I was involved in... let's just call it an uncomfortable situation with someone who had emailed my work and called my boss and made rather threatening comments to me and my employer over the phone.
So I informed the person that I was recording all of that person's phone calls from now on. I even bought a couple of Radio Shack recording interfaces and plugged them in to my work phone and home phone.
I got one further threatening call (a voice mail, actually, which I recorded and still have)... and surprisingly, the calls stopped after that.
Yes, this was in California, and yes, I don't agree with the two-party notification. But fortunately, the law does have exemptions for things like harassment and collecting data for criminal prosecution.
What I'm wondering is this: if a company does record their calls "for quality and training purposes", can they legally deny you the right to record the call? You've already been informed that the call is being recorded, so at that point, isn't it fair game - without any further notification?
Second, if that call is being recorded for training or quality purposes, as stated in the on-hold message, is that recording admissible in court or usable for any other purpose, since they specified that it would only be used for training? (For example, would it be legal to use that recording in a radio or TV ad?)
The implications of recording laws have always interested me, since they sometimes seem a little unclear.
My solution is simple: allow for independent development in the patent system.
The problem is that two people can't invent the same thing under modern patent law: the first person to invent something gets all the rights to that invention, even if someone else invents the same thing completely on his own.
If I come up with a solution to a problem completely independently of someone else, I should have the right to utilize my solution without paying someone else for my invention.
Fix that, and you've cured the patent system overnight.
The lawsuit process in general is expensive, because it takes a long time.
Part of the problem is that you can no longer just go straight to court. You have to go through a series of settlement conferences that have the goal of getting you to settle out before you actually hit the courtroom. In practice, however, they're just another way to drag the process out more and increase your lawyers' billable hours.
What I'd like to see is a "Plaintiff Pays" system, where if someone wants to sue another person, they have to put up the money for both parties. If the plaintiff wins, they're going to get the money back in the judgement. If they lose, then the defendant isn't being punished for defending themselves.
I'm sure that right there would fix most frivolous lawsuits.
I love Wikipedia, but this kind of situation is one of the things I hate about WP's design. The amazing part is that it hasn't changed in the time since I first started digging in to the editorial process.
I've long been a proponent of some sort of enforced user validation and "karma" system at Wikipedia... Ideally, only people with a track record of being reliable editors would be able to edit high profile articles, and random people would not be able to create WP pages until they've actually proven they know how the system works.
In this case, it appears that ICD thinks that Wikipedia is some sort of free web hosting service or some sort of free directory service, rather than being an encyclopedia. The difference is huge: Would ICD expect to see an entry about themselves in The World Book Encyclopedia?
If this went to court, it would be a a loss for both parties. ICD would not win, but the problem is that these lawsuits can drag on for years, and you've got to pay for your lawyer out of pocket.
Patent trolls bring me back around to my original assertion about patents vs lawsuits:
Copyright law says that if I independently come up with a similar or even identical piece of code/music/writing as someone else, I still get to own and use my creation.
Patent law says that if I invent something that someone else also invented, the first person to invent it "wins," and the other person loses out on his invention.
This is wrong, and changing this one thing would be enough to completely fix the patent system.
Why not donate to something worthwhile, rather than supporting someone who is (apparently) threatening and intimidating people?
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.
How about teaching people how radio actually works?
Put out a series of PSA's that teaches people how radio works.
Explain that their WiFi hotspot is like a little radio station.
Explain that anybody can listen to that radio station, and that it's even legal to do so.
Personally, I think leaving your home WiFi open is a bad idea; you're leaving some doors pretty wide open for abuse. But businesses like Starbucks and McDonald's use WiFi hotspots as an inducement to get people to shop there. People need to know that their packets CAN be sniffed while they're browsing Facebook at McDonald's or email at Starbucks.
Then show them how to fix it: use a VPN. Use https when it's available.
People are upset because they lack knowledge. They didn't know that this kind of sniffing was not only possible but legal.
Give them the knowledge they need, and they won't need to be angry, because they'll be able to take care of themselves.
This is EXACTLY what happened to a friend of mine. He managed to get the president of a local club removed based on allegations of embezzlement... which he can back up with bank statements and witnesses. (Basically, cash paid for dues never went to the bank.)
And of course, the deposed ex-president is suing. The thing is, win or lose, the defendant has no assets... so what's the point?
Shouldn't the public ALWAYS have a say in public policy?
The last time I checked, this country was nominally a Democracy. I could see those statements making sense in a dictatorship or a monarchy. (Of course, in a Communist state, there would be NO Copyright, since everything belongs to everyone - in theory.)
The fundamental problem of the music market place remains as true as ever: why pay for music when you can get it illegally free?
This isn't a ridiculous argument at all. Let's take out the legality part and ask the question: why would people pay for music if they can get it for free?
When I was a kid, we would swap tapes all the time I had a dual-cassette boombox, and for the price of a 90 minute blank tape, I could copy two albums. And people swapped tapes all the time; while someone in my social group actually had to buy an album the first time, we all ended up with a copy at some point.
The thing is, we didn't realize that this was actually illegal. We didn't even think about the legality of it... until the anti-piracy groups started pushing back. Even then, ironically enough, it was the software anti-piracy that got my attention, not the efforts of the music industry.
So this argument is entirely correct: if people can get content for free (both guilt free and money free), there's no reason to expect they'll pay for it.
However, over the last 15 years or so, the industry has steadily increased people's awareness of Copyright and that it's wrong to copy movies, music, and software without permission.
Giving people the unlimited ability to copy content, as facilitated by today's technology, would certainly ruin the business of today's music and movie business.
True, a lot of music is written for art's sake, but a lot of musicians and songwriters would not be nearly as prolific if they had to go work at a day job.
I remembered the Oatmeal part very well; the part I got confused about was "blogger". I hadn't realized there was a third party (aside from the lawyers) involved.
Either way, I still think our legal system needs to go further to protect the rights of people who can't pay thousands of dollars up front. Let the plaintiff post a bond for the legal fees up front; he can post however much he wants - $100 or $100,000 - but that's all that he can spend on the case. If he doesn't think he can win the case on what he can afford, he can't file.
I think the intent has never been to punish the consumer of copied goods, but rather to go after the supplier.
While there's an ethical burden on both the provider and the consumer of illicit goods, I think that in this case, the practical thing is to go after the suppliers just as a practical matter.
I'm lost with all the pronouns and not-names being thrown around.... not to mention the lack of background info in this article.
Let me see if I got this right:
Someone said something negative about Carreon.
Carreon took Someone to court, causing Someone to incur legal costs.
Carreon didn't win (he filed for dismissal.)
And Someone is out the legal fees he spent (or someone spent on his behalf.)
I don't see how this is fair to anyone. I've been threatened with defamation suits for speaking out against bullying behavior, and I would hate to think that the bully could drag me to court, let the case drag on for months or years, and then suddenly "Oops, I changed my mind" at the last second.
I don't know about the legal thing, but the RIGHT thing here is "loser pays", even when the plaintiff is the one who filed for a dismissal.
A local summer camp near where I live was having a harder and harder time filling their roster each year. They lost campers, so they had to raise the price. When they raised the price, more people didn't return the next year. The camp had finally reached the end of the last summer in which it could do business.
They were ready to close the doors, turn out the lights, and walk away. Then someone said, "I got an idea. Let's invite campers to come for free. We'll run on donations and have a lottery system to determine admission."
A decade later, the camp is better than ever. They've rebuilt structures, remodeled, upgraded, and they are full to bursting every summer with grade-school children, who absolutely love their experience.
Without international Copyright enforcement, Copyright may as well not exist. But we also can't allow treaties to dictate national policy.
We do need to establish that countries WILL respect other nations' Copyright laws. While TAFTA should not lay out specifics, such as the length of a Copyright or what constitutes fair use, I think it should establish each participants' obligation to respect the Copyrights and Patent laws of other signatories to the treaty.
On the post: Time Warner Cable: We Can Record You, But You Can't Record Us
Harassement FTW
So I informed the person that I was recording all of that person's phone calls from now on. I even bought a couple of Radio Shack recording interfaces and plugged them in to my work phone and home phone.
I got one further threatening call (a voice mail, actually, which I recorded and still have)... and surprisingly, the calls stopped after that.
Yes, this was in California, and yes, I don't agree with the two-party notification. But fortunately, the law does have exemptions for things like harassment and collecting data for criminal prosecution.
What I'm wondering is this: if a company does record their calls "for quality and training purposes", can they legally deny you the right to record the call? You've already been informed that the call is being recorded, so at that point, isn't it fair game - without any further notification?
Second, if that call is being recorded for training or quality purposes, as stated in the on-hold message, is that recording admissible in court or usable for any other purpose, since they specified that it would only be used for training? (For example, would it be legal to use that recording in a radio or TV ad?)
The implications of recording laws have always interested me, since they sometimes seem a little unclear.
On the post: Startups Realizing That Patent Trolls Are An Existential Threat
Re: Here's an idea
The problem is that two people can't invent the same thing under modern patent law: the first person to invent something gets all the rights to that invention, even if someone else invents the same thing completely on his own.
If I come up with a solution to a problem completely independently of someone else, I should have the right to utilize my solution without paying someone else for my invention.
Fix that, and you've cured the patent system overnight.
On the post: Startups Realizing That Patent Trolls Are An Existential Threat
Re: Why so expensive?
Part of the problem is that you can no longer just go straight to court. You have to go through a series of settlement conferences that have the goal of getting you to settle out before you actually hit the courtroom. In practice, however, they're just another way to drag the process out more and increase your lawyers' billable hours.
What I'd like to see is a "Plaintiff Pays" system, where if someone wants to sue another person, they have to put up the money for both parties. If the plaintiff wins, they're going to get the money back in the judgement. If they lose, then the defendant isn't being punished for defending themselves.
I'm sure that right there would fix most frivolous lawsuits.
On the post: Wikipedia Editor Threatened With Lawsuit For Participating In Discussion Leading To Deletion Of Entry
There's such a thing as too open
I've long been a proponent of some sort of enforced user validation and "karma" system at Wikipedia... Ideally, only people with a track record of being reliable editors would be able to edit high profile articles, and random people would not be able to create WP pages until they've actually proven they know how the system works.
In this case, it appears that ICD thinks that Wikipedia is some sort of free web hosting service or some sort of free directory service, rather than being an encyclopedia. The difference is huge: Would ICD expect to see an entry about themselves in The World Book Encyclopedia?
If this went to court, it would be a a loss for both parties. ICD would not win, but the problem is that these lawsuits can drag on for years, and you've got to pay for your lawyer out of pocket.
So nobody wins and life goes on.
On the post: Even An East Texas Court Has Told Uniloc That It Can't Patent Math
Re:
Copyright law says that if I independently come up with a similar or even identical piece of code/music/writing as someone else, I still get to own and use my creation.
Patent law says that if I invent something that someone else also invented, the first person to invent it "wins," and the other person loses out on his invention.
This is wrong, and changing this one thing would be enough to completely fix the patent system.
On the post: Even An East Texas Court Has Told Uniloc That It Can't Patent Math
Grrr... Uniloc chaps my hide, but Google seems to be apathetic.
What bothers me about this is that when you go to Google to ask about this, they're all "Sorry. We can't help. You need to deal with them yourself."
And you're all, "But you wrote and distributed teh Android. How can can this be patented?"
And Google's all "Sorry."
And Uniloc rakes in the millions that it has extorted from people.
http://www.x-plane.com/x-world/lawsuit/
On the post: Georgia State Court Issues Censorship Order Blocking Free Speech On Anti-Copyright Troll Message Board
Re:
Intimidating and humiliating a woman who's just demanding her rights? Wow. Let's back that up. That's a great idea.
On the post: Georgia State Court Issues Censorship Order Blocking Free Speech On Anti-Copyright Troll Message Board
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.
On the post: Whatever You Think Of The Google WiFi Settlement, It's Bad That It Requires Google To Attack Open WiFi
How about teaching people how radio actually works?
Explain that their WiFi hotspot is like a little radio station.
Explain that anybody can listen to that radio station, and that it's even legal to do so.
Personally, I think leaving your home WiFi open is a bad idea; you're leaving some doors pretty wide open for abuse. But businesses like Starbucks and McDonald's use WiFi hotspots as an inducement to get people to shop there. People need to know that their packets CAN be sniffed while they're browsing Facebook at McDonald's or email at Starbucks.
Then show them how to fix it: use a VPN. Use https when it's available.
People are upset because they lack knowledge. They didn't know that this kind of sniffing was not only possible but legal.
Give them the knowledge they need, and they won't need to be angry, because they'll be able to take care of themselves.
On the post: Florida Homeowner's Association Sues Resident For Critical Blog Comments, Seeks Identity Of Other Commenters
Re: So let's sum up:
And of course, the deposed ex-president is suing. The thing is, win or lose, the defendant has no assets... so what's the point?
Anti SLAPP suits suck.
On the post: What's Wrong With This Picture?
What's wrong with this picture? I know the answer.
That big screen is SO distracting when you're watching a show/play/concert, and someone has a big ol' 10" screen up in front of your face.
On the post: Copyright Lobby: The Public Has 'No Place In Policy Discussions'
what happened to Democracy?
The last time I checked, this country was nominally a Democracy. I could see those statements making sense in a dictatorship or a monarchy. (Of course, in a Communist state, there would be NO Copyright, since everything belongs to everyone - in theory.)
On the post: A Tale Of Two Studies: Can File Sharing Both Harm And Help Sales?
Re: There are lots of things that you can get for free that you pay for
When pirating music, you get exactly the same product as what you get when you pay for it.
On the post: A Tale Of Two Studies: Can File Sharing Both Harm And Help Sales?
This isn't a ridiculous argument at all. Let's take out the legality part and ask the question: why would people pay for music if they can get it for free?
When I was a kid, we would swap tapes all the time I had a dual-cassette boombox, and for the price of a 90 minute blank tape, I could copy two albums. And people swapped tapes all the time; while someone in my social group actually had to buy an album the first time, we all ended up with a copy at some point.
The thing is, we didn't realize that this was actually illegal. We didn't even think about the legality of it... until the anti-piracy groups started pushing back. Even then, ironically enough, it was the software anti-piracy that got my attention, not the efforts of the music industry.
So this argument is entirely correct: if people can get content for free (both guilt free and money free), there's no reason to expect they'll pay for it.
However, over the last 15 years or so, the industry has steadily increased people's awareness of Copyright and that it's wrong to copy movies, music, and software without permission.
Giving people the unlimited ability to copy content, as facilitated by today's technology, would certainly ruin the business of today's music and movie business.
True, a lot of music is written for art's sake, but a lot of musicians and songwriters would not be nearly as prolific if they had to go work at a day job.
On the post: Charles Carreon Claims A First Amendment Right To Make Vexatious Legal Threats Without Consequence
Re: Re: Confused
Either way, I still think our legal system needs to go further to protect the rights of people who can't pay thousands of dollars up front. Let the plaintiff post a bond for the legal fees up front; he can post however much he wants - $100 or $100,000 - but that's all that he can spend on the case. If he doesn't think he can win the case on what he can afford, he can't file.
On the post: Rep. Gohmert's Record For Stunning Technological Ignorance Is Broken By... Rep. Gohmert
Ugh. "Scroogle."
On the post: Register Of Copyright Suggests That Personal Downloading Should Not Be Seen As 'Piracy'
While there's an ethical burden on both the provider and the consumer of illicit goods, I think that in this case, the practical thing is to go after the suppliers just as a practical matter.
On the post: Charles Carreon Claims A First Amendment Right To Make Vexatious Legal Threats Without Consequence
Confused
Let me see if I got this right:
Someone said something negative about Carreon.
Carreon took Someone to court, causing Someone to incur legal costs.
Carreon didn't win (he filed for dismissal.)
And Someone is out the legal fees he spent (or someone spent on his behalf.)
I don't see how this is fair to anyone. I've been threatened with defamation suits for speaking out against bullying behavior, and I would hate to think that the bully could drag me to court, let the case drag on for months or years, and then suddenly "Oops, I changed my mind" at the last second.
I don't know about the legal thing, but the RIGHT thing here is "loser pays", even when the plaintiff is the one who filed for a dismissal.
On the post: Publishers Show Yet Again How To Make Money By Reducing The Price To Zero
Works for more than just newspapers...
They were ready to close the doors, turn out the lights, and walk away. Then someone said, "I got an idea. Let's invite campers to come for free. We'll run on donations and have a lottery system to determine admission."
A decade later, the camp is better than ever. They've rebuilt structures, remodeled, upgraded, and they are full to bursting every summer with grade-school children, who absolutely love their experience.
Some things just can't be paid for.
On the post: Patents, Trademarks And Copyrights Have No Place In Trade Agreements
Copyright is important, though
Without international Copyright enforcement, Copyright may as well not exist. But we also can't allow treaties to dictate national policy.
We do need to establish that countries WILL respect other nations' Copyright laws. While TAFTA should not lay out specifics, such as the length of a Copyright or what constitutes fair use, I think it should establish each participants' obligation to respect the Copyrights and Patent laws of other signatories to the treaty.
Next >>