.
A crime is brought by the government (the people, the state, the commonwealth, etc). It is punished by locking the wrongdoer in prison (sometimes just a fine). Defamation is not a crime in the United States. Maybe in other countries.