The difference is that Yahoo has to attribute the information to you. So if they reflect it, reprint it, or otherwise abuse your content, they still have to attribute it to you as the original author. Otherwise, they can do whatever they wish according to their license.
If you have the license, leave Yahoo and leave them a nasty letter. Someone does read and tally letters. Btw, the biggest hit for them would be if folks said they'll refuse to use Yahoo Shopping and use Yahoo in a corporate situation, since that's their money maker.
Actually, I expect that Ken had every right to rant and rave about JP on his web site. Generally, saying nasty opinions about someone is acceptable. HOWEVER, the letter by JP also mentions that Ken apparently reflected/copied large chunks of copyrighted information from JP's site. This is known to be unacceptable behavior. So, if in fact this was the case (I haven't seen the site), Harvard had a right and in fact an obligation to remove the site or those portions of the site that were infringing. This was brought out quite clearly in the Netcom v. RTC case (http://www.eff.org/pub/Censorship/CoS_v_the_Net/w hyte_netcom_112195.order), when the ISP is notified of infringing activity, they must take action. Otherwise, they may be held liable for contributory copyright infringement.
On the other hand, I do not believe for a second that Harvard actually destroyed the backups. I expect they only removed access to the site from the Web. This is a legitimate step to protect themselves from suit. If they destroyed the backups (or the original, in fact) they could be implicated in destroying evidence. After all, at that point, if there is a suit, JP could not prove that such a site existed and/or had infringing materials. So, Harvard probably told Ken that the site was destroyed to keep him from badgering the SysAdmin who allowed him to put up the site for a copy. (which I expect he could still do.)
In any case, there are two sides to this issue. And we have only seen one, and haven't seen the original site that caused all this trouble.
I doubt that Harvard would bring a suit. Few people are willing to commit perjury, and the SysAdmin who invited Kevin would be sure to testify. So Ken shouldn't worry too much.
As a side note, the ACLU and others are happy to provide pro-bono (that's free for you non-legal types out there) legal services to defend the first amendment.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, I am a member. And they provide referrals to other attorneys for non-groundbreaking cases.
The difference is that Yahoo has to attribute the information to you. So if they reflect it, reprint it, or otherwise abuse your content, they still have to attribute it to you as the original author. Otherwise, they can do whatever they wish according to their license.
If you have the license, leave Yahoo and leave them a nasty letter. Someone does read and tally letters. Btw, the biggest hit for them would be if folks said they'll refuse to use Yahoo Shopping and use Yahoo in a corporate situation, since that's their money maker.
Actually, I expect that Ken had every right to rant and rave about JP on his web site. Generally, saying nasty opinions about someone is acceptable. HOWEVER, the letter by JP also mentions that Ken apparently reflected/copied large chunks of copyrighted information from JP's site. This is known to be unacceptable behavior. So, if in fact this was the case (I haven't seen the site), Harvard had a right and in fact an obligation to remove the site or those portions of the site that were infringing. This was brought out quite clearly in the Netcom v. RTC case (http://www.eff.org/pub/Censorship/CoS_v_the_Net/w hyte_netcom_112195.order), when the ISP is notified of infringing activity, they must take action. Otherwise, they may be held liable for contributory copyright infringement.
On the other hand, I do not believe for a second that Harvard actually destroyed the backups. I expect they only removed access to the site from the Web. This is a legitimate step to protect themselves from suit. If they destroyed the backups (or the original, in fact) they could be implicated in destroying evidence. After all, at that point, if there is a suit, JP could not prove that such a site existed and/or had infringing materials. So, Harvard probably told Ken that the site was destroyed to keep him from badgering the SysAdmin who allowed him to put up the site for a copy. (which I expect he could still do.)
In any case, there are two sides to this issue. And we have only seen one, and haven't seen the original site that caused all this trouble.
I doubt that Harvard would bring a suit. Few people are willing to commit perjury, and the SysAdmin who invited Kevin would be sure to testify. So Ken shouldn't worry too much.
As a side note, the ACLU and others are happy to provide pro-bono (that's free for you non-legal types out there) legal services to defend the first amendment.