Court allows copyright on cease-and-desist
Thrax
🐌Austin, TX Icrontian
In October of '07, a particular law firm was sending out "Copyrighted" cease and desist notices to websites speaking poorly of publicly-marketed products. The goal was to prevent the C&D notices from being reprinted. A group known as Public Citizens hit back and challenged the notion, but the judge overseeing the case ruled in favor of the law firm.
Here is a small snippet of the law firm's shenanigans:
[blockquote]The publication of cease and desist letters is an easy way for scofflaws
to generate online 'mobosphere' support for illegal activity and, until today, many businesses have been hesitant to take action to address some of the lawlessness online because of possible retaliation and attacks.[/blockquote]
The obtuseness is plainly chilling. The C&D letter itself is a document that can only <em>suppose</em> infringement. If the content in question is redacted, generally the matter ends, which indicates that the C&D <em>itself</em> is of little import. No one has ever died from a lion's roar, merely the subsequent bite. That is the crucial point in this matter: The C&D is an arbitrary notification that someone's feathers have been ruffled, but the accusation therein is absolutely meaningless until the accusation is evaluated by a court of law.
Allowing law firms to run willy-nilly with the C&D, thereby cowing the "Little guy" into compliance is corporate legislation at its finest. As surely as the law entitles a firm to represent its client in such notices, the would-be defendant should have the right to notify clients and peers that it is under scrutiny. As the old saying goes: By the power of truth, I, while living, have conquered the universe. I question anyone who is not willing to let their accusation stand on its own merit, and instead must make the logically-fallacious appeal to authority to generate gravitas.
"Fear of retaliation and attacks" is a thin and flaccid veil, given that it only serves to promote the welfare of their client above the welfare of the C&D's victim. Fundamentally, it makes the statement that the emotional impact of <i>receiving</i> a notice is ever so much less than the <i>epic, morally-trying struggle</i> of giving one. Pardon me while I daub my tears.
If there is truly illegal business being conducted, we're fairly certain a laughably web 2.0 "Mobosphere" isn't going to run the show in the court. The public and its "Mobospheres" does not have the final say, and to suggest that it does is an insult to the judicial system. And to suggest that whomever received the cease and desist is intrinsically in the wrong, and therefore cannot publicly object to an outrageous claim, is arrogance in the highest.
Here is a small snippet of the law firm's shenanigans:
[blockquote]The publication of cease and desist letters is an easy way for scofflaws
to generate online 'mobosphere' support for illegal activity and, until today, many businesses have been hesitant to take action to address some of the lawlessness online because of possible retaliation and attacks.[/blockquote]
The obtuseness is plainly chilling. The C&D letter itself is a document that can only <em>suppose</em> infringement. If the content in question is redacted, generally the matter ends, which indicates that the C&D <em>itself</em> is of little import. No one has ever died from a lion's roar, merely the subsequent bite. That is the crucial point in this matter: The C&D is an arbitrary notification that someone's feathers have been ruffled, but the accusation therein is absolutely meaningless until the accusation is evaluated by a court of law.
Allowing law firms to run willy-nilly with the C&D, thereby cowing the "Little guy" into compliance is corporate legislation at its finest. As surely as the law entitles a firm to represent its client in such notices, the would-be defendant should have the right to notify clients and peers that it is under scrutiny. As the old saying goes: By the power of truth, I, while living, have conquered the universe. I question anyone who is not willing to let their accusation stand on its own merit, and instead must make the logically-fallacious appeal to authority to generate gravitas.
"Fear of retaliation and attacks" is a thin and flaccid veil, given that it only serves to promote the welfare of their client above the welfare of the C&D's victim. Fundamentally, it makes the statement that the emotional impact of <i>receiving</i> a notice is ever so much less than the <i>epic, morally-trying struggle</i> of giving one. Pardon me while I daub my tears.
If there is truly illegal business being conducted, we're fairly certain a laughably web 2.0 "Mobosphere" isn't going to run the show in the court. The public and its "Mobospheres" does not have the final say, and to suggest that it does is an insult to the judicial system. And to suggest that whomever received the cease and desist is intrinsically in the wrong, and therefore cannot publicly object to an outrageous claim, is arrogance in the highest.
0
Comments