I am wondering whether lawyers have simply become stupid as time goes on, especially surrounding the size and complexity of the Internet.

I got a cease and decist for a copyright infringment posted here by Hodge, replicating a Washington Post article. No hodge, no need to apologise either, it happens and is not a big deal. Now a cease and decist used to simply contain a simple request to remove the content, and only contain a further request to never again replicate content from "x" location without consent if the site was say a typical website, being one person creates the content, not an interactive community or social networking site, which this site is both.

Owners of such sites cannot and never have been legally responsible to ensure users NEVER post objectionable or copyright material, as "reasonable" expectations are that owners do not monitor every posting for such actions. It is like taking YouTube to court and trying to say a user breached copyright. It is not the responsibility of YouTube for the users posting of copyright material. It is YouTube's responsibility however, if notified in writing to investigate the matter and if found to breach anothers copyright, to then remove that material though at no stage ever can they commit that another user will not do the exact very thing because by International law for such interactive websites, it is impossible to control what others do or say and is not a "reasonable" expectation of the site owner.

If YouTube for instance was notified of the breach and did nothing about it, then they could be liable for breach. Otherwise, the only thing a person can do is send a cease and decist requesting the content be removed, though never can you send an interactive site that encompasses membership and a community / social network environment a request to ensure you never allow another member to breach the same copyright matter.

How stupid are some of these lawyers these days? I am just baffled where exactly some of these people get their law degree or nerve. Do they try intimidation and see what happens? See if a person rolls over and agree's with everything they say or something? Not very bright if you ask me. What's worse is that even if a person agreed to the request in the first place, it would get thrown out of court for firstly being an unreasonable request to begin with, regardless whether or not a person complies, the request itself is not "reasonable" within the eyes of the law and law exists already to already cover these topics.

Shit, how many people have already tried this crap in court and failed each and every time... lots that I have read over the years. I remember when a company attempted to take Aaron Wall to court for his non-compliance to remove a comment from his blog, an interactive medium in which others are allowed to freely comment. The comment was a persons opinion of the company in question, and whilst it made insults and accusations to the company, that is not for the owner to decide whether they are right or wrong. Again, another one that never made it to court.

I think lawyers need to get their heads in the books surrounding interactive services and social networks, as it is the future already off how things get done online.

Anthony, in compliance with the Washington Post and it's request, it looks like I too may have made the mistake of posting one article from the W. Post.

Will you resolve this as well?

Thank you.

Hope

My god, it just sounds completely ridiculous. It's stupid crap like this that makes you want to boycott the company (and those deep pockets of the lawyers!) It's not like we are some rival newspaper.. *rolls eyes*

bec

Lawyers have teeny tiny testicles.

You know, I have to say I had a weird feeling about posting that article, just because it was from the Washington Post (aka WaPo), but since I'd checked with Anthony some time ago about this general issue, I went ahead because it was an interesting article.

Sorry you had to deal with that crap, Anthony.

So much for WaPo.

I am not interested in going through and finding what may off been done due to them. If they or another has an issue, there is a clear path in which they must follow, being the one they just did. Send a legally binding cease and decist at which point I will investigate issues; otherwise, I have other things to do than worry about copyright.

Shakespeare had it right 500 years ago...The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers. But they're also just doing what their bosses (aka the Washington Post) is telling them.

What a bunch of putzes all the way around.

Lisa

Yeah, and the main thing the WaPo's bosses care about is the bottom line. That and typing out whatever for the Bush administration wants, which in turn feeds the fat cats.

i dont like lawyers, it translates as proffesional lier. intimidation is standard with them, there was a saying i approve of unfortunately it isnt binding, no law should be so complicated that the average person cant grasp everything about it in five minutes.

I got a kick just out of the title... Over time? No, I think they always were :)