Georgia State Court Issues Censorship Order Blocking Free Speech On Anti-Copyright Troll Message Board
from the overbroad dept
The EFF has a blog post about a very troubling ruling in a Georgia state court that effectively orders the censoring of an anti-copyright trolling blog including user comments. The blog in question, ExtortionLetterInfo.com, is run by a guy named Matt Chan. He recently took up the cause of people who have been hit by copyright infringement demands from Linda Ellis, a poet who is somewhat infamous for going after lots of people, demanding payments after they posted her sappy poem "the Dash." She apparently threatens people (ridiculously) with the statutory maximum awards of $150,000 per infringement, but will "settle" for a mere $7,500 -- often going after non-profits, charities and churches who want to share the "positive message" of the poem. Yes, she demands $7,500 for posting her poem to a website.Her actions have been written about and talked about in a wide variety of places online, and when ELI took up the issue, some of the comments got nasty. And apparently, some of the comments made on the ELI site did get pretty aggressive, which is unfortunate. As much as people dislike trolling behavior, there's simply no reason to ever go that far. However, even if the posts went too far, the judge went much further in ordering Chan to remove all mention of Ellis from his site, whether by him or any user.
Respondent is hereby ORDERED to remove all posts relating to Ms. Ellis. Respondent is hereby enjoined and restrained from doing or attempting to do, or threatening to do any act constituting a violation of O.C.G.A- §§ 16-5-90 et seq. and of harassing, interfering, or intimidating the Petitioner or Petitioner's immediate family. Any future acts committed by the Respondent towards the Petitioner which are in violation of this statute and this Protective Order can amount to AGGRAVATED STALKING, pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 16-5-91, which is a felony. A person convicted of Aggravated Stalking shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than ten years and by a fine of not more than $10,000.00As the EFF points out, this order goes way, way too far by violating a variety of existing laws and the First Amendment.
Removing "all posts relating to Ms. Ellis" is neither narrowly tailored nor the least restrictive means of addressing any true threats. It fails the First Amendment test because of the collateral damage: it will take down constitutionally-protected criticism of the copyright troll and her demands for money. For example, Ellis complained that "there were vile posts of blasphemy." While blasphemy is doubtless offensive to Ellis, it remains protected speech.The court, incorrectly, insists that because Chan has the ability to remove posts, he is obligated to do so.
The Georgia Court's overreaching order against Chan also contradicts federal law because it holds a service provider to account for users' posts. Section 230 protects websites that host content posted by users, providing immunity for a website from state law claims (including criminal law) based on the publication of "information provided by another information content provider."
As the owner and operator of the site, Respondent has the ability to remove posts in his capacity as the moderator. However, Respondent chose not to remove posts that were personally directed at Ms. Ellis and would cause a reasonable person to fear for her safety. Because the Respondent's course of conduct was directed at Ms. Ellis through the posted messages and information relating to Ms. EIlis, and the conduct was intended (and in fact did) create fear and intimidation in the Petitioner.Except, as the EFF reminds us, under section 230, there is no duty to remove content and no liability for failing to remove that content even if you can. In the famous Zeran case, the court clearly held:
[L]awsuits seeking to hold a service liable for its exercise of a publisher's traditional editorial functions – such as deciding whether to publish, withdraw, postpone or alter content – are barred. The purpose of this statutory immunity is not difficult to discern. Congress recognized the threat that tort-based lawsuits pose to freedom of speech in the new and burgeoning Internet medium.As the EFF post notes, this does not mean that those who said illegal things are not liable, but "the responsibility lies with the speaker." Having the court issue such a broad order barring speech and pinning the blame on the site for statements of users goes beyond what the law allows.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: censorship, copyright, copyright trolling, defamation, extortionletterinfo, free speech, intermediaries, linda ellis, matt chan, section 230
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Legal comment on all of the above
I am the legal adviser to the extortionletterinfo.com site (ELI). Thanks for the many comments. I will try to address some of the questions raised. Matt was overconfident perhaps that the First Amendment and the CDA would protect his right to post public information about Ms. Ellis and that he could not be responsible for the comments of others; he also did not foresee that he would be the first person held in violation of this stalking statute who never met, talked to, emailed, wrote, contacted or followed the alleged victim - so he went Pro Se. He will be filing a Notice of Appeal this week and I will be representing him (pro bono)on the appeal. However, he still needs to retain local Georgia counsel as well as pay an estimated several thousands of dollars for the transcript and about $600 in court costs. He has established a legal defense fund on ELI so any assistance is appreciated by Matt. The judge's decision was very overbroad. ELI had to take down every single post about Ms. Ellis even though she only complained of about 5 out of 1,900. (she never asked Matt to take the posts down prior to filing for the order by the way). Also the Order of Protection is for Matt's lifetime even though he was only personally responsible for two posts. I don't believe the two posts violate the Stalking Law but I won't debate that here - they were rude and somewhat insulting and for that he has apologized as the post mentions. But regardless of what anyone feels about the content, the order went far beyond what was called for and what the law allows. I'll keep my eye on this post if there any new issues folks want to know about or please feel free to contact me at omichelen@cuomollc.com. Thanks again.Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It is a sad day when you have to raise money from strangers to protect the first amendment rights of an individual.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Sad day
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Sad day
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Copyright
2008-2013. ExtortionLetterInfo. All Rights Reserved.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I agree, anyone favoring copy'right' law should be called what they are, selfish thugs who work together to buy our government, scam artists, and scam the public. Abolish copy'right'.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I'm still of the opinion that if courts are blatently overreaching that they should start gathering "points" or "dings" to their record as a judge. This would put it more in line with how most professional sports referees are handled. If you can't properly uphold the law (especially when there is such a precident) you shouldn't be able to keep your spot on the bench!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Next steps:
I expect to see sites all over the internet posting terrible comments calling for the rape, torture, and death of Linda Ellis...
What's she going to do, get this judge to censor every website on the internet because she pissed everyone off?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
to be expected
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Next steps:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Yes, statute shields those who violate common law.
@ "I expect to see sites all over the internet posting terrible comments calling for the rape, torture, and death of Linda Ellis..." -- That's EXACTLY what a responsible site owner should QUASH soon as appears. You seem to be cheering it on. But society can't hold together for good purposes when nasty little savages call for violence against strangers they know only through one-sided comments on web sites. That attitude is going to bite you -- perhaps literally: yesterday was story of an ear bit off merely for asking two guys to keep it quiet at 4AM.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Do you know how many dozens of dollars are lost every year due to piracy in the poem industry??? Think of the poets' children!
This is poetic justice!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This is the Collective Consciousness again
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Still, there should be a point system to notify people cause currently it's more like selecting a name for most people. And having lived in the South for a few years, I'd be willing to bet most of them vote for the one that says "Republican" or "Incumbent".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Yes, statute shields those who violate common law.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Yes, statute shields those who violate common law.
Well based on what you said then it is Mikes responsibility to remove every comment and post by you on this site and he should do so immediately.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: This is the Collective Consciousness again
http://techdirt.com/articles/20100412/1526158979.shtml
NOW, quite relevant to THIS item, IF we just could get Mike to accept SOME slight responsibility for setting the tone here, we'd have a chance. But for the 1%, "law" is all about EVADING responsibility. So that disagreement about my first para is kind of key to all.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Yes, statute shields those who violate common law.
Well, the way I read Mike's reading of it (plus his prior stance), that's exactly what Mike believes: that a site owner is totally shielded by statute from ALL responsibility for comments. SO, let's ask Mike:
Mike: On what basis, besides clear commercial spamming, do you or would you EVER remove comments?
There. Let's hear Mike take an actual position, not just put this out to gin up angst and squabbling.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Is it just me, or does this sound like the sort of thing that a lawyer would send someone to intimidate them, and not at all like something you expect to see in a court order?
It "can" amount to aggravated stalking? So it might not? Then why say anything? And why mention the punishment?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
an even handed response to the situation demands parity
I think any concerned tech dirt commenters should chime in on that thread and let her know about her right, nay, her obligation to sue everyone who publicly recites her poem at a funeral without her express written permission and a payment of the $7500 royalty.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This is supposed to be the behaviour that average_joe and other glorious defenders of copyright revere and encourage?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Yes, statute shields those who violate common law.
Such a requirement is also likely to result in a registration to comment requirement, eliminating anonymous comments.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
lol
There must be a law for that... something's law.....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
an even handed response to the situation demands parity
I think any concerned tech dirt commenters should chime in on that thread and let her know about her right, nay, her obligation to sue everyone who publicly recites her poem at a funeral without her express written permission and a payment of the $7500 royalty.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Yes, statute shields those who violate common law.
With trolls, its simple: ignore their comments, and they lose interest, just like little children. If there's a mechanism for hiding the offending comments or banning the user, use it, we do that all the time here for OOTB.
Now I understand there are laws that come into play when someone makes genuine threats online, however we really need to evaluate the validity of those threats before contacting the authorities. Just because some random troll says he's going to kill you doesn't immediately mean you should fear for your life. You need to ask a few simple questions:
1. Does this person know your real-world identity, or are they likely to find it out?
2. Have you received more than one threat from this same person?
3. Does this person have a history of trollish behavior?
If one of the first two are true, and the person is not a known troll, then the threat may be more serious, otherwise, I would not be worried.
BTW, could the real OOTB please come forward? Your clones seem to be taking over.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Yes, statute shields those who violate common law.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
E-mails to the Judge?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: an even handed response to the situation demands parity
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Appeal
"And regarding the appeal, it looks like with great certainty I will now be pursuing an appeal given the fact that the plaintiff and McCormack are playing loose with the facts in a public media. They appear to want to go public. If we are to go public, all I ask for is balance and accuracy. I was thinking I might not make the effort or expend the resources to pursue an appeal to let the venom die down but it looks like I have no choice but to pursue it. I cant have McCormack and plaintiff continue sharing their stories publicly with intentional distortions and inaccuracies. Winning the appeal and clearing my name is the most effective way to refute their claims."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hold up one second there -
Of course that doesn't excuse ignoring vast tomes of US Constitutional laws and precedents, but maybe the stalking allegations (at the very least) really aren't that far off the mark.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Chan was quoted as saying: "To be honest with you, I made some stupid posts," Chan told us. "It was certainly unprofessional. I'll be the first to admit it" (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/03/i-made-some-stupid-posts-anti-troll-site-gagged-after-th reats-against-poet/), which was certainly big of him to do.
Though that doesn't change his original comments, Ellis' escalated response was completely unnecessary. She basically used the courts to file a restraining order and have the content taken down.I don't think that is it's intended use.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Looks like Georgia is non-partisan election.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
It's like you've read law books and never met any actual lawyers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Get rich quick scheme of the day
Step 2. Blackmail everyone who posts the poem online into giving you $7,500.
Step 3. Bribe a crooked judge so any lawsuit against you fails and people aren't even allowed to talk about your scam.
Step 4: Look into getting a Scrooge McDuck-style money bin to hold all your blackmail money.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
The media uses the term, Politicians of all sides use it, and so do lawyers in cases. Therefore the community at large uses it in common and wide speech. Courts are used to it and it is not disrespectful whatsoever in calling someone one that actually fits the common definition of a "copyright troll"
There is NO provocation nor is it unprofessional. This is not SCOTUS, though even there it would be used too since 'patent troll' has been.
As for stating it is gratuitous...
Well you might want to look at the histrionics of Ms Ellis's litigious actions and the old saying.. If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family Anatidae on our hands
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: an even handed response to the situation demands parity
Right now, for her, that dash stands for copyright troll.
Is that how anyone would want to be remembered?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: an even handed response to the situation demands parity
"The Dash" is a prime example of basic childlike rhyming with an ok metaphor. Though a Gilgamesh, a Shakespearean sonnet, a Sues, nor a Frost this definitely isn't.
In fact there are better poems associated with this metaphor of a dash between birth and death. Though those poems don't have an author with a bigger Ego it seems.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
More nonsense from the AC troll(s)...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Yes, statute shields those who violate common law.
Common law is the bargain basement of precedent. It goes: US Constitution, Federal Law, State Law, Common Law.
Not only that... I sincerely think you should read the actual post. CDA 230, the Zeran Case and the First amendment all make very, very clear that site operators have no liability for their comments.
Or, you know, continue ranting totally insane bullshit. Your choice.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Yes, statute shields those who violate common law.
Being annoyed (or even frightened) by some troll isn't one of them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Yes, statute shields those who violate common law.
Yes there would.
Not all site owners can afford to so heavily moderate their comments. Many do and moderation can be a positive force for a community but that doesn't mean it should be a legal requirement, that refusing to moderate should incur any sort of legal liability.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Yes, statute shields those who violate common law.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Legal comment on all of the above
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Yes, statute shields those who violate common law.
(Yes OOTB I just defended you)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: More nonsense from the AC troll(s)...
The courtroom and the practice of law differ somewhat from a tractor pull or Bubba's garage.
BTW, say 'hi' to Granny, Jethro and Ellie May for me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Yes, statute shields those who violate common law.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Call them whatever you like. In this cesspool of copyright apologists and professional malcontents, it's perfectly appropriate. But why a group like EFF who will likely be party to the appeal acts in an unprofessional manner, it will potentially bite them and is totally unprofessional and unnecessary.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
They seem to be kindred spirits with Masnick, who asserts no such copyright claim yet publishes (imho) far more 'valuable' content. I just found it odd. No need to get your panties in a twist.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
hmmm obfuscation on your part perhaps?
as to potentially 'bite' them, I think you have been watching too much Law & Order, or (more the likely scenario) listening to law professors who haven't seen the inside of an actual court for a long time (if ever) and think their theory of how courtrooms are actually run and how judges 'should' act is actually true. They are wrong, as any gopher of a law school graduate normally learns to their astonishment!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Yes, statute shields those who violate common law.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Yes, statute shields those who violate common law.
Now, just to shut you up about the "censoring" that goes on here at Techdirt...again...no it is NOT censorship. Censorship is when speech you have made is deleted or removed, and/or you are prevented from making speech. If Mike blocked certain user profiles...that's censorship. If he blocked you via IP address (stupid method I know) that would be censorship.
When entire websites are ordered shut down by the government on a mere accusation of copyright law, THAT is censorship, since speech is removed and people are prevented from making more speech there (Dajaz1, Rojadirecta)
When the community here reports your comments, blue, you are NOT being censored. Your comments remain. They can still be viewed. You can still comment. You are not being prevented from making speech. What is happening is that the community is deciding that what you say, 99% of the time, is a waste of time and indicating "Don't bother reading this". If someone wants to read your comments anyway, they still can.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
A) I don;t get payed so I'm an amateur malcontent.
B) Copyright apologists here? Except for a couple of regular commenters most people here feel the copyright system is broken almost beyond repair.
C) Anyone truly in favor of free speech must defend (in fact especially) defend the speech of those they disagree with. As a personal example I feel that the world will be a better place when the last member of the WBC shuffles off this mortal coil. Until that time I will defend their right to the vile despicable speech they so enjoy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Legal comment on all of the above
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hearing is different than listening.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
B) my stupid mistake: mental lag in deciding between copyright hater and piracy apologist leads to a ghastly faux pas
C) The hypocrites here constantly censor everything OOTB writes no matter what it is. You should talk to your friends about this- though I agree. Personally, I've never reported a single comment on this site or any other.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Who cares?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Yes, statute shields those who violate common law.
This is factually false. Common law certainly cannot override the Constitution. Were that the case, then the "common law" could get rid of such things as the First Amendment or the right to due process, and that is ridiculous.
State laws can grant the people additional protection against the (state) government, like when states have laws that protect free speech more than the First Amendment does. They can also handle things that are not handled by federal law (like contract law). But they cannot "override" federal law.
Nor was it the basis for the Constitution. I mean, obviously - because at the time, the common law was all British law.
And I think this ruling is well within common law that a site owner has responsibility at some point to remove posts. There'd be NO question if the posts were racist or threatening violence (as appears here).
Except such things have already been tried in court. And the courts have gone in exactly the opposite direction.
One of the first tests of Section 230 was Zeran v. AOL, where the court held that AOL was not responsible for defamation and death threats left on AOL's message boards (and the death threats got the FBI involved).
Case law has made a ton of other rulings - all of which grant immunity to service providers - about defamation, fraud, prostitution, and even child pornography.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I do agree with you that too many people hit the report button because they don't like what is being said and that should stop.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Note to self, do not posy while eating supper.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Yes, statute shields those who violate common law.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
"panties in a twist"
Sexist ad hom, that's new. The sexist part anyway, the ad hom part is standard at this point.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Hold up one second there -
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: More nonsense from the AC troll(s)...
except the lowest, least-ethical tractor-pull has higher standards than the most-ethical parasite, er, lawyer...
i would not trust a lawyer to do ANYTHING he/she was not paid to do; i KNOW bubba and jethro and granny WILL HELP OUT ANY stranger who is in need...
FOAD, parasite on society...
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hiding comments is not censorship. Free speech is only a right to speak, it does not require that anyone listen to you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I do agree that satire is a legitimate form of free expression, but I don't think that threats and intimidation are or should be protected speech.
For example, If I called you a pompous jerk, and created a series of scathing posts about why I think so, I'm protected. But the instant I start talking about how I'm going to track you down and defile you in numerous, humiliating ways... that enters the realm of threats and intimidation, which are no longer free speech.
I'm obviously speaking from a position of ignorance here, since I haven't seen this guy's forum, and I have no intention of going there... but this case sounds like bad news no matter which way the appeals court rules.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Intimidating and humiliating a woman who's just demanding her rights? Wow. Let's back that up. That's a great idea.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: More nonsense from the AC troll(s)...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
and *he* is the one with no 'class'...
richtig...
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Yes, statute shields those who violate common law.
Where did you get that idea? It's statutory law that overrides common law where they conflict. For example, if there ever was a common law of copyright, legislative bodies killed it by enacting copyright statutes. A body of interpretive precedent can arise around the statutes, but it apt to be quite different than what the common law would've been all on its own.
common law authorizes the US Constitution
That's a hell of a claim. Got a cite?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Courtesy of her Facebook page:
"Linda Ellis - AUTHOR, SPEAKER, POET I thought when I watched my father die, I had met evil in the form of cancer. But today, I met it all over again...in the form of the ignorant who reside in Cyberspace."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Now, having said that, I have noticed that people do tend to use the report button a little too freely at times, but after having seen the usual 'arguments' from OOTB and others, which in the vast majority of cases involve nothing more than childish name calling, accusing everyone who disagrees with them of being criminals, and so forth, I can understand why people would no longer give such people the benefit of the doubt and might instead just report them based on name alone.
Something to keep in mind, as a tool for 'censorship' the report button would be a horrible failure, as in the vast majority of times plenty of people still reply to them, making it quite clear that people are still able, and indeed are, reading the reported comments.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
For the most part, I'd agree with you. I happen to live in a city in which our Police Chief, Fire Chief and other managerial positions (except the City Attorney,) are appointed positions. However, I see little difference between the politicians we elect choosing their best friend to be Police Chief and the public at large choosing their best friend to be Police Chief. Of course, the public doesn't usually receive kickbacks, unlike the politicians, and thus in some cases it is the fairest way to chose a Police Chief.
Hopefully, however, the public has enough information to choose the best one for the job. But that is a problem with appointments too.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Yes, statute shields those who violate common law.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Of course the fact that a threat like that would cause any reasonable or sane person to assume 'can' is actually 'will', and modify what they do accordingly, makes such 'help' about a subtle as a sledgehammer.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Copyright
[ link to this | view in thread ]
tomxp411's comments
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Nice to know the court has done so badly on this ruling that they have ended up not only breaking the constitution rules but also demanded that content that could have identified the real perpetrators was destroyed by their order, unless the court for some reason would think the defendant would not do as the court requested that is....funny one this where the actual guilty party might get away with not even a warning about their behavior and in fact might not even know about the case if they have not been back to the forum thread in question.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
If she sent a reasonably polite DMCA takedown notice first it is likely very little fuss would be made. If the notice was ignored, then a sharp demand letter would be justified.
One legal analysis indicated that the letter recipients may be able assert fair use or if found infringing most likely face only $200 fine. The letter demands $7,500 and implies if the case goes to court the actual fine would be about $30,000 plus court costs. It preys on the victims total ignorance of copyright law.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: an even handed response to the situation demands parity
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: an even handed response to the situation demands parity
The Cash
I read of a lawyer who stood to speak
at the trial of a friend.
He referred to the protection of free speech,
that the Constitution will defend.
He noted that first there was no internet
and spoke of the beginning of the blogs and posts,
but he said what mattered most of all
were the laws that protected websites and their hosts.
For Section 203 represents protection
from jerks that roam the earth.
But now we have courts that think
free speech is of little worth.
For it matters not, what trolls think or say,
offensive, threatening or crass.
What matters is they alone are culpable
for the things they pull out of their (well you know).
So, judges think about this long and hard.
There things you cannot change?
For that is the job of the Congress
though changing the statute would be strange.
If offended people just slow down enough
to give thought to whats true and real
if you engage these petty idiots
it makes it a bigger deal.
And be less quick to sue and extort
and be reasonable with what we do
and try not to ruin other peoples lives
we might find friendship with a few.
If were not hypocritical and show respect
there would be no need to file,
a easily overturned court case
that will only last a while.
So, don't disparage at the end,
this moments just a flash
youll still be able to extort poor souls
So you can be flush with cash.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Copyright
I support reforming both to narrow their scope and bring them in line the US Constitution's intent of promoting "arts and sciences".
Ellis' actions strike many as extremely abusive, borderline legalized extortion.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I just finished reading the letter this lady wrote on her site and yes she is a confirmed copyright troll but from what she was saying this character actually did stalk her or insinuate that he knew where she lived and was driving around the area and knows people that wante her in the ground. No noramally i could never see myself supporting a troll ever, and i would insult them as much as i could, in fact i have insulted this lady from the word go until i read her letter about the case. Please go and read it yourself, if Chan has done what is most likely in writing somewhere in the court files i think she is more than justified getting a restraining order, to some she may be very pretty and it sounds like chan became obsessive.
Now i know there are always two sides of the story and yes the fact the court took down all the comments was overreaching in my opinion as most on here, but if he said the thing she says he said and i have no doubt about it then we should not be supporting him in this, i am leaving it as is and only going to say if i could delete my previous posts i would.I will not become party to a mob lynching, even if it is only a persons character that is being lynched.
As i said i detest her as a troll and think she possible deserves some of what has come her way, but to support it, no thank, i am not going to support this type of behavior nor in any way pay anything towards the defendant getting this charge against him reversed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Not a surprise...
Besides, this is Georgia, where the Constitution is considered a northern insult.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
These were all restored, but they required Chan to file a counter-claim. She was using the system to try and silence criticism of her $7500 claim. I think he was fed up with what she was doing. This is certainly not an excuse and I'm sure he learned a hard lesson about Internet rants.
But she is doing it again. She was able to shed some tears and get a judge to censor ALL coverage about what she was doing, virtually silencing all criticisms of her $7500 poem.
The one positive that has come from this is that more people are aware of the danger of publishing, sharing, or writing down, The Dash. Less people will be inclined to quote the Dash. And I believe that THAT will make the world a better place.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: More nonsense from the AC troll(s)...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: an even handed response to the situation demands parity
by Linda Ellis copyright 1996
I read of a man who stood to speak
at the funeral of a friend.
He referred to the dates on her tombstone,
from the beginningto the end.
He noted that first came the date of her birth
and spoke of the following date with tears,
but he said what mattered most of all
was the dash between those years.
For that dash represents all the time
that she spent alive on earth.
And now only those who loved her
know what that little line is worth.
For it matters not, how much we own,
the carsthe housethe cash.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I seriously dislike her for trolling and especially the way she has done it, it points to her not being a very nice person at all, and probably one that deserved a lot of what she has received even the threats, but i for one am not going to support someone stalking another, it is not as bad as what she has done to others but is not something i agree with, and for him to come out and ask for funding to help get rid of the stalking claims is just not in my mind the right thing to support, now if it was just to prevent her from trolling people and to force her to refund anyone she has trolled so far i would donate money to the cause, but it is not just that, this case is about someone trying to get rid of the stalking claim laid against him, and using the troll aspect of the case to get support.
I think she needs to be outed as the crazy troll she is and the courts need to treat her as a troll and overturn any payments made to her for her trollish behaviour. If anything this is the heart of the matter that has been overshadowed by the bitchiness of getting a anti stalking order which hopefully the court did not do just because of some false claims.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
The posting of her home was a google streetview image photo. And he didn't even post that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But lacking an upvote/downvote system, or a "This is complete tosh" button, it's all we have. Take it up with Mike...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And it's rich commenting about people responding to you, when you 'cared' enough to comment in the first place.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: an even handed response to the situation demands parity
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Matthew Chan really crossed the line.
I read the details of her claim against Matthew Chan here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/131675524/Memorandum-of-Law-Ellis-vs-Chan
I have concluded that Matthew Chan richly deserved the restraining order. He made constant and very creepy threats always in a veiled but highly aggressive and frightening manner.
He often covered his ass by making obvious threats in the same paragraph with re-assurances he wouldn't do anything "illegal."
QUOTE: "There are people who hate you and looking to put you into the ground. [...]But I will leave a few nuggets to let you know I mean business. [...] It wouldn't take much to push me over the edge on this."
Those are death threats. That's way beyond "stupid comments." I would have sought a protection order myself under such circumstances, and were I a judge, I would have judged against him as well.
I also understand, in the context of Chan using a forum to publish death threats and whipping up followers into a frenzy, that the judge shut him up for good re: Ellis.
Ellis is still a reprehensible extortionist and her poem is as trite and uninspired as she is. It's still not right to devote a forum to threats of violence, stalking and/or death.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
She might have an issue with being truthful, and being overly dramatic because her business model was threatened.
See because trolls don't like when you call them bad words, and they like to misquote those statements in legal documents. I can show you 3 lawsuits where what they claimed was said were edited statements designed to change the message and make it look much worse.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
The cases are often meritless but the lawyers make claims and people assume that lawyers speak the truth when talking about the law, much to their own detriment.
See also - Prenda Law, ACS:UK, USCG, DG&W, Malibu Media, CEG Tek, and the list goes on and on and on...
She claims he stalked her yet has never been in his presence in the real world. If not for her following the website she would have been unaware of people speaking about her trolling activities at all. This is another case of hand-wringing combined with on the internet leading to bad decisions.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: an even handed response to the situation demands parity
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
why not donate to something worthwhile, rather than supporting something which is (definitely) threatening and murdering people ? ? ?
um, you still payin' taxes, sparky ? ? ?
'cause you (and i, and all of US) are supporting a psychopathic institution we call the USG...
it is MURDERING (on our behalf) (mostly) poor, (mostly) brown, (mostly) mooselimbish nekkid apes the world over; it is working 24/7/365 AGAINST the interests of its 99%, and FOR the interests of the 1%...
unless you are in the 1%, sucks to be an amerikan citizen with morals, (hint: you are the enemy of the pschopathic state)...
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: an even handed response to the situation demands parity
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
okay, i guess she is to be pitied: a hothouse flower who can't survive in the real world, and thus has to have her own reality distortion field to make it through the day...
and people wonder why i prefer dogs to nekkid apes...
i have infinite patience when it comes to most things, but nekkid apes ? 'bout tired of those stupid shits... near as i can tell, 100% of the real problems on this planet are because of them, and *most* of that due to the parasite/lawyer cohort... fuck'em
to (mangle) a quote by voltaire: how easy to love mankind in general, and how impossible in particular...
(i ain't no pangloss...)
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Children's rhyming is NOT poetry
and the poem she wrote.
It was very bad
and wouldn't bring in that dollar note.
So she extorts the 5 people
that actually liked that crap.
"Pay me $7.500
or a lawsuit will be the next step."
People noticed this behaviour
and called it a scam.
They opened a website
and she says : "Damn,
I better sue this bastards
to shut them up.
So she acts like a baby,
even though she's all grown-up.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Extortion Letter Info
He is now completely MIA from the ELI site and the whole site has lost all momentum and credibility.
Their trusty lawyer Oscar Michelen still uses the ELI site to pimp his "defense letter" to infringers creating quite a lucrative revenue stream for his law practice
Never once does anyone on this site say you shouldn't have intentionally stolen copyrighted work and used it - or you're a professional web designer so why don't you understand that images are copyrighted ect and Google Images does not mean free - they just offer tactics to avoid the issue and of course push the Oscar Michelen Defense Letter Scheme
This ELI site dispenses a lot of mis-information and speculation - and disrespects anyone who does not agree with their very narrow perspective - actually it's quite entertaining to read - but also disturbing - so disturbing in fact that their fearless leader was handed a restraining order for his actions - and rightfully so
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Extortion Letter Info
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Extortion Letter Info
Yeah, I guess you would agree - since, based on the gravitars, you just now either responded to yourself (likely) or someone who had the exact same IP address as you back in July 2013 (highly unlikely).
Just sayin'
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Response to Rob & Artist
[ link to this | view in thread ]
GA Court of Appeals Orders Case Transfer to GA Supreme Court
A point I want to make is that we have many commenters such as all of you on ELI. In one historic (and tragic) moment with a few mouse-clicks, to comply with an overreaching court order from a small city judge, I had to make an entire discussion forum with 2,000 forum posts made by commenters, from the U.S. and overseas, entirely disappear *poof* from the Internet, not just the offensive ones. Think about that. And NONE of you can ever say, discuss, or learn anything about my legal adversary or the operations of her "copyright infringement settlement demand letters" on the ELI website anywhere. ELI had the most in-depth information anywhere for those who might want help in defending against stress-causing, fear-inducing, legal threaten letters over an unintentional sharing of a short poem.
In any case, the important follow up to this story is that the GA Court of Appeals (on July 2, 2014) ordered that my appeal transferred to the GA Supreme Court due to First Amendment (and other) issues that were brought up in our appeal briefs. That means someone was paying close attention in reading our appeal briefs. The First Amendment still appears to matter in the state of Georgia. I invite you to read the Court Order with no fluff: http://www.scribd.com/doc/232423410/Chan-vs-Ellis-GA-Court-of-Appeals-Ruling. The Court Order speaks for itself.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Matthew Chan video rant to Linda Ellis
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Linda Ellis "Good Prevails" - Are you kidding me?
But, let's pretend for a moment that she is capable of discrediting Matthew Chan and April Brown. Can she silence Wilene Dunn? Michael Tilly? Robert Krausankus, Greg Troy, Lucia Lungren and hundreds of people who are damn sick and tired of The Dash Extortion Scheme. NOT POSSIBLE. So keep the hits coming Ellis aka Good Prevails. People who read Techdirt are not Frans of extortionists.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Watch Matthew Chan's Rant Against Linda Ellis
[ link to this | view in thread ]
January 2015 Update
It appears that "Good Prevails" is once again attempting to put out out-of-context "content" about me: an out-of-context, 60-second clip from a 33-minute, 9th Episode of The ELI Factor. 60-seconds selectively chosen out of 30-minutes where I am clearly sharing the screen with a co-host on an online show. Even the end of the out-of-context clip, it clearly shows my co-host laughing at me for "getting it out of my system" and I am "laughing" with him.
Prior to the episode beginning (not shown in her clip), I give ample warning that I would be engaged in some profanity-laced rants and to turn the video off if someone didn't want to be exposed to such content. At the end of the episode (also not shown in her clip), I apologize for the "ugly" episode and hope to not produce one like it again.
This 4-minute clip summarizes it all including the intro warning, her portions, and my public apology for the "ugly" episode I openly say that "should be password-protected" towards the conclusion of the episode IN CONTEXT. http://youtu.be/BHBXbD7FP7A
To learn more about what was in the "lost" 9th Episode of the ELI Factor, a 19-minute video & text Highlights Summary has been openly provided. http://defiantly.net/highlights-of-the-lost-9th-episode-of-eli-factor/
The "sudden" appearance of "Good Prevails" out of nowhere here on TechDirt is her "revenge and payback" response to my outspoken, public support of April Brown and the release of her book "Poetic Justice": http://defiantly.net/dash-poet-revenge-for-my-support-of-april-brown-and-poetic-justice/
Because the Georgia Supreme Court oral argument from October 7, 2014 appears to indicate that at least 3 Justices seemed to understand my arguments and a decision is nearing: "Good Prevails" is attempting a preemptive PR strike in advance of the decision within the next couple of months: http://defiantly.net/chan-v-ellis-georgia-supreme-court-oral-argument-videos/
I apologize if I have broken any posting protocols by placing links. However, it is the easiest way for those who are truly interested in understanding the fuller context of this legal battle.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Georgia Supreme Court: Chan didn't stalk.
http://www.gasupreme.us/sc-op/pdf/s14a1652.pdf
[ link to this | view in thread ]