The ACTA Internet Chapter: Putting Pieces Together
ACTA Guide, Part 1: The Talks To-Date
ACTA Guide, Part 2: The Documents (Official and Leaked)
ACTA Guide, Part 3: Transparency and ACTA Secrecy
Wayne Crookes Reportedly Sues Me Over My Blogroll |
| Print | |
|
Tuesday May 29, 2007
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
There are several reports (here, here, and here) that Wayne Crookes, who previously launched suits against a wide range of parties including Wikipedia, Yahoo, and a domain name registrar, has sued me in B.C. courts for defamation. I have not been served with the suit, but the reports indicate that I am being sued for an allegedly defamatory third party comment on my site that I took down and for writing about, and linking to, P2PNet.net, which in turn linked to another site that allegedly contained a defamatory posting. In other words, I'm reportedly being sued for maintaining a blogroll that links to a site that links to a site that contains some allegedly defamatory third party comments.
Comments (29)
Aaron
said:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Mr Wow, I'd like to wish you good luck and offer you support. However, I can't since I don't want to be sued!! |
|
... Excellent! Please keep us posted. This will be a most interesting contributory liability case, and it's important to me to know whether or not I'm facilitating defamation of anyone when I log onto the Internet. :) By the way, where does crookes get the money to bring all these lawsuits? |
|
... And now you get to spend a lot of money to prove your innocence. What a lovely libel system we've got going here. |
|
... The irony is, I hadn't heard of Mr. Crookes until he started suing everyone. How is this not exactly like a bully on the playground that threatens to punch you if you don't stop calling him a bully? |
|
very irrelevant Things this ridiculous have a way of working themselves out. Anyone can file suits, but either he won't be able to find counsel to proceed with most of the more ridiculous claims, he'll run out of money, or a judge will tell him in no uncertain terms where to go. If it escalates much beyond that, he will have stepped on a broad enough spectrum of interests that the problem will eventually solve itself anyway when he accidentally falls off a building onto a pile of bullets or something. Either way, no great loss. |
|
... On the good side, it might be nice to set a precedent decision on the level of responsibility attributed for online publishers (or republishers) regarding such content. If it comes out that this sort of posting doesn't carry liability to all linkers, then it may have a chilling effect on this kind of over-litigious behavior. Since you haven't been served yet, I don't need to wish you luck, but in the event such documents arrive, I hope you, and a reasonable judge send him packing with haste. |
|
ssu At least in the US, there are, oh gosh, what's the term? Let me use an example. Lets say a man in a car gets spooked by a horse at the side of the road. He crashes into a vegitable stand. The man in the vegitable stand can sue the driver of the car for neglagance, but he could not sue the owner of the horse for damages. In effect what is happening here is that Mr Crookes is not sueing the driver, or even the owner of the horse, but the person who sold the horse to its current owner in the first place. I would really be surprised if this does not get thrown out of court. |
|
... As a large portion of the /. crowd are suggesting, Crookes is erring by not sueing Google. I mean, they link to everyone, so obviously they are even more culpable than you. No offence Michael, but searching around on your site to find the old posts concerning this ... not easy. not hard, but not easy. Searching Google to find the same stuff, only links directly to the original stories and posts that have his knickers in a knot? 3 words and 1 mouse click. heh. |
|
... ssu writes, "what's the term?" (followed by an example... Perhaps the term is "transitive", defined in set theory as: Of a relation R on a set S, such that if xRy and yRz, then xRz for all members x, y and z of S. |
|
... Hi there, I believe the legal term you're looking for is "remoteness", which is a defense to negligence, as in the horse spooks man situation cited above. Presumably Crookes is bringing a libel case to court, working on the assumption than putting someone in your blogroll is tantamount to endorsing their statements and thus libelous in nature. I too hope the judge throws this out. Shenanigans I say! |
|
Blogroll Blogroll is the term someone unnecessarily made up for what was previously called a links section. |
|
Re: Blogroll "Blogroll is the term someone unnecessarily made up for what was previously called a links section." ...just as Wayne Crookes is someone the Universe unnecessarily made up for what was previously called an attention whore. Actually, he does serve a purpose; a guy like this is the sort of good excuse everyday people need to get off their apathetic intellectual butts and take notice of. His message isn't really important, other than acting as a bright torch of anti-intellectualism that encourages us to act against. It's good to see who stays strong against this clown (apoligies to any real clowns that see this as libelous by association), and good reason to encourage those who cave to find their footing (as openpolitics.ca seems to have done by way of apologizing). It's sadly not true that "everybody hates a bully" (Bush, by being elected a 2nd time, put the final nail in that coffin), but hopefully the BC courts will dismiss this marginal individual (which, to me, seems more mean and perhaps juvenile than libelous, but its hard to tell nowadays) with a scolding, and hopefully the victims of this sort of puritanical paranoia won't be put out of pocket too severely. |
|
openpolitics.ca I'm sorry Michael, that this nuisance has now come upon your doorstep. I saw that post and don't doubt that the commenter, who is almost certainly the same individual who posted on my site, was libel-baiting and testing you. We should recall though that Mr. Crookes is acting within his rights under the traditional interpretation and jurisprudence of libel. And that, as we know is the problem. Crookes is not "evil and stupid" the law is. PS. I would invite waylander to consider the difference between posting an apology, (which I did) and removing the "fair comment" postings about him (which i did not, unlike rabble.ca, and was the first one to be sued). |
|
frig em Can't you guys counter sue for for damages, stress and so forth that this fribulous archaich suite is doing to people? |
|
IMHO As I understand it, republishing a libel is naughty, a rule in English Common law that dates back hundreds of years: [ link ] In principle republication of a defamatory statement is itself a libel. It is no defence to say that what is published is merely a repetition of a statement that was previously published and that did not incur prosecution. In principle every person who repeats or republishes a defamatory statement faces the same liability. . . |
|
... Does anyone know how many have been sued by Crooks to date? I mean since the whole green party thing went down and it all started? |
|
... So, Crookes is suing the Internet for defamation of character... Offhand, I'd say that alone is more conducive to people considering him a horse's ass than anything written about him by anyone else. |
|
How is this different? "How is this not exactly like a bully on the playground that threatens to punch you if you don't stop calling him a bully?" How is this not exactly like a nice kid on the playground that threatens to punch you if you don't stop calling him a bully? That's the problem: on the intertubes, there is no difference. |
|
will lawsuits determine what political i Having reviewed the suit filed in BC, I note that Mr. Geist is being sued for a signed post on this blog that expressed my own honestly held opinion and personal analysis of the former political situation in the Green Party of Canada. It's quite a bit milder than some of the comments above. I have no particular prejudice nor malice to Mr. Crookes. Even after he had filed suit against me, I sought his input for an open letter on the Federal Accountability Act. I have repeatedly offered to correct any error of fact he can point to in any page of both livingplatform.ca (which I published) and openpolitics.ca. I apologized in my open letter for any escalation of the matter attributable to me prior to that date (June 2006). As I clearly stated in that letter, all these controversies regard the many objections to his being both a lender to a party and simultaneously supervising its spending. Metaphor and historical analogy aside, Bill C-54, which recently died in committee, would have sharply curtailed personal loans by individuals to politicians. So, obviously, this at least remains a current political issue worthy of discussion, and that discussion must include examples of problems caused by such conflicts. Attempting to control the terms in which his conflict is discussed has in my opinion backfired on Mr. Crookes. As many people note, they didn't hear of him until the lawsuits, and others who were open to his view, including myself, have become less so lately. This could have been prevented. I made numerous overtures to Mr. Crookes to resolve the situation and offered binding arbitration and intervene to negotiate other private solutions that would preserve privacy of himself, of political commentators critical of him, and avoid criticism spreading to his company, which was never criticized (but which Crookes has himself involved as a plaintiff). I became much less open to Mr. Crookes' view after he refused, after he began to demand that forums used by his political opponents (notably the gpc-members yahoogroup) be shut down, and as his lawsuits and demands mounted. It became obvious to me that he sought to control a political debate and expose all of his critics and opponents by name, which free societies discourage (why we have secret ballots). He also sought to have records not just hidden but altered or destroyed, which both Mr. Pilling and I agreed was unacceptable when livingplatform.ca (published by me) transferred its data to openpolitics.ca (published by him). Accurate records protect everybody. So, I must disagree with Mr. Pilling that Crookes is "acting within his rights under the traditional interpretation and jurisprudence of libel." Those rights do not include suppression or altering of records nor fishing expeditions exposing all sources. To characterize political debates as malicious simply because they are disapproving of certain people holding power is also abusive: Opposing someone politically and disapproving of their political action is not malicious, unless every political activist and challenger is malicious. To radically extend liability claims to persons who merely mention that a document exists (i.e. link to it) or have merely moved bits without having an opportunity to have modified them, or who have done nothing but respect privacy laws and conventions when an allegation remains unproven, is also not part of the jurisprudence of libel. This is more like suing the printer and delivery boy for what the newspaper says. It's been done, yes, but that doesn't make it traditional. The common law, at least as it has evolved in accord with democratic principles in the UK and other places, also does not allow systematic suppression of whole topics, issues or debates. This is clearly against the public interest. Mr. Crookes has argued that he is not doing that, but Mr. Geist has argued that his suits may be a threat to free speech in general. I frankly believe that Mr. Crookes is suing Mr. Geist for disagreeing with him on an overt political issue, to mute his political voice. If this is not his intent, then why is he not suing say slashdot and other forums which have hosted low opinions of Mr. Crookes ? Once lawsuits determine what we can talk about politically, we are done as a democracy. Accordingly, I offer my affadavit or any other evidence of use to Michael Geist in defending against Crookes, as long as it does not compromise the principles above. |
|
Auditor in Chef Defamation laws are meant to be a way for individuals to have the means to defend themselves against powerful, malicious critics. But this makes little sense when we bring arguments to the web, since the web gives everyone the same power: to post your own unpopular opinions to your own blogs. Suing people who merely link to articles or who post facts and fair criticisms is suppression of free speech, especially if they give the opportunity for individuals to add their own comments or correct inaccuracies. If it isn't truth, and isn't political satire, then take it down. Suing Google over something like this is idiotic. Google links to everything, so they, and the Internet, should be treated as a common carrier. They are content-neutral: they exercise no editorial control and cannot check factual accuracy. |
|
... Now Mr. Geist...is it not rather funny/ironic that you endorsed another lawyer in the Ottawa Citizen (article by Dan Butler) in and about July 12-17/07. Richard is also another failed runner for the Green Party and also in Ottawa? He worked for the CHRC...? He and the CHRC have tried to shut down other internet sites for comments "others" have also posted in. |
|
... Here is the Ottawa Citizen article and is this a case of being hoisted upon your own petard? Many zealots often bite the hand that feeds them. >>>Richard Warman: Censorship Champion ONE MAN'S WAR ON INTERNET HATE He calls himself more 'Aryan' than the hatemongers he chases, but Ottawa lawyer Richard Warman has become the bete noire of Canada's neo-Nazis, writes Don Butler. Don Butler, The Ottawa Citizen Published: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 His admirers call him one of the bravest people in Canada. His enemies rage that he's a "professional complainer" and "devious character" who suppresses their freedom of speech. The most extreme openly call for his death. But whatever you think of Ottawa lawyer Richard Warman, this much seems clear: He's the Canadian neo-Nazi movement's worst nightmare. Over the past half-dozen years, Mr. Warman, acting on his own, has lodged 15 complaints with the Canadian Human Rights Commission against neo-Nazis and white supremacists for spreading hatred on the Internet against Jews, blacks, homosexuals and other target groups. Richard Warman has launched 15 complaints with the Canadian Human Rights Commission against neo-Nazis and white supremacist websites. Nine of his complaints have led to rulings by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal that shut down hate websites. His most recent victory came yesterday, when the tribunal upheld his complaint against Vanier resident Bobby James Wilkinson, who operated the "Canadian Nazi Party" website. The tribunal fined Mr. Wilkinson $4,000 and ordered him to stop using the Internet to spread hatred. Two other complaints were settled, to Mr. Warman's satisfaction, in mediation. The rest are still winding their way through the system. Of the 11 human rights tribunal rulings to date on Internet hate, Richard Warman was the complainant in nine -- including every ruling since 2002. He estimates he's spent more than $30,000 of his own money pursuing his complaints. "He's had an enormous impact," says Michael Geist, the Canadian research chair in Internet and e-commerce law at the University of Ottawa. "In a sense, he's got the mechanics of how we deal with online hate up and running. It's fair to say no one has been as effective or persistent." The result is a body of jurisprudence that leaves little doubt Canadian law applies to online hate speech that originates in this country. The decisions, says Mr. Geist, "have sent a clear warning to those who engage in hate speech that this is not a no-law land." Toronto lawyer Warren Kinsella, whose 1994 book, Web of Hate, enraged the radical right, calls Mr. Warman "extraordinarily courageous. Most people do not understand that when you speak up against terrorists -- in this case, far-right terrorists -- they do not thereafter engage you in scholarly debate. Sometimes, they want to kill you. Warman knows that, but he keeps going." That makes him, in Mr. Kinsella's estimation, "one of the bravest people in Canada." Last month, the Canadian Jewish Congress recognized Mr. Warman's efforts with the prestigious Saul Hayes Human Rights Award. Yet despite the default assumptions of his neo-Nazi enemies, he's not a Jew. In fact, he's not a member of any of the racial or religious groups hatemongers routinely target. "I'm a WASP boy from small-town Ontario," confesses Mr. Warman, a fit-looking man in his late 30s with close-cropped blond hair. "I'm actually more Aryan by the stereotypical definition than some of the defendants in these cases." To Len Rudner, the Canadian Jewish Congress's national director of community relations, that simply makes Mr. Warman's solo crusade all the more remarkable. "The fact that Richard says through his deeds, 'this is my problem, not because I'm a Jew, but because I'm a Canadian,' is certainly meaningful to me, and it should be meaningful to everybody," says Mr. Rudner. "It's easy to applaud from the back rows," he says, "far more difficult to be in the orchestra pit leading the band. And that's where Richard is." It's frequently not a very comfortable place to be. After Mr. Warman launched his first complaint in 2002 against Fred Kyburz, an Alberta man who was targeting Jews on his website, Mr. Kyburz retaliated by trying to get him fired from his government job. He also threatened to sue Mr. Warman and deploy "flyers" to ruin his reputation, and made veiled threats against his life. After upholding Mr. Warman's complaint, the human rights tribunal ordered Mr. Kyburz to pay him $30,000 in compensation for his retaliation and threats, though Mr. Warman has yet to see a penny. Last year, when one of Mr. Warman's complaints led to the jailing of London, Ont., white supremacist Tomasz Winnicki, two U.S. neo-Nazi websites called for Mr. Warman's death. One site said killing him and others involved in the case "would be a genuine act of patriotism." Another, run by Virginian Bill White, head of the American National Socialist Workers Party, published Mr. Warman's home address and phone number, adding: "Aryan brothers are encouraged to pay the sonofabitch communist a visit." Mr. White later told CBC that Mr. Warman deserved to be killed, a view he has since repeated on various websites. Mr. Warman, whose affable manner masks inner steel, says he was initially taken aback by the threats. "I had no idea that people would be so psychotic as to start posting death threats," he says. He's come to understand, though, that such tribulations come with the territory he has chosen to inhabit. "Human rights work and advancement will always come with some level of cost," he recognizes. But he won't be intimidated. "I would never give the satisfaction and the victory to the hate-mongers." The threats have, however, made him far more cautious and private. He won't talk about where he works, for example, acknowledging only that it's with the federal government. Nor will Mr. Warman, who was born into a military family in Lahr, West Germany, say where he was raised, to protect family members. "When you have people out there inciting people to murder you, giving your home address, giving your picture and providing them with maps on how to get there," he says, "it really forces you to build up some fairly high personal walls." Mr. Warman has been monitoring neo-Nazis and white supremacists for nearly two decades, but turned to the task in earnest while articling at the Federal Court in Ottawa after graduating from McGill with a master's degree in law in 1999. He'd been inspired by a human rights tribunal hearing he attended in 1998 involving the Canadian Heritage Front, then Canada's largest neo-Nazi group. He watched in admiration as the human rights commission's lawyer, Eddie Taylor, led the assault. "He looked like he had just stepped off his Harley," he recalls of Mr. Taylor. "He had his shit-kickers on in court, he had this great big white beard, this shock of white long hair tied back in a ponytail. It was like poetry watching him kick the Heritage Front around the tribunal hearing room." That 1998 hearing dealt with a telephone hate line operated by the Heritage Front. But even then, far right groups were turning in droves to the Internet to disseminate their poisonous messages. Mr. Warman knew that in Canada, the pool of leadership figures within the neo-Nazi movement was fairly shallow. "So I basically said, if you targeted the leadership and the worst offenders of this movement in a systemic fashion, you could then knock these people off the greatest communications tool that had been invented for their purposes." He set about doing just that, beginning with Mr. Kyburz in early 2002. "If you wanted someone on a worst offender basis, he was up there," he says. On an almost daily basis, Mr. Kyburz was "cranking out hate propaganda" against Jews from his website, Patriots on Guard. "He'd gotten to the point where he was posting material that advocated the genocide of the Jewish community." His eyes widen at the memory. "You can't believe that in the 21st century there are still people out there who cling to this kind of disgraceful and utterly repulsive hatemongering." He had to endure a nasty counter-attack from Mr. Kyburz, but Mr. Warman prevailed. On May 9, 2003, the human rights tribunal ordered Mr. Kyburz to shut down his web forum and refrain from posting similar hateful messages elsewhere on the Internet. As well as ordering Mr. Kyburz to pay Mr. Warman compensation, the tribunal fined him $7,500. Mr. Warman continued to scour the Internet for Canadian hatemongers, finding many at a U.S. neo-Nazi site called Stormfront, whose web forum has a Canadian section. "It's almost like moths to a flame," he says. "They can't avoid it." He won another tribunal victory in 2005, but that was just a prelude to his stunning success in 2006, when the tribunal upheld no fewer than five of his complaints. The most memorable was against Mr. Winnicki, London, Ont.'s self-confessed "biggest hater." Even before the case reached the tribunal, Mr. Warman was pushing the human rights commission to take some action because, he says, "the material was horrific and it just kept going." In 2005, the commission applied for, and got, an interim injunction from the Federal Court ordering Mr. Winnicki to stop spreading hatred on the Internet until the tribunal heard and decided his case. "That was the first-ever injunction dealing with Internet hate," says Mr. Warman. "It was incredibly rewarding to see the law being advanced by virtue of the cases that I had brought." Mr. Winnicki ignored the injunction and was subsequently sentenced to nine months in jail for contempt, a sentence later reduced to three months on appeal. That was another first -- the first time someone in Canada was imprisoned for posting hate on the Internet. Meanwhile, the tribunal ruled against him, fining him $6,000 for his "vicious and dehumanizing" messages. While Mr. Warman's successes are gratifying, they have come at a cost that goes beyond the merely financial. There are the threats, of course, and the need they impose to take precautions. But he also believes he's paid a price in career terms. Between 2002 and 2004, he worked as an investigator for the human rights commission. (He insists he pursued his complaints on his own time and they had no connection with his commission work.) When the commission decided to reallocate resources in 2004, Mr. Warman was the only investigator laid off. [William Fennimore comment: This asshole is so obnoxious that even his fellow fanatics at the Human ӓRight Commission couldnԒt stand him. According to Warman, it was all a neo-Nazi conspiracy instigated by Paul Fromm, which is why he is suing the latter for libel.] He's convinced the actions of the neo-Nazi community were a factor in that decision, and alleges so in an ongoing libel action against one of the Canadian far right's most prominent figures, Paul Fromm, a frequent adversary at tribunal hearings. Given the dangers and difficulties, many might ask why he persists. He turns the question around. "Let's say you found out that somebody was calling for the genocide of your neighbour. Isn't it incumbent on everyone to say, 'it's not OK and that's got to be stopped'?" he demands. "I don't really want to see my Jewish neighbours wiped out. I don't really want to see my black neighbours wiped out, or anyone else who's among the target group." Part of his motivation comes from having relatives who fought Nazis in the Second World War. "It's really a betrayal of the veterans and all those who contributed in World War II to ignore the ongoing threat from these groups that are seeking to resurrect an idea that should have died 60 years ago in a bunker in Berlin." He also feels it's incumbent on him as a lawyer to repay the investment society made in his education by working for the societal good. Ignoring the problem, he insists, would be "betraying my duty to the profession. "It's imperative that individuals and groups take steps as strong as they can to defend human rights in Canada," he says. "Because if they're not defended, they get undermined. Eventually they get worn down through disuse. I could never bear to see that happen." Anti-Semitism and racism, he argues, are a community problem and need to be treated as such. "There's never been a history of genocide that hasn't been proceeded by demonization." While his neo-Nazi adversaries try to paint him as a foe of free speech, Mr. Warman, a four-time candidate for the Green party, notes that the Supreme Court has consistently denied protection to those who direct hatred at identifiable groups. "It is so poisonous and so toxic to the multicultural nature of modern Canadian society that it is unacceptable and will not be tolerated." According to Mr. Geist, the far right's vilification of Mr. Warman is misdirected. "In a sense, their beef is with the government and society as a whole," he says. Mr. Warman "is simply using the legal tools that we as a society have chosen to create to try to deal with this issue." After nearly seven years in the anti-hatred trenches, Mr. Warman says he has accomplished many of his goals. He's been able to shut down the worst offenders and establish that the Internet is not the Wild West, "somewhere where you could just run amok." He also wanted to show that people can be held accountable for their actions. He feels he's done that, too, though the system is so cumbersome it often reinforces the barriers to pursuing hatemongers. "There's got to be some method of improving the system so it doesn't take two to four years to have these cases go from start to finish," he says. Better funding for human rights bodies would help. "If you're serious about saying that society needs to be protected from hate speech," he says, "then you have to put your money where your mouth is." Mr. Warman is constantly evaluating his one-man crusade, "to make sure it's making a useful contribution and that it's something I've still got the fire in the belly over." He pauses, perhaps contemplating the next white supremacist in his sights. "Up to this point, I haven't had any problems with either of those." Bad news for the haters: Richard Warman isn't going away any time soon. |
|
And where were you? Another example of misguided taxpayer funded zealotry. But, if you look at their website and the petition that was growing - WHERE were YOU? I am there as are a lot of lefties like myself. You and Mr. Kinsella are noteably absent. What is that saying about when the thought police came for different groups....? >>> Mark Fournier Free Dominion August 3, 2007 Gentes/CHRC withdraw complaint against Free Dominion Moments ago, we received another letter from the Canadian Human Rights Commission, dated August 1, 2007, informing us that Marie-Line Gentes has withdrawn her complaint against Free Dominion and requested that the CRHC take no further action against us. I would like to thank Ms. Gentes for making this move and will assume her motives for doing so were honourable. The meat of the letter reads: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary of Complaint 1. The issue in this complaint is whether the respondent communicated or caused to be communicated, by way of the Internet, material that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt on the basis of religion, race, national or ethnic origin and sexual orientation. Background to Complaint 2. The complainant alleges that the respondent has communticated or caused to be communicated discriminatory material on www.freedominion.ca Free Dominion is a Canadian website that was inspired by Free Republic in the United States. It is described as a Canadian conservative news forum for the discussion of conservative philosophy and activism. The founders of the site are Mark Fournier and Connie Wilkins. Request to Withdraw Complaint 3. On July 17th and 23rd 2007, the complainant contacted the Commission advising that she wanted to withdraw her complaint. Recommendation 4. It is recommeded, pursuant to paragraph 44(3)(b) of the Canadian Human Rights Act, that the Commission take no further proceedings in the complaint because the complainant has asked to withdraw the complaint. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Also included was a cover letter asking us to take note of the fact that Investigative branch of the CHRC will be recommending that the Commission not proceed with this case. It is said that the best victory is in the battle you don't have to fight. This show of strength by people from across Canada - and from beyond our borders - has stopped this battle before it had to be fought. Because all things with the CHRC are political, either Ms. Gentes or the Commission, or both, have decided that an attack at this time on Free Dominion is a political bridge too far. We have all won an important battle here today and we should take what we can from the lessons we have learned. These above-the-law organizations are not omnipotent. |
|
Internet Freedom Too long to post and difficult to read...unless someone here really cares about litigious lawyers, quasi judicial/law enforcement agents and their supporters/ freedom of speech and expression! [ link ] Guess from the lack of interest here...no one really cares? 10-4 |
|
trying to control links by suing This article on a suit by AP also mentions Wayne Crookes, since he like AP is trying to control links by suing those who link. http://q8-downloads.com/5547/news/p2pnet/ap-lawsuit-threatens-the-net.html "“In Canada, Crookes has achieved a virtual media freeze, on and offline,” said p2pnet. “Afraid of being added to his list of victims, print and electronic publications are conspicuous because they’re carefully avoiding mention of the case which is, of course, exactly what Crookes wants.” Now, “Unfortunately, an AP win here could ultimately subject the entire concept of linking on the Internet to a new legal standard, especially links to news stories and blog posts,” Ord posts , going on: If fair use becomes “permission linking” then much of the Internet could be challenged. The AP seems to think it has a monopoly on high quality content. A legal standard based on this case would mean all linking is subject to approval by the party being linked to." |
Subscribe to this comment's feed