Previous Politech message: http://www.politechbot.com/2005/11/01/forbes-runs-a/ -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [Politech] Forbes runs a stunning series of articles on fightingbloggers [fs] Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 11:06:04 -0800 From: Malla Pollack <mpollack@private> To: 'Declan McCullagh' <declan@private>, politech@private While I love (politically) the anti-Diebold decision under 512(f), would-be activists should be warned that it is a very bad analysis of the statutes involved -- both the DMCA allowance of penalties for "bad" take down notices and the fair use provisions of the copyright act. I recently compiled a list of decided 512(f) cases (few are reported) and Diebold is the only one imposing a penalty for sending an overly aggressive notice. The most authoritative case on 512(f) is Rossi v. MPAA, 391 F.3d 1000 (9th Cir. 2004) which holds that even unreasonable failure to investigate before sending a notice does not create liability under 512(f). I hate that outcome, but it is a good reading of the statute. Malla Pollack Professor, American Justice School of Law Visiting Univ. of Idaho, College of Law mpollack@private 208-885-2017 -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Politech] Forbes runs a stunning series of articles on fighting bloggers [fs] Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 14:35:30 -0500 From: Paul Levy <plevy@private> To: <declan@private> >Eerily similar allegations began popping up >in anonymous posts on Yahoo, but Yahoo refused >Halpern's demand to identify the attackers. "The >lawyer for Yahoo basically told me, 'Ha-ha-ha, >you're screwed,'" Halpern says And this guy is complaining about defamation? Somehow, I doubt the Yahoo! lawyer told him this..... Paul Alan Levy Public Citizen Litigation Group 1600 - 20th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20009 (202) 588-1000 http://www.citizen.org/litigation -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [Politech] Forbes runs a stunning series of articles on fightingbloggers [fs] Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2005 13:38:24 -0600 From: Burt,David <david_burt@private> To: Declan McCullagh <declan@private> Declan, Speaking as a former online activist (in the pre-blog era) and now a public relations guy who regularly deals with online activists, I would urge companies not follow some if this advice. As a PR person, I would advise companies to monitor blogs using blog search engines and issue corrections when necessary. I have done this when inaccurate information about my company was published on various blogs, and I found the majority of the bloggers respectful people who genuinely appreciated a straightforward dialogue with a company. Very few bloggers are genuinely interested in spreading information that is demonstrably false. However, as a former online activist, I can tell you that aggressively attempting to discredit bloggers is good advice -- for promoting the bloggers, that is. Nothing makes an activist happier than having the target of his criticism respond aggressively. It's like throwing gasoline on the fire, and worse, it positions the blogger as David to the evil corporate Goliath, and usually just generates even more bad press for the company. --David -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Politech] Forbes runs a stunning series of articles on fighting bloggers [fs] Date: 2 Nov 2005 12:53:46 -0500 From: John R Levine <johnl@private> To: Declan McCullagh <declan@private> References: <4367B8F9.4090103@private> > Forbes is running a rather stunning series of articles about how > bloggers can damage corporations... They're stunning all right in how far Forbes has sunk under Steve Forbes. Pump and dump scams fanned by disinformation are as old as stock markets, and you'd have to be pretty dim either to think that it's new, or that companies have any more right than anyone else not to be commented on or criticised. The sidebar on Groklaw's allegedly mysterious Pamela Jones is pretty typical. She really is a paralegal, the site is utterly anti-SCO and only pro-IBM insofar as they're SCO's opponents, and if you're not a complete poophead, she's not all that hard to find: http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1814683,00.asp Regards, John Levine, johnl@private, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, Mayor "I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Politech] Forbes runs a stunning series of articles on fightingbloggers [fs] Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2005 15:24:59 -0500 From: Danny <ayavuzk@private> To: Declan McCullagh <declan@private>, <joehall@private> References: <4367B8F9.4090103@private> Looks pretty one-sided. I like how in cases of "too much free speech," the side the author represents is always "the truth" and the opponent is always spouting "lies, libel, and invective"... seems what they could, instead of seeking to discredit, outshout, or outlawyer, they could outTRUTH the "evil bloggers"... after all, the truth is almost always simpler than the lie... And I'm sorry for the poor corps who feel they're so threatened by individuals saying things about them, and feel their only recourse is to squash them under bogus DMCA legal threats, ISP intimidation, or paid propaganda bloggers... but the benefit to the greatest number comes from allowing all to say what they want, and let others decide whether it's true or not, based on facts, evidence, and common sense. That's one of the biggest problems, IMHO, about the "information age" - there's a hell of a lot of "information," but not a lot of Truth, and it's awfully hard to tell the difference when it's one word against another on a screen, from someone you've never met, with motivations you can't hope to guess. That's what libel and slander laws were established for - to examine speech that damages one party's reputation, in a courtroom setting, and thereby determine whether the truth was told. So corps are afraid of having to go to court because it costs money to prove their truth is The Truth... but who has more money? The corporations. They can lie all the way to the bottoms of their checkbooks - through their countless advertising and "public relations" mouthpieces - but individual citizens can only lie to the extent of their meager resources by comparison. But when we need to hear the truth, about whom do we most need to hear? Some dirt a corp's PR flacks dig up on Joe Schmo in Anytown, USA, who for some reason is saying Bad Things about the corp... or the dirt Joe Schmo digs up on them? Without prejudging the truth of either's speech, I'd rather have them both say whatever they like, and sort the truth out in court if it comes to that, than allow any corporation or business entity to kill dissent without so much as a single witness. -Danny -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Politech] Forbes runs a stunning series of articles on fightingbloggers [fs] Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2005 15:56:03 -0500 From: Danny <ayavuzk@private> To: Declan McCullagh <declan@private> References: <4367B8F9.4090103@private> and it's a small quibble, but there's no such thing as "the first blog" - I've seen pages on the net that could qualify as blogs since long before 1997. There was Justin Hall's links.net page, which I first used back in 1994... -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Politech] Forbes runs a stunning series of articles on fighting bloggers [fs] Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 00:55:49 -0800 From: Thomas Leavitt <thomas@private> Organization: Godmoma's Forge, LLC To: Declan McCullagh <declan@private> References: <4367B8F9.4090103@private> Stunning is a rather mild word... what the hell? The level of vitriol displayed in these articles is astounding. They are yellow journalism personified. What message is Forbes trying to send its readers? Is it serious in contending that the blogosphere is this incredibly dangerous and out of control Wild Wild West which has the potential to destroy any company overnight on the slightest of pretexts. What could possibly motivate them to take this approach? Not to mention the questionable ethics and severe bias displayed by the articles themselves - I mean, talk about the pot calling the kettle black! "blog mob"? "blog-riddled Linux software movement" Yeesh. Also, I'm pretty sure the author of GrokLaw didn't endorse knocking SysCon off the 'net, although one of the sidebars you quote sure implies she did. Note: I haven't read the GrokLaw article in question they quote from (unlike your average blogger, Forbes doesn't bother to actually cite its sources in a fashion that allows you to go read the source material in question and draw your own conclusions), so my assumption might be wrong... but I find it hard to believe a lawyer would endorse an blatantly illegal act of that sort. Does SysCon really pull down $50,000 a day off a single site that can be knocked offline by hackers? That's $18 million a year! Nine times what the same set of articles quotes Weblogs.com pulling in, and the latter was worth $25 million an acquisition - linear math would put SysCon's market value at $225 million. Is the online advertising business *that* lucrative already?!? Could this attack be prompted sheer jealousy on the part of Forbes? :) Regards, Thomas Leavitt _______________________________________________ Politech mailing list Archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ Moderated by Declan McCullagh (http://www.mccullagh.org/)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Wed Nov 02 2005 - 22:24:41 PST