$74k Judgment Against Craigslist Prankster 182
jamie points out an update in the case of Jason Fortuny, the Craigslist prankster who was sued last year for publicly posting responses to a fake personal ad. The Citizen Media Law Project's summary of his case now includes a recently entered default judgment (PDF), fining Fortuny "... in the amount of $35,001.00 in statutory damages for Count I, violation of the Copyright Act; $5,000 in compensatory damages for Count II, Public Disclosure of Private Facts, and Count III, Intrusion Upon Seclusion." He has also been ordered to pay more than $34,000 in attorney and court fees.
WHat?!?!? (Score:4, Funny)
These are actually real laws?!?!?
Re:WHat?!?!? (Score:5, Funny)
"$5,000 in compensatory damages for Count II, Public Disclosure of Private Facts, and Count III, Intrusion Upon Seclusion."
These are actually real laws?!?!?
Yes. In fact you are not allowed to disclose publicly that your girlfriend has clamps even if half of the town knows this anyways.
There was a highest court decision in 1912 in Felderman vs. Proppenheimer, the so called "smelly labia" case (today it's called the "fishoil" case for PC reasons).
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Here it is.
Felderman vs. Proppenheimer, Mad Mag., 212:26.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yes. It's called invasion of privacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy_laws_of_the_United_States [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
It's not based on the Constitution.
It's a tort. It's common law. It can be changed by statute.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not only not based on the Constitution, it's contrary to it.
How can it be illegal to to say something true about someone else which is not a state secret or classified or likely to cause imminent public safety issues? Answer: It can't. In fact, any civil law which punishes this is unconstitutional.
Re:WHat?!?!? (Score:4, Insightful)
Hint: Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can't be sued for what you say after the fact. One reason for you to get sued is if what you said was false, but that's not the only one.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow. It's like I have shackles on my mouth.
I thought slavery ended when my ancestors were released in 1865, but i guess not. The U.S. government still controls my tongue. "You're not allowed to say that - $40,000 fine!" Whip! Slash! "Yes masser."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why yes. I do have ideas. Because the Constitution is no longer in force.
See how easy that was?
Re: (Score:2)
Intelligent conversations with adults are harder.
Re: (Score:2)
It's also easier to stand up a strawman and knock it down than it is to converse.
Where did I say it was a grand conspiracy? It's more just deterioration, massive growth of the country, and chaos at work. There's no grand cabal slowly destroying the Constitution. It's just plain old apathy and small actors abrading it over time.
Re: (Score:2)
The only part of the constitution (as far as I can tell) that comes close to it at all is the first amendment. But there is no evidence that the framers of the first amendment intended that one could not be sued for what one said, and no court I am aware of has ever interpreted the first amendment in that way. The first amendment prevents the government from telling you you can't speak. But all the reasons indivi
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Article III, Section 1 - The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, (etc.)
Article III, Section 2 - The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, (etc.)
Spelled out quite plainly. We can certainly have our opinions about the Constitution, but the Constitution says that one supreme court has juristiction overall cases of "law and equity" under the constitution.
If that is true, then how can anyone else have authority in case
Re:WHat?!?!? (Score:5, Informative)
Public Disclosure of Private Facts
Publication of non-newsworthy, private facts about an individual that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person (true defamation)(so intimate that outrage the public's sense of decency).
Intrusion Upon Seclusion
One who intentionally intrudes, physically or otherwise, upon the solitude or seclusion of another or his private affairs or concerns, is subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy, if the intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.
I buy it. The guy posts a personal ad, then publicly posts the responses he gets. The responders had a reasonable expectation of privacy and it was violated in a most offensive manner. Seems like a lot of money, but maybe it will teach this douchebag a lesson.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
A reasonable expectation of privacy replying to a message in a public message board?
If I recall correctly, they responded to him in email.
Re:Reasonable expectation of privacy (Score:5, Insightful)
Again, though, a classified ads site is not the same thing as a web forum. If you replied in email to a person who posted an ad on the site, what would you expect to happen? Would you expect the person to post it publicly? No. That's what expectations are all about. It doesn't matter that he CAN post them publicly. If you follow your logic then there is no such thing as privacy. I could be having a "private" conversation with you, but be secretly recording it and then post it on the internet.
That's what we're talking about here, whether you can reasonably expect certain communications to be private or not. Personally, I would rather have the law say that there is such a thing as privacy than in your alternate universe where nothing is private.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
My main issue with that is viewing this as a private person to person conversation. These are emails that are sent to a completely anonymous email address that the sender has no idea what's going to happen to them.
Say I make a craigslist ad that says, "Hey, I'm looking for sex, call me at +4790369389, and you call that number, and it goes to A loudspeaker that broadcasts your voice to the public [oddstrument.com]. You call that number and yell out that you're looking for sex, and here's your name and email. Am I now liable
Re:Reasonable expectation of privacy (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, obviously.
"So what if i make an email address that forwards your email verbatim to an email list? Is that the same..."
Yes, obviously.
You set up an ad that claims a particular contact method is a way to initiate a private person-to-person contact. Someone foolishly trust you. Saying, "Sucker! You should have known I might be a lying douchebag" doesn't make you not a lying douchebag.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, I wonder why has he also fined for copyright infringement, that worries me.
I wrote it, I have copyright over it. Arguably, an answer to a classified ad is not "creative" enough to qualify, but if I litigating I just might throw that on top and see if it stuck. And, if I were the judge presiding over this scumbag's case, I just might be inclined to stretch the law to see if I could make it stick. You know those cases where a person does something that's obviously wrong but you can't pin anything illegal on it? This was the reverse: the guy did something pretty scummy, and got "unlu
Re: (Score:2)
No fine print required. That's what "reasonable expectations" are all about.
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect that if everyone's most intimate thoughts were subject to public broadcasting, we might be a little slower to condemn the weird ideas of others. Hypocracy would become difficult.
The problem seems to be when some people have privacy and others don't. This is especially disturbing when the rich are allowed more privacy than the poor (say, through being able to cover things and to sue), and gaining secrets is a means for accruing power.
Traditionally poorer countries, in which people are forced
Re: (Score:2)
If you replied in email to a person who posted an ad on the site, what would you expect to happen? Would you expect the person to post it publicly?
A perfect stranger? I'd certainly expect that they might. After all, some people are big mouths, gossips, etc. If you want something to remain private then don't tell it to anyone you don't have a good reason to trust.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Not when someone posts them online you fool! Did you even rtfs!? FTS:
It is the act of posting the private responses online that is a violation of seclusion.
Just because I send you a personal e-mail containing highly private contents doesn't give you any right to post it on slashdot's front page, on your web site, or on some random forum of your choosing.
If you do so, and the content is highly offensive or highly private, you may give me a cause of action to sue your ass and collect a large amount of
Re:WHat?!?!? (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, and rightfully so. A little Googling:
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/Press/faqs.aspx?id=14038& [firstamendmentcenter.org]
Generally, the material published must be private information that "is not of legitimate concern to the public." Its disclosure must also be "highly offensive to a reasonable person." ... The pressing question in public disclosure of private-facts cases is whether the information is newsworthy or of legitimate concern to the public. ... "The right to privacy does not prohibit any publication of matter which is of public or general interest."
http://epic.org/privacy/boyer/ [epic.org]
Intrusion Upon Seclusion. Intrusion upon seclusion occurs where there is an invasion, through conduct offensive to an ordinary person, of an individual's information in which she has a "reasonable expectation of privacy." Amy Boyer's estate argues that she had a reasonable expectation of privacy in her address and social security number, and that Docusearch's action in indiscriminately releasing this information was reasonably offensive.
So basically private information of yours that nobody has any right to should never be published openly unless you can show a public interest angle. That's totally reasonable in my book.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
So, these people felt nobody had any right to their private information. That's why they sent it to a complete stranger on the Internet.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So basically private information of yours that nobody has any right to should never be published openly unless you can show a public interest angle.
You can give your personal information to anyone you want but their rights to use it and redistribute it are limited.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, with the number of people who read the postings, I guess you could claim interest...
Re:WHat?!?!? (Score:5, Insightful)
When these laws were passed, their may not have been any internet, web sites or forums, but there were newspapers, notice boards, newsletters, circulars and mailing lists, and telegraphs. An individual-to-individual communication is expected to remain exactly that, unless the person sending the information gives permission for the information to be made public.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violation_of_privacy [wikipedia.org]
Re:WHat?!?!? (Score:5, Funny)
TO THE ATTENTION OF YOUR SILICITOR
Good day sirs. I hope that I find you well. I am Mr. GAMBO ADAMS. I am the one that contacted you from NIGERIA in the business of wishing to transfer you your country a fund of $30,000,000 ( THIRTY MILLION US DOLLARS), for which I was willing to alow you with a 20% transfer fee $1,500, 000 (ONE POINT 5 MILLION US DOLLARS). You reasponded with a promise to complete this transaction. But you only promised and promised for months and months! I did everything you asked, including of the pictures of me holding a sign with sayings on it. I have since realized you are a SPAM BATER! Also you have put all of our PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL communication on your webs site.
I am conacting you now on behalf of my silicitor that I will be courting you on VIOLATION OF THE COPYRIGHT ACT, PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF PRIVATE FACTS and INTRUSION UPON SECLUSION in the US courts, and searching for damages in the amount of $35,001.00 (THIRTY FIVE THOUSAND AND ONE US DOLLARS) and courst fees. Against the adversity of my silictor I am willing to settle in the amount of only $10,001.00 (TEN THOUSAND AND ONE USE DOLLARS) if you contact me IMIEDIATELY to deposit the amount in my account #3200-20032-20002 in the BANK OF NIGERIA. If you aggree to my generous proposal, please reply promptly.
Yours in friendship,
Mr. GAMBO ADAMS
Re: (Score:2)
MR GAMBO ADAMS,
As a representative of the Nigerian Government currently vacationing in the US I wish to congratulate you on your outreach and business communications with the citizens here. However, I feel that your email has reached me in error and must ask that you look further for the correct party.
During a normal review of your email however, I did notice that you had been delinquient in filing appropriate fees, taxes and associated business licenses for the normal course of business in Nigeria. As such
Thank goodness (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
...Again?
Oh shit, but the rest of us are in terror! (Score:4, Funny)
Pay attention, kids (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Pay attention, kids (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
So I leave it on my hard drive which just happens to be open to sharing software like eMule or Kazaa.
Now what?
Re: (Score:2)
"Publishing", in the context of that law, means distribution for sale. I don't believe that's what the prankster did.
The real reason he was fined so heavily is because he didn't show up at court. Judges strongly dislike that behavior.
Re: (Score:1)
"Publishing", in the context of that law, means distribution for sale. I don't believe that's what the prankster did.
[citation needed]
Re: (Score:2)
"Publishing", in the context of that law, means distribution for sale
More like distribution OR sale.
It's pretty clear: you own the physical letter that was sent to you. You do NOT own the copyright. So, you are free to burn the letter, frame the letter, etc, but you can't sell or give away copies.
Well I'm Confused (Score:3, Interesting)
Does this mean that people who get nasty cease-and-desist letters from lawyers are in the wrong for posting them publicly?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Does this mean that people who get nasty cease-and-desist letters from lawyers are in the wrong for posting them publicly?
Well, I have no actual expertise here, but if we assume for a moment that the post from Nick Ives above [slashdot.org] with the little bit from the first amendment center is reasonably on target:
Generally, the material published must be private information that "is not of legitimate concern to the public." Its disclosure must also be "highly offensive to a reasonable person." ... The pressing question in public disclosure of private-facts cases is whether the information is newsworthy or of legitimate concern to the public. ... "The right to privacy does not prohibit any publication of matter which is of public or general interest."
I would think you'd at least have a decent shot at arguing that a cease-and-desist letter IS something of public or general interest. I don't know if the courts would agree with me, but I think the public has a right to know when the threat of civil or criminal prosecution is being used to coerce someone's actions. I don't know ho
Separate issue (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But even though they're not private information of yours I would not have the right to widely distribute them, either free or for money.
That's a good point, though I think if you posted it up in sections with commentary, and without financial motive, you might have a good argument for fair use [chillingeffects.org]. That kind of legal threat is clearly a intended to silence public discourse, not to protect some lawfirm's property. I'm not alone [citmedialaw.org] in that thinking, but who knows where such a thing would actually end up. While I could find references to the threat of a suit over publishing C&D letters, I didn't actually find the outcome of any such action. The t
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
No, a C&D is a legal (Score:2)
document, suitable for court presentation and you can share that with anyone you feel like.
Re: (Score:2)
This is exactly what I thought would happen, a large civil judgement, as I predicted in the original linked /. thread.
Did you predict it? Link or it didn't happen. I stupidly wasted my time searching through the original thread and didn't see a post by you.
Encyclopedia Dramatica?! How stupid can that be (Score:1)
No show == guilty? (Score:5, Insightful)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it was a Default Judgement [wikipedia.org], which means the plaintiff did not show. That is why he lost, not because there was a thorough review of the matter at hand.
Somehow I doubt this will be valid as a precedent in future lawsuits.
Re:No show == guilty? (Score:4, Informative)
It sounds like it was the defendant who didn't show.
It also sounds like it was a civil trial, which doesn't go to a question of guilt, but of responsibility for damages.
But I only read the summary, so who knows?
-Peter
Re: (Score:2)
not showing up to your trial does not make you automatically guilty, but it does make it terribly difficult to defend yourself against accusation.
The court still goes through the same process to determine damages or guilt. The plaintiff still has to present a case and request damages/compensation. The court just doesn't get to see any defense, so it more or less means guilty unless the plaintiff's case has no merit even on their own evidence.
Re:No show == guilty? (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah, the initial default judgement was entered in November.
Status hearing held. Oral motion by Plaintiff's counsel for entry of default as to defendant is granted. It is hereby ordered that default is entered against Defendant, Jason Fortuny for failure appear or answer. Damages hearing is set for 1/7/2009 at 9:30AM.
A motion to dismiss was filed with the court in December, that was dated as written in October, but it was already too late by then. He didn't show up to the damages hearing either, thus the plaintiff got everything they asked for.
Lesson to be learned: If you have a court date, SHOW UP.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:No show == guilty? (Score:5, Informative)
Default judgment occurs when a defendant fails to deliver some statement of defence (which procedurally occurs quite some time prior to trial, over the usual course). Failure to show for trial is a delinquency further to a failure to defend. In many jurisdictions you don't even have to give notice of a pending trial to a defendant noted in default.
As a construction (fiction) of law, a defendant noted in default is deemed to have admitted everything in the plaintiff's claim.
While it varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, there is a general rule that if a defendant can show (1) that he didn't have notice, and (2) that he has a plausible defence on the merits, the default judgment may be set aside. The setting aside of default judgment may not result in rescission of the Judge's decision on costs (which are compensation for legal fees incurred), though that may depend on the manner and effectiveness of the notice of the plaintiff's claim.
When a plaintiff fails to participate properly the claim may be deemed abandoned.
YMMV by jurisdiction.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The key thing to note is that even with no opposition at all, the lawyers fees still amounted to half the judgement and they still probably take a portion of the rest.
They, of course, will get their money first I'm sure. So let's see who really won.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Even if it went to trial with a full defense, it would not be generate a precedential decision. To be a precedent, the case must be reviewed by a higher court and the opinion published. In my state, there are two levels above Superior Court (trial court): Court of Appeals and Supreme Court (names may be different in different states). All Supreme Court cases are published and thus become precedent. The Court of Appeals decides on a case by case basis which of its cases to formally publish. Formally pu
Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Because the guy went entirely too far. If he had posted anonymous copies of comments they had sent etc then it probably would have been tolerable as an 'experiment'. However, he posted photos, names, emails etc. - which is fairly brutal when shared on the net
On the over hand though, regardless of the false pretense, these people gave their data to him, and took a calculated risk as to whether the ad was genuine or not. It's not as if the data was stolen or anything. So it's a bit iffy, but overall, I'd say a good judgement
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
On the over hand though, regardless of the false pretense, these people gave their data to him, and took a calculated risk as to whether the ad was genuine or not. It's not as if the data was stolen or anything.
Not really, actually. If you go an actual date, for instance, and your date proceeds to kick you in the groin, nobody would argue that you took a calculated risk as to whether the offer to go on a date was genuine, either.
I agree it's a good judgement (although the amount seems a bit high); I just wish it'd been a "real" one, not just a default judgement because he didn't showup.
Re: (Score:2)
If the guy promised to keep it anonymous, either through TOS or verbal agreement, then he breached the implied or express warranty of anonymity, and it is that breach he was sued for.
Of course, I have grunts of derision for the fact that he let the judgement default.
Re: (Score:2)
So it's a bit iffy, but overall, I'd say a good judgement
There's nothing iffy about a default judgment. If you don't show up (or don't follow some other required procedure), you lose.
But I do agree with the rest of your post.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you factor that into the equation, you aren't considering the scenario where someone could decide to prank you by sending another guy like this YOUR information and picture.
Guess it doesn't surprise me (Score:3, Interesting)
My freshman soc prof told us how _not_ to do research if we wanted to get published. I think the book was called the Lavender Tea Room if I remember. Guy hung out at public restrooms, took down license plates, got their address and then went door-to-door surveying. "Hello, sir. Wife? Kids? Occupation?" Discovered that a surprising number of regular family guys will stop by the restroom for a quick blow on the way to work. Sociologically interesting but no way that book was going to get distributed even without releasing subject names.
Karma's a bitch. (Score:5, Funny)
Good.
This little turd is only starting starting to get what he deserves.
Personally, I am impressed that the individual wronged took him to court. If I had his name and address, I would have probably been a lot less gentle. People have been taking advantage of the anonymity of the internet to get away with completely unacceptable behavior for too long.
Human beings are social creatures and the defective ones need to be corrected or weeded out.
Re:Karma's a bitch. (Score:5, Insightful)
So you feel that women deserve to be raped and mugged if they make poor decisions?
Thanks for the Star Wars quote. It really cleared things up for me. I now understand that you must have a lot of time to memorize movie lines while sitting at home alone after having alienated any potential dates with your offensive logic.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
So you feel that women deserve to be raped and mugged if they make poor decisions?
If I make poor decisions that I know will likely have certain consequences, do I deserve those consequences?
Re: (Score:2)
So you feel that women deserve to be raped and mugged if they make poor decisions?
If I make poor decisions that I know will likely have certain consequences, do I deserve those consequences?
I think the point is that, whilst you may not deserve them, you should expect those consequences. If I drop a brick on my foot I may not deserve a broken foot but I should probably expect one.
Moreover, you shouldn't expect the law to protect you in a situation in which you knowingly failed to protect yourself from expected consequences.
If you hang out with drug-dealing rapists, for example, what do you suppose is the likely outcome?
Re: (Score:2)
Well then, do us a favor and never leave your house again, thereby avoiding the risk of being hit by a car, lightning, or a train. This is "common sense" that will keep you out of danger. Because if you got hit by a drunk driver, I'm sure you'd sue in civil court for damages just like these guys did.
That leads to the requisite car analogy:
Your expectation when leaving the house is that people will drive their cars on the road; walking on the sidewalk is safe, even though it's possible for someone to drive a
Re: (Score:2)
Can't say I have much sympathy (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't say I sympathise with that bloke much. He posted an ad, and the people who responded to it did so under the assumption that it would be confidential. Not the smartest assumption, but a reasonable one nontheless.
Then, he posts the responses, including names. While this doesn't hurt him much, it can easily lead to great embarrassment and potential destruction of reputation for those men.
Regardless of what one thinks of the activities the guys thought they were responding to (sounded weird to me, but I'm a bit of a boring prude), the guy who posted people's identities is an asshat, and I can't say I feel much, or really any sympathy for him. He sounds like little more than an asshat.
On a related note, I hope the asses who post those "feel free to come and take all my stuff" ads on Craigslist, that result in people's houses being stripped down to nothingness, also get sued. Those who respond to them and steal the poor bastard's items, too.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You should never assume anything will be confidential, particularly on the internet.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Not the smartest assumption, but a reasonable one nontheless.
Aren't "reasonable" and "not smart" mutually exclusive?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That's actually a good question. I think "reasonable" refers to what one expects from other reasonable people. The "not smart" refers to the fact that there are a lot of unreasonable people (aka. dickwads/asshats/griefers) on the net and they sometimes look just like the reasonable people (especially when one doesn't have access to a posting history).
Re: (Score:2)
In the case at hand, thinking the guy who sent his personal information to an improbable craiglist sex ad is an idiot does not prevent me from thinking the guy who poseted the ad and then published the information is an asshole.
You should not trust anonymous strangers on the internet, because they might be assholes who will abuse that trust. When someo
Just an ED troll (Score:2)
There's a strange subculture that validates this kind of douchebaggery in the name of 'epic win', and I'm unsure if any of them are past the mental age of 15.
Trolls run for the hill! (Score:1)
4Chan's /b/tards must be lawyering up right now. Or posting image macros, one or the other.
Re: (Score:2)
Pick the one that doesn't require an attention span longer than ten seconds. You could also go with whichever one doesn't require more than $3.25 (all they've got in the couch).
I want to sue as well! (Score:2)
I went to one of those sites that publishes information about my previous and current addresses and phone numbers and it really had my history down to the point I found it disturbing. These types of sites need to be closed.
Police Sting Operation (Score:2)
Someone tell me why this is different than a police sting operation looking for johns or pedophiles?
The police never get in trouble for this exact behavior.
Perhaps the "perp" could call it a citizen sting operation.
Re: (Score:2)
What a crappy analogy.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Because:
1- Internet dating is not illegal
2- Being weird is not illegal
3- Vigilantism IS illegal because
4- Police are held to a higher standard than citizens in that
5- Due process must be used in court and
6- The police (typically) are not using sting ops for personal gain or aggrandizement and
7- many other reasons
8 goto 1
-b
Re: (Score:2)
Someone tell me why this is different than a police sting operation looking for johns or pedophiles?
Ummm... Because these men were breaking no laws and this asshat isn't a police officer?
WTF (Score:3, Interesting)
34K on a default judgment? Default judgment means he lost because he never showed up. How did you spend this much against a guy who never showed up to defend himself?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
34K on a default judgment? Default judgment means he lost because he never showed up. How did you spend this much against a guy who never showed up to defend himself?
A good deal of the work a lawyer does is typically before the trial: lining up witnesses, developing a legal strategy, researching relevant cases, anticipating the other lawyer's strategy, etc. I'm sure the amount of preparation required varies depending on the type of case, but if your lawyer hasn't done this sort of legwork in advance you need a new lawyer.
Re: (Score:2)
Create a PACER account and look up "Fortuny, Jason" in the U.S. Party/Case Index [uscourts.gov] to find the history of the case (there is a charge of $0.08 per page, but I believe it is waived if your total is under something like $10 / year). There are 46 documents entered as part of this case. Not all of them were written by the plaintiff's lawyers, but a g
Re: (Score:2)
Even if he doesn't show up - there's been quite a bit of paper and leg work to get to this point.
Re: (Score:2)
while the prank was foolish and juvenile, I don't believe it was all that harmful.
The multiple people who got fired from their jobs once the responses were made public would argue that point...
Re: (Score:2)
Am I the only one... (Score:2)
...who has a problem with statutory damages being awarded when the law requires registration of the "literary work" to have this form of "protection". Copyright is extended automatically upon the creation of any "literary work", but registration with the Office of Copyright is still required to claim statutory damages. To claim such damages in the face of not having an actual registration does not seem kosher to me.
I would believe that the plaintiff would have had to claim actual damages, unless he has
Re: (Score:2)
Try explaining that to ED. They posted it up there, they are the ones with the power to take it down. The admins of the site think they're both invincible and in the right, so I wonder if she/they'll be next.
Re: (Score:2)
So why can wikileaks keep up leaked information that was never intended to be published, but ED is held to a different standard?
Easy: ED is hosted in the US, and as such is subject to the DMCA. Wikileaks is in Sweden.
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect re-publishing doesn't count, since the facts are now public. Anyone that re-publishes isn't responsible for the intrusion, and (now) public facts are public facts, so there's no violation of privacy. But then again IANAL.
Re: (Score:2)
If they had been around that long, they would have put out *at least* two more albums.
Re: (Score:2)