Still no comment from Mike on the law surrounding the publication of private facts? Just going to shift your position from "well, sex tapes are newsworthy if a celebrity talks about his sexual prowess" to "well, there are multiple lawsuits so clearly this is just some rich asshole exploiting the legal system to attack totally legit operations", as though judges don't get pissed at groundless suits and toss them with regularity.
Not sure what you want me to comment on? I made my point earlier. All indications are that it will be overturned on appeal, and the earlier rulings of the appeals court suggest they recognize that this is protected speech. We shall see.
Just so y'all know: The woman who is the subject of this post is not Anita Sarkeesian. And she has nothing to do with gaming, or game development, or gamergate. I mean, you can comment about all that stuff if you want, it's a free country, I just thought you should know that that was not the actual topic of this post.
This is correct. It has nothing do with gaming at all. And I'm disappointed that people are so focused on trying to figure out who it is, rather than focusing on the story.
From my perspective, the only thing that matters here is did Gawker violate the law? If you do your job legally, it does not matter what your ethics are. In this case it was proven that Gawker violated the law and is found at fault and owe money. Who funded it or bankrolled it means little to me. The only journalist organizations this should affect are ones whom do not understand the law.
Are you okay with the 4 other lawsuits from the same lawyer against Gawker, almost all of which are objectively ridiculous?
This isn't about whether or not Gawker broke the law. It's about piling on lawsuits solely for the purpose of bankrupting a publisher someone doesn't like.
And the whole "no big deal if you don't break the law" statement is ridiculous. People get sued all the time for not breaking the law and the legal fees alone can bankrupt them. We get threatened with lawsuits frequently (including this very week).
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Since when is publishing sex tapes without consent legal?
LOL. The law is whatever the courts say it is.
And let's see what the appeals court says. Will you accept that it's "the law" after they rule?
My ranting is owing to bafflement at this becoming a case for 1st amendment rallying. What could be more invasive of personal privacy than secretly filmed sex acts?
Lots of things invade personal privacy, but are still protected by the First Amendment if reported on. People report on the sex lives of famous people all the time. It's pretty standard tabloid fare, and it's protected. Ditto releasing government secrets. That's "private" info as well. And it's protected.
(I like how you ignored my supporting link that mentioned Bollea claimed in court not to have consented to the recording
I didn't ignore it. I pointed out that the judge refused to let Gawker present the fairly strong evidence to the contrary, showing that Bollea knew about the recording (hint: he talked about it).
If that flies, what else can giant corporations get away with? Why not everyone's sequenced genome, obtained from stealth swabs? Or web browsing history sourced from helpful ISP insiders?
You're confusing two separate things. One is the potential privacy violation and the second is the reporting on it. There may be a privacy violation against whoever filmed it if you're correct that Bollea didn't know about it. But that's between them. Reporting on it is protected speech.
The situations you describe here have no reporting component, an the actions of getting the info may violate certain other laws. But, again, getting =/= publishing.
I fail to see how proponents of personal liberty cannot cheer this ruling
Then you have very little understanding of the law or liberty.
If the question of API Copyrightability works its way through a separate appeals court, is is possible SCOTUS could visit the case at some indeterminate future date?
Yes. Though I have to imagine anyone filing such a lawsuit would... choose where they file it carefully. Or, if they can in any way possible include a patent claim just to get it into a CAFC jurisdiction. Maybe someone can get a declaratory judgment case going in a good circuit, but that may be difficult as well.
Here is what I don't get, who gets to decide whether a news story is "newsworthy" or whatever word you want to use for it?
The publication and its editors get to decide. That's the nature of a free press.
Should anyone be able to post anything online without consequence?
Of course not. There are lots of consequences. Advertisers may pull funding. People may stop reading. Your reputation may go in the trash. There are plenty of consequences.
Even here that obviously isn't the case because Techdirt has stated in the past that making death threats online and publishing personal info in public places shouldn't be condoned but I never see any sort of middle ground solution.
There's a difference between what we think is a *good idea* or morally correct and what may be *legally* correct. And that's an important distinction.
Separate from that, there are other scenarios in which publication may lead to lawsuits that DO NOT turn on whether or not something is "newsworthy." So, for example, a defamation case will focus on whether the information is false and if it was posted with malicious intent. Those are clear standards.
But having a jury that doesn't work in a newsroom judging "newsworthy" -- that's a clear *speech-based regulation* and a violation of the First Amendment.
Mike has previously stated that having the courts decide is a violation of the first amendment
Yes, having them decide if it's newsworthy or not is the problem. If it's a decision on an issue that doesn't turn on the 'newsworthy' question, my analysis might be different.
I don't think we ever should have courts determining newsworthiness of a story.
but baring that option what else is there?
The publication's reputation. There's a damn good reason why no other publication published the same information. Because they didn't think it was the proper thing to do. Let Gawker's reputation suffer, as it clearly has based on the number of "fuck Gawker, let them die" comments around here.
Re: Re: Re: Since when is publishing sex tapes without consent legal?
And it didn't work because that argument is bullshit. This was just a giant corporation exploiting an invasion of Bollea's privacy to make money. Corporations do not have rights, citizens do. We grant corporations the fiction of personhood and a limited subset of rights for the convenience it offers in carrying out their operations to benefit the public. If corporations are going to hide behind their privileges to violate the rights of citizens then they deserve to be bankrupted by litigation.
What you wish the law to be and what the law actually is are two different things. So, really not sure how to reply to your mildly ridiculous rantings above.
As for what happened in court, you've left out the rather important context including (1) the judge flat out stated that she did not like the kind of things Gawker published and did not think they should be allowed (2) that same judge blocked Gawker from presenting a ton of evidence that would have made the situation clearer for the jury (3) the jury was a "hometown" jury for Bollea, and much of the case focused on how crazy those NY media types were. (4) The case was originally tossed out of federal court on First Amendment issues and (5) the appeals court that will hear it has already expressed First Amendment concerns and already reversed the judge on the injunction part.
So, yeah, you can point to this verdict all you want, but it's lifespan is likely to be short. I do wonder if you'll come back afterwards and say that now that the case has been reversed you agree with Gawker now, if you're so influenced by court rulings.
The detail that techdirt keeps leaving out is that Hogan is suing them for posting, and refusing to take down a sex tape of Hogan. Yet they accused the celebrity icloud nudes were not OK.
We've discussed it plenty. So, no, that's wrong.
Also, no, our position on both the Hogan sex tape and the icloud nudes was identical: icky, morally questionable, but almost certainly legal to publish (hacking to get the content, on the other hand, clearly not legal). So, basically, everything you're claiming here is wrong.
Neither were actually newsworthy and Gawker isn't a journalistic organization. It's a gossip rag.
Again, the First Amendment DOES NOT DISTINGUISH. And it's easy to declare something not a journalistic organization. People say that about the NY Times, the Washington Post and the WSJ all the time. Just because YOU think it, does not mean it's so, and that's also why the First Amendment protects them all. To avoid a situation where someone in power gets to decide who's "legit" media and who is not.
I favor freedom of political, academic, and artistic speech, but what real loss is imposed by an "invasion of privacy" ban on posting sexual videos of adults without their consent?
The issue, as I wrote in my original article, is that the case focused on whether or not the story was "newsworthy." And I have serious concerns when we allow a jury and/or courts to be making editorial decisions after the fact over what is, or is not, newsworthy.
I agree that, personally, posting such videos is disgusting and sickening and I have no problem with people shunning or shaming Gawker for posting them. But I worry a great deal when it reaches the point where the courts then are making editorial decisions for publications. To me that seems to clearly violate the First Amendment.
Because it's not about them, it's about their attempts to cover up their actions. Who slept with who doesn't really matter as far as TD is concerned, who's trying to hide that information by trying to censor a bunch of stuff and how they're doing it, that matters.
Right. We don't really care about celebrity gossip. We do care about censorship.
4. The claim that "most of their efforts are for IP abolishment" is just... wrong. I mean, it's so far wrong that it calls into question everything else you have to say. There are a group of people that think Google wants to abolish IP, but they are ignorant of reality and are, at best, tinfoil wearing conspiracy theorists.
5. That's not to say that I agree with Google's lobbying positions, but their main focus is actually on things like tax policy and being able to bring money from outside the US back into the US. Where they have lobbied on IP issues I've never seen any indication it's about abolishment. On copyright they've lobbied in favor of stricter copyright laws for blocking advertising on infringing sites (the opposite of abolishment). On patents they've argued for things like venue reform. But again, that's not about abolishment.
Who cares? Even if the asserted facts are as clearly wrong as you seem to think, the guy got his piece published as an opinion, as an attempt to sway others to a point of view. The proper recourse is to refute, not to deny him a platform.
No one wants to deny him a platform. Just asking why the NY Times wouldn't send back the oped and say that the facts need to actually be supported, no matter what the opinion is.
I'm fine with the NYT publishing whatever nonsense Taplin wants to publish, so long as it's based in facts, not fantasy.
JJ Abrams is talking out of his ass because he has no influence on what Paramount wants to do.
He wasn't saying that he was doing it. He was saying that he and Lin urged Paramount to figure something out... and that Parmaount had then worked out a settlement.
Paramount has since confirmed it.
Even if Paramount does currently drop the copyright lawuit, they will wait until after the film is completed and then move to block its release and demand that all copies of the film be turned over to Paramount.
Again, Paramount has confirmed that they are completing a settlement agreement. That's IN THIS POST which apparently you didn't read.
Creating a fan film is one thing but making money on it (generating income from it) is not covered by fair use.
That's not necessarily true, but thanks for playing.