I visited your site, and browsed for a while, but I have to say that I need another clue. I agree that you said "cause harm." But what would your point be, more specifically? Respectfully, Andrew
Oops. I hit Submit instead of Preview. Why "oops" you say? Because I have more to say... Sorry. But it specifically that you said "Yet another sign that untechnical people should not decide the fate of the technicaly inclined." And my thesis shall be that it is not about technical issues versus other issues. Now, I am reminded of a certain case involving Dr. Laurence Godfrey and Demon Internet. It was an extremely controversial case. Dr.Godfrey was libelled, inexcusably, by some (pseudo-?) anonymous party (on Usenet, but my position is that it matters not where). Now, in that Demon case, the judges (in their infinite wisdom:) ruled that Demon, by running a Usenet server, "republished" the original (to my mind, anonymous but undisputed) libel. The decision of the judges in the case referenced in this story would seem to pose a problem to Dr. Godfrey (whom many people disagree with); The original libellous post is actionable, whereas (insomuch as they did not overrule the earlier finding) mere maintenance of an existing post does not consitute an additional cause of action. That is what Usenet servers do. They merely distribute content that for all intents and purposes, has already been published. If my house is burgled, and no-one has any idea who the perpetrators were, can I sue the police for not catching them? Of course not. Dr Godfrey was faced with an untraceable libel. Instead of putting it down to experience, or even (as I think would be reasonable) having a go at anonymous trash talk, he decided to have a go at Demon. An innocent distributor. You might be wondering where I am going with this. OK, I was reviewing my rant and I feel the need to sum up a bit. The medium is not important. But there is a massive distinction between transmission and republishing. When a libel is retransmitted by computers, no republishing is committed. Even if it were, you could not sue the computer involved. This recent judgment makes this very clear (well, they left the previous judgment well intact), and I applaud those who made the judgement. Untechnical they may be, but it makes no difference. It was a good decision, regardless of the medium of transmission. </rant>
< begin something that isn't directed at you specifically but is just something I wanted to rant about... Sorry! And I have had four pints of Kronenbourg but I still believe passionately about what I am saying> That would be trying to get around the law. Judges are not stupid. Let me say that again. OK. I said it but I didn't type it again. That sort of scam is about as transparent as vacuum (element zero). Look. It is eminently possible to run rings around lots of laws. Sometimes. But if you do something like you proposed, you would be bang to rights. People have anticipated your wriggling. It's not big and it's not clever. In this case, you should have noticed that the judges made an excellent decision. It really is. How can I make this clear? OK. In the cut and thrust of internet debate there can be casualties. And sometimes, things that are said are not what a judge would consider actionable. But sometimes people diss each other in such a way that is totally out of order. This should be actionable. The technical side that you mention is a red herring. Listen. The fact that it was on the internet is irrelevant. I know that the internet is different to, for example, newspapers, in some ways. But in the case of deformation it is not different. It TOTALLY does not matter what medium you use to disseminate your libel. The information is the issue. You say something about someone which is untrue, that can seriously hurt someone, and you shouldn't be able to get away with it. Imagine if the tables were turned and someone said something about you. Imagine that as a result of that, no-one would employ you (for example). Wouldn't you want to do something about it? Of course you would. That is the basis of the law in this area. It is not right for people to go around dissing people for no reason.
In certain cases, it is not necessary to prove harm, it is effectively accepted that harm could occur, and that is enough (even if there was probably no harm caused).
See this page. An example is calling someone a criminal when they have not been convicted of anything.
Agreed, except that if by "version" you mean "republication", the publication date is that of the version presented by the plaintiff, not of the first publication, since each republication has its own independent year w.r.t. the statute of limitations. The plaintiff is free to sue as many authors of republications as he likes, as long as it is within a year of each of their respective publication dates.
"Firth argued that the continued availability of the report on the Internet constituted repeated republications thereof, which, in turn, started anew the applicable limitations period. The Court of Claims rejected this argument, holding that the publication of this report on the Internet was subject to the "single publication rule." Under this rule, the publication and subsequent maintenance of an article on the Internet gives rise to only one cause of action, for which the applicable statute of limitations commences on the date of first publication." [my emphasis]
In any case, if you are going to make defamatory remarks about someone in public, you should be very careful! The best way is to be sure that they are true. If they are not, then you shouldn't be disseminating them on any media, especially the internet... (If you care about being sued)
Person B is a third party. Opinion or not, if A tells B something defamatory about C, then C can sue A (if all of the other conditions are met, blablabla). In addition, if B tells another third party D in such a way as can be called "republishing" (which I won't expand on here), C can sue B (but not D). Now, B might never let it be known that A did the deed, in which case C would probably not find out, and A would probably be safe. If B acted on the information, and C became suspicious... I could go on. But the point is, C was defamed. The letter was published when A sent it to B. Now, you say the letter was stolen, by villian E, so in fact B didn't get it. Well, that is just tough. It doesn't matter who received it, as long as it wasn't C and only C. E takes the place of B. I have a feeling I didn't make that as clear as it could be... Hehe... Sorry! And don't forget that IANAL!
I am assuming that the person you wrote the letter to is the defamed one (otherwise, they are a third party, and none of what you wrote makes sense). And yes, in that case, the author of the letter didn't take enough care of it. Tough! But in the case of your original "workaround", all you can do is publish it encrypted, and give the key to your victim (and no-one else). So it doesn't really matter if you wait a year or not, because if only the second party reads it, it is not defamation.
It's published when a third party becomes able to view it. Your intentions are irrelevant. Subsequently, someone may read it. If they do, and they understand it, and it is true, and it is less than a year since it was published, and various other conditions hold, then your ass can be sued!
You will note that I didn't say that. What I did say is up there ^^^ so I won't repeat it, but to clarify: If no-one reads it, you have not defamed anybody in the eyes of the law.
Published or not, if a third party doesn't read it, there is no defamation. If someone does read it, then you have published it. If you don't take reasonable steps to ensure that it isn't picked up by a search engine, tough!
The newspaper trick only works for "after a given date", not before! You know, for proving that you haven't killed the hostages yet... If you want to prove that something happened before a given date, you need to involve a trusted third party.
It's not the same. If you take something from the internet and stick it up on a billboard, you have republished it, and if a third party sees it and understands it, you are in trouble. Unless it was true, or CBN doesn't find out about it for a year (after you put it up), or... I can't remember all of the defences.
"If the article is altered or edited in a different matter, or if a defamatory article is placed in a new form (such as the first posting of a previous print-only publication on the Internet), a new statute of limitations period will begin to commence on the date of such republication. Said the court:
A republication will occur when the defamatory article is placed in a new form (paperback as opposed to hardcover) or edited in a different manner."
If linking to an existing page were to be treated as "publication" (and I believe it is not), the statute of limitations would apply to the new publisher. In your example, your local paper has nine months left, but Time online starts again with a year. IANAL.
Considering that I never actually open many of the buggers, I am actually quite happy that I don't have to download their effing images over my modem connection. If they sent all their crap inline, I would be downloading spam all bastard night... Just something to think about... Just because a particular technology is misused by idiots, why should we all have to do without it? Why not tackle the cause, not the symptoms?
Not really. It continues to be unproven. You can't talk about how difficult it is to prove, except to say that so far, it has been impossible! If someone disproves it, we will be able to say that it was always impossible to prove, or if you like, infinitely difficult. If someone proves it, the difficulty of arriving at the proof will become known (subjectively) to the prover. Until then, the difficulty of arriving at the proof is simply unknown.
You can't say "... it turns out to be phenomenally difficult to prove..."! It happens that no-one has managed it yet. If someone does manage it, perhaps it will seem simple. Even if it doesn't, will it be possible to prove that it is the simplest possible proof?
Why? It seems to me that spammers are more interested in making money than pissing people off. Sure, while doing the former, they achieve the latter. But what would be their motive for singling out unsubscribers? Those people clearly don't want spam, and are more likely to kick up a fuss about it. The fact that the address is valid is irrelevant. It will be spammed regardless. You are not showing that you are gullible and might part with cash, in fact the opposite! Also, like I said above, if you buy an email address list and trust the provider that they really tested all of the addresses, well, I've got a bridge for sale...
I hear this 'advice' a lot, but I've always been slightly skeptical about it. Most spam I get these days is HTML phone-home style. As soon as I read it, it's off requesting images from somewhere. It's pretty easy to customise each spam so it is identifiable to the image server. So, effectively, the bastards know I have read it anyway (well, I never actually read it, but...). Unless you turn off all of that HTML shit, which is sort of a good idea, but it is sort of giving in to the spammers. The other reason I am skeptical is... Since when did spammers care if the address is valid or not? They are still going to spam it either way. As for selling it on, do you think they are that trustworthy? "All of these addresses are valid, honest! Would I lie to you?" And the idiots that buy the addresses... They don't care either, they are just sending spam to all of them, who cares if some of the addresses don't work? If anything, the spammers should welcome remove requests, because that means one more anti-spammer off their backs. So, of course, if you are an anti-spammer, you should be attacking the cause of the problem, not the symptoms... So I agree that it's not worth clicking on unsubscribe links, but not for the reasons you (and many others) give.
Sorry, the x87 can read and write BCD in hardware. Have a look at your x87 manual. Come back if you have any questions! BCD is not foolish, if you are converting to/from decimal!
Slashdot Mirror
I visited your site, and browsed for a while, but I have to say that I need another clue. I agree that you said "cause harm." But what would your point be, more specifically?
Respectfully,
Andrew
Oops. I hit Submit instead of Preview. Why "oops" you say? Because I have more to say... Sorry. But it specifically that you said "Yet another sign that untechnical people should not decide the fate of the technicaly inclined." And my thesis shall be that it is not about technical issues versus other issues. :) ruled that Demon, by running a Usenet server, "republished" the original (to my mind, anonymous but undisputed) libel. The decision of the judges in the case referenced in this story would seem to pose a problem to Dr. Godfrey (whom many people disagree with); The original libellous post is actionable, whereas (insomuch as they did not overrule the earlier finding) mere maintenance of an existing post does not consitute an additional cause of action. /rant>
Now, I am reminded of a certain case involving Dr. Laurence Godfrey and Demon Internet. It was an extremely controversial case. Dr.Godfrey was libelled, inexcusably, by some (pseudo-?) anonymous party (on Usenet, but my position is that it matters not where). Now, in that Demon case, the judges (in their infinite wisdom
That is what Usenet servers do. They merely distribute content that for all intents and purposes, has already been published.
If my house is burgled, and no-one has any idea who the perpetrators were, can I sue the police for not catching them? Of course not. Dr Godfrey was faced with an untraceable libel. Instead of putting it down to experience, or even (as I think would be reasonable) having a go at anonymous trash talk, he decided to have a go at Demon. An innocent distributor.
You might be wondering where I am going with this. OK, I was reviewing my rant and I feel the need to sum up a bit. The medium is not important. But there is a massive distinction between transmission and republishing.
When a libel is retransmitted by computers, no republishing is committed. Even if it were, you could not sue the computer involved. This recent judgment makes this very clear (well, they left the previous judgment well intact), and I applaud those who made the judgement. Untechnical they may be, but it makes no difference. It was a good decision, regardless of the medium of transmission.
<
< begin something that isn't directed at you specifically but is just something I wanted to rant about... Sorry! And I have had four pints of Kronenbourg but I still believe passionately about what I am saying>
That would be trying to get around the law. Judges are not stupid. Let me say that again. OK. I said it but I didn't type it again. That sort of scam is about as transparent as vacuum (element zero). Look. It is eminently possible to run rings around lots of laws. Sometimes. But if you do something like you proposed, you would be bang to rights. People have anticipated your wriggling. It's not big and it's not clever. In this case, you should have noticed that the judges made an excellent decision. It really is. How can I make this clear? OK. In the cut and thrust of internet debate there can be casualties. And sometimes, things that are said are not what a judge would consider actionable. But sometimes people diss each other in such a way that is totally out of order.
This should be actionable. The technical side that you mention is a red herring. Listen. The fact that it was on the internet is irrelevant. I know that the internet is different to, for example, newspapers, in some ways. But in the case of deformation it is not different. It TOTALLY does not matter what medium you use to disseminate your libel. The information is the issue. You say something about someone which is untrue, that can seriously hurt someone, and you shouldn't be able to get away with it. Imagine if the tables were turned and someone said something about you. Imagine that as a result of that, no-one would employ you (for example). Wouldn't you want to do something about it? Of course you would. That is the basis of the law in this area. It is not right for people to go around dissing people for no reason.
In certain cases, it is not necessary to prove harm, it is effectively accepted that harm could occur, and that is enough (even if there was probably no harm caused).
See this page. An example is calling someone a criminal when they have not been convicted of anything.
Agreed, except that if by "version" you mean "republication", the publication date is that of the version presented by the plaintiff, not of the first publication, since each republication has its own independent year w.r.t. the statute of limitations. The plaintiff is free to sue as many authors of republications as he likes, as long as it is within a year of each of their respective publication dates.
Well, the site I linked to says:
"Firth argued that the continued availability of the report on the Internet constituted repeated republications thereof, which, in turn, started anew the applicable limitations period. The Court of Claims rejected this argument, holding that the publication of this report on the Internet was subject to the "single publication rule." Under this rule, the publication and subsequent maintenance of an article on the Internet gives rise to only one cause of action, for which the applicable statute of limitations commences on the date of first publication." [my emphasis]
In any case, if you are going to make defamatory remarks about someone in public, you should be very careful! The best way is to be sure that they are true. If they are not, then you shouldn't be disseminating them on any media, especially the internet... (If you care about being sued)
Person B is a third party. Opinion or not, if A tells B something defamatory about C, then C can sue A (if all of the other conditions are met, blablabla). In addition, if B tells another third party D in such a way as can be called "republishing" (which I won't expand on here), C can sue B (but not D).
Now, B might never let it be known that A did the deed, in which case C would probably not find out, and A would probably be safe. If B acted on the information, and C became suspicious... I could go on. But the point is, C was defamed. The letter was published when A sent it to B.
Now, you say the letter was stolen, by villian E, so in fact B didn't get it. Well, that is just tough. It doesn't matter who received it, as long as it wasn't C and only C. E takes the place of B.
I have a feeling I didn't make that as clear as it could be... Hehe... Sorry! And don't forget that IANAL!
I am assuming that the person you wrote the letter to is the defamed one (otherwise, they are a third party, and none of what you wrote makes sense). And yes, in that case, the author of the letter didn't take enough care of it. Tough! But in the case of your original "workaround", all you can do is publish it encrypted, and give the key to your victim (and no-one else). So it doesn't really matter if you wait a year or not, because if only the second party reads it, it is not defamation.
It's published when a third party becomes able to view it. Your intentions are irrelevant. Subsequently, someone may read it. If they do, and they understand it, and it is true, and it is less than a year since it was published, and various other conditions hold, then your ass can be sued!
You will note that I didn't say that. What I did say is up there ^^^ so I won't repeat it, but to clarify: If no-one reads it, you have not defamed anybody in the eyes of the law.
If your friend reads it, yes. If no-one reads it, it doesn't matter (a bit like the proverbial tree in the forest).
Not really. By posting it encrypted you didn't "publish" it, but by giving out the key, you did... and that is when the clock starts.
Published or not, if a third party doesn't read it, there is no defamation. If someone does read it, then you have published it. If you don't take reasonable steps to ensure that it isn't picked up by a search engine, tough!
The newspaper trick only works for "after a given date", not before!
You know, for proving that you haven't killed the hostages yet...
If you want to prove that something happened before a given date, you need to involve a trusted third party.
It's not the same. If you take something from the internet and stick it up on a billboard, you have republished it, and if a third party sees it and understands it, you are in trouble. Unless it was true, or CBN doesn't find out about it for a year (after you put it up), or... I can't remember all of the defences.
Sorry... Following up my own comment...
This earlier decision said:
"If the article is altered or edited in a different matter, or if a defamatory article is placed in a new form (such as the first posting of a previous print-only publication on the Internet), a new statute of limitations period will begin to commence on the date of such republication. Said the court:
A republication will occur when the defamatory article is placed in a new form (paperback as opposed to hardcover) or edited in a different manner."
If linking to an existing page were to be treated as "publication" (and I believe it is not), the statute of limitations would apply to the new publisher. In your example, your local paper has nine months left, but Time online starts again with a year.
IANAL.
... if you just say 'Mr. T is a fool!' to Mr. T himself and nobody else hears it, that maybe be an insult, but it's not slander.
Either way, it sounds like suicide!
Considering that I never actually open many of the buggers, I am actually quite happy that I don't have to download their effing images over my modem connection. If they sent all their crap inline, I would be downloading spam all bastard night... Just something to think about...
Just because a particular technology is misused by idiots, why should we all have to do without it? Why not tackle the cause, not the symptoms?
Not really. It continues to be unproven. You can't talk about how difficult it is to prove, except to say that so far, it has been impossible!
If someone disproves it, we will be able to say that it was always impossible to prove, or if you like, infinitely difficult.
If someone proves it, the difficulty of arriving at the proof will become known (subjectively) to the prover.
Until then, the difficulty of arriving at the proof is simply unknown.
You can't say "... it turns out to be phenomenally difficult to prove ..."!
It happens that no-one has managed it yet.
If someone does manage it, perhaps it will seem simple.
Even if it doesn't, will it be possible to prove that it is the simplest possible proof?
Why? It seems to me that spammers are more interested in making money than pissing people off.
Sure, while doing the former, they achieve the latter. But what would be their motive for singling out unsubscribers?
Those people clearly don't want spam, and are more likely to kick up a fuss about it.
The fact that the address is valid is irrelevant. It will be spammed regardless. You are not showing that you are gullible and might part with cash, in fact the opposite!
Also, like I said above, if you buy an email address list and trust the provider that they really tested all of the addresses, well, I've got a bridge for sale...
I hear this 'advice' a lot, but I've always been slightly skeptical about it.
Most spam I get these days is HTML phone-home style. As soon as I read it, it's off requesting images from somewhere. It's pretty easy to customise each spam so it is identifiable to the image server. So, effectively, the bastards know I have read it anyway (well, I never actually read it, but...). Unless you turn off all of that HTML shit, which is sort of a good idea, but it is sort of giving in to the spammers.
The other reason I am skeptical is... Since when did spammers care if the address is valid or not? They are still going to spam it either way. As for selling it on, do you think they are that trustworthy? "All of these addresses are valid, honest! Would I lie to you?" And the idiots that buy the addresses... They don't care either, they are just sending spam to all of them, who cares if some of the addresses don't work?
If anything, the spammers should welcome remove requests, because that means one more anti-spammer off their backs. So, of course, if you are an anti-spammer, you should be attacking the cause of the problem, not the symptoms... So I agree that it's not worth clicking on unsubscribe links, but not for the reasons you (and many others) give.
Hmm, good idea! I can use that to get around the GPL! Sweet!
Sorry, the x87 can read and write BCD in hardware. Have a look at your x87 manual. Come back if you have any questions!
BCD is not foolish, if you are converting to/from decimal!