Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

•  

  

  AJ, Apr 20th, 2009 @ 4:34am

  
  

  so...

  (and it's not a straight line I'm feeing you...)
  
  What's a 'griefer'?

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Jim, Apr 20th, 2009 @ 5:58am

  
  

  Re: so...

  Let me google that for you.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  R. Miles, Apr 20th, 2009 @ 6:18am

  
  

  Re: so...

  What's a 'griefer'?
  Forget the technical definition. These are people who cheat at games because they can't stand to lose, thinking (in their head mostly) they will be world recognized as the greatest player on earth.
  
  If anything, they're the most pathetic of all game players worldwide and fuel the reason for Jack Thompson's campaign about violence and video games.
  
  Because these types of gamers are the ones who get violent when losing, usually throwing controllers or attacking people due to their lack of true gaming skills.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Frosty840, Apr 20th, 2009 @ 6:43am

  
  

  Re: Re: so...

  What the *hell* are you talking about?
  Griefers are the people who play outside the rules in order to annoy the people inside the rules.
  The guy who throws grenades into friendly spawn areas, or who ascts as a part of your team until the final boss, then leaves the game.
  
  I acknowledge that your comment might be some kind of ironic comment-griefing, but like all griefing before and after it, it wasn't funny.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  slick230, Apr 20th, 2009 @ 4:41am

  
  

  enter the following into your Google search...
  
  define: griefer
  
  That should get you and answer.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Cro, Apr 20th, 2009 @ 5:01am

  
  

  funny...

  That copying an infinite resource is worth $35,001 fine - but infringing a persons individual privacy is only worth $5,000 fine.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Anonymous Coward, Apr 20th, 2009 @ 5:21am

  
  

  Re: funny...

  Hah, hah, hah. It was not an infinite resource until after the griefer illegitimately acquired it, was it? I would say that taking a non-infinite good and turning it illegally into an infinite good was worth the entire amount of the settlement. The violation of individual privacy was just icing on the cake.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Chronno S. Trigger, Apr 20th, 2009 @ 6:18am

  
  

  Re: Re: funny...

  That's the point Cro was trying to make. Copying a picture that was copied from the original that the owner still has (aka: not theft) is worth $35,000 (+$1 for some reason), but a violation of personal privacy is only worth $5,000. It sounds like someone's priorities are off. And from the sounds of your post, so are yours.
  
  Since when did violations of our personal, god given rights amount to 1/6th of a government given copyright? The original owner of the photo probably didn't even register it with the copyright office. Not that I disagree with the punishment, I just think those numbers should be reversed.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Anonymous Coward, Apr 20th, 2009 @ 7:15am

  
  

  Re: Re: Re: funny...

  You do not need to register documents with the copyright office for copyright to be in effect. The griefer acquired the photo under false pretenses. The right to privacy is not god-given, it is a matter of law, just as copyright is. As for the numbers, it is irrelevant since they were assigned to various issues. I suspect that legally (I do not know for a fact) that copyright violations carry a bigger potential fine than violation of privacy.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  The infamous Joe, Apr 20th, 2009 @ 9:27am

  
  

  Re: Re: Re: Re: funny...

  I suspect that legally (I do not know for a fact) that copyright violations carry a bigger potential fine than violation of privacy.
  
  
  ..and that doesn't scare the shit out of you?

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Anonymous Coward, Apr 20th, 2009 @ 10:19am

  
  

  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: funny...

  lol...Since this was a civil suit, not really. Civil courts have different standards from criminal courts in rules of evidence, the standard to convict, etc. As we have seen from an array of civil trials, they have very little comparison to reality. Where do you think the ridiculous payments for "malpractice" and "defective" products comes from? If you are only frightened just now, you are a little late to the party.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Anonymous Coward, Apr 20th, 2009 @ 6:43am

  
  

  Re: funny...

  That's what happens when you allow corporations to create your laws.
  
  Sounds like some hippy conspiracy theory but I'm finding its sadly true. They're the ones with the resources to push what they want and politicians rarely "do the right thing".

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Kamu, Apr 20th, 2009 @ 5:23am

  
  

  What do we learn from this?

  Host your blogs in the Netherlands and don't use your real name anywhere. Then you can avoid all this bullshit.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  jjray, Apr 20th, 2009 @ 6:31am

  
  

  default judgment

  Interesting case but the fact that this is a default judgment does not tell us much about how the courts shall view these sorts of copyright infringement claims. A "default judgment" is one where the defendant entered no response at all. That means all allegations of the complaint are taken as true and no potential defense (such as fair use) is considered by the court.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Anonymous Coward, Apr 20th, 2009 @ 6:50am

  
  

  Re: default judgment

  Which also means they probably didn't even show up to court. So if he doesn't even care to do that, what makes them think he cares enough to pay. Or even has the ability to pay.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  demonsun, Apr 20th, 2009 @ 7:03am

  
  

  Re: Re: default judgment

  Your forgetting something, it doesn't matter if he doesn't want to pay, the courts have many tools for getting the money. Heres a few of them, Seizure of real estate, garnishing of wages, seizing of bank accounts, and oh yeah throwing him in jail for contempt of court.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  demonsun, Apr 20th, 2009 @ 7:01am

  
  

  Re: default judgment

  He did respond, in a letter to the court which was treated as a response, and a motion to dismiss. However he failed to appear or even make a defense, hence the default judgment.
  
  The reason for the copyright charge is simple, he did not have the right to republish the photo. at least according to the judge, who by the way still has to justify his decisions in his written or oral decision.
  
  One other thing, the probable reason for the disparity between the amounts awarded, was that the judge was using the amounts that followed the various statutes regarding the amount of claims, and such.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Anonymous Coward, Apr 20th, 2009 @ 7:16am

  
  

  Re: default judgment

  I can see fair use. After all, the poster lied. So anything resulting from the lie must be fair use. Either that, or the liar realized he got caught with his hand in the cookie jar and regardless of what his logic was he knew he was going to lose.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Norm, Apr 20th, 2009 @ 12:30pm

  
  

  Re: default judgment

  Also, default judgements tend to result in default (read: max) fines. So these numbers would probably by reduced had the trial actually taken place.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Anonymous Coward, Apr 20th, 2009 @ 6:58am

  
  

  where does the grift come into play, what was the scam and what was the pay-out?

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Anonymous Coward, Apr 20th, 2009 @ 7:36am

  
  

  Re:

  where does the grift come into play, what was the scam and what was the pay-out?
  
  "Griefer", not "grifter".

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  momingle, Apr 20th, 2009 @ 8:28am

  
  

  Craigslist need a better way to alert fake ad

  Craigslist need a better way to alert fake ad. It should allow users to reply publicly on the ad or to see all the postings by a particular user. That is how MoMingle.com does it. MoMingle also has a better interface which it shows messages/ads on a map so that it can be easily searched by zip code or address.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  d, Apr 20th, 2009 @ 9:04am

  
  

  Re: Craigslist need a better way to alert fake ad

  haha, how much are you getting for advertising it and posting links?

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  RD, Apr 20th, 2009 @ 5:13pm

  
  

  Please note the IMPORTANT point here

  Please note the IMPORTANT (and unspoken) point about this: IT WAS NOT CRAIGSLIST WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE. The USER was sued, not the service.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

•  

  

  Randall Flagg, May 21st, 2009 @ 4:00am

  
  

  Jason Fortuny Is Doomed

  That sad little brat is going to come to a bad end, which will be noted with all of the respect it deserves at dailyrotten.com. Really, he's the part his mother should have swallowed.

   

  [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Add Your Comment