URL Source: [None] Post Date: 2015-01-05 22:01:50 by tpaine
L.A. Times v. Free Republic
Source: The Washington Post.
I can see it now: The Washington Post v. Liberty Post courtesy of tpaine.
How much did the lawsuit cost Free Republic?
Sys Admin - I suggest you remove the article and include tpaine in your ping since he posted it. Goldi Has repeatedly stated NOTHING is to be posted from The Washington Post as per the letter TWP sent to her and tpaine KNOWS this. I suspect that is why he intentionally left the source blank.
Goldi Has repeatedly stated NOTHING is to be posted from The Washington Post as per the letter TWP sent to her and tpaine know this. I suspect that is why he intentionally left the source blank.
Not good.
Palmdale posted on 2015-01-06 20:35:13 ET ReplyTrace
Goldi Has repeatedly stated NOTHING is to be posted from The Washington Post as per the letter TWP sent to her and tpaine know this. I suspect that is why he intentionally left the source blank.
Not good.
Not good at all!!!
Gatlin posted on 2015-01-06 20:38:20 ET ReplyTrace
Are you guys saying that tpaine deliberately posted copyrighted material and attempted to hide that it was coming from such a source? That is a serious charge.
Tpaine, I'm giving you the opportunity to explain whether or not this is the case. In the meantime I am going to redact the original article until the truth of this can be determined.
I'd say we should wait and see if the washpost sends us another infringement notice. -- I'd bet that since we no longer have an 'owner' (subject to finding Goldies will), that they simply won't bother, and so will no one else.
Yes, I now "own" the virtual server LP is running on as I am the one one paying the bill. Very soon LP will be running on my own server. I am the one who will be held responsible for any violations.
I'm very sorry, but I will not tolerate illegal actions of any kind here. NO WARNINGS FOR ILLEGAL ACTIVITY. You're gone.
Since the offending material has been removed I will leave this thread here as a warning. I'll leave it open for now but may lock it after hearing what the community has to say.
sysadmin posted on 2015-01-06 20:53:31 ET ReplyTrace
Poster Comment:
Shot down by nanny state community organizers, tater and palmjob.
I think you're trying to apply estate law concerning tangible assets or income to a non-profit website.
Other than the domain name, exactly what do you think Goldi owned?
The articles? Of course not. Not even the vanities. Maybe she owned the LibertyPost Townhall threads and her own vanity posts.
Nor did Goldi ever assert any ownership over the contents of the website including users' posts. How could she?
And the forum software is all public domain.
Other than the domain names and control of the database/server, exactly what did Goldi own? That is where your argument falls to pieces.
Notice that Goldi claimed a copyright but the site never displayed one nor do sysadmin or Neil seem to know anything about a copyright. Also, no trademark is displayed. To protect intellectual property, you have to prominently display and vigorously defend any infringement of your copyrights/trademarks.
For multiplication of the Federal debt of all those who preceded him, Reagan exceeded the accomplishments of Obama.
I have been seeing this lately from a lot of lefties.
Apparently percentages now more relevant than actual dollars.
Obama has increased the debt by 7.5 trillion with a few years left to go.
That is a hell of a lot of real money.
In other words if I offered you a choice between getting $100 and and three times $15. If you took the $15 times 3 simply because you were tripling something, even though it was still less than $100, you would be a moron.
An eighties dollar was worth a lot more than today's globalist neocon dollar. Percentages are a more accurate metric.
One still cannot compare things using two different things.
One must either settle on percentage comparison or one of real, inflation adjusted dollars to make a real comparison. It isn't very accurate to use percentages of increase as the base number (dollars) are different.
My suspicion is that Obama is far worse than any previous president. Why do I think this? Because leftists came out with this 'study' and leftists almost always lie.
I have been seeing this lately from a lot of lefties.
I haven't seen it from any lefties.
In other words if I offered you a choice between getting $100 and and three times $15. If you took the $15 times 3 simply because you were tripling something, even though it was still less than $100, you would be a moron.
Would a $45 raise in the great depression years be worth more than a $100 raise today?
Comparing such raises dollar to dollar is invalid when inflation has greatly changed the value of the dollars being compared.
However one compares Reagan to Clinton on management of the deficit and the debt, Reagan does not fare well.
I think you're trying to apply estate law concerning tangible assets or income to a non-profit website.
Other than the domain name, exactly what do you think Goldi owned?
The articles? Of course not. Not even the vanities. Maybe she owned the LibertyPost Townhall threads and her own vanity posts.
Nor did Goldi ever assert any ownership over the contents of the website including users' posts. How could she?
And the forum software is all public domain.
No. I am considering a tangible legal instrument of some value, the title of ownership of the registered domain name.
Liberty Post is just a website. There is no corporate entity to own anything. Liberty Post is not a person, not even one of a legal fiction, as is a corporation. It owns nothing and can neither sue nor be sued. Goldi, or now her estate, could be sued.
Ownership of the registered domain name is a real asset.
Goldi owned the domain name and the archives. She did not own a copyright to everything in the archives, but she was free to shut down the site and take the archives with her. The copies in the archives were her property.
I believe you are incorrect in your claim that the forum software is public domain. Doesn't Neil sell or license Pinguinite?
You are mistaking copyright with ownership. A library may own the books on its shelves and can sell them or burn them, or stack them in the basement. The author or publisher may own the copyright to produce and sell additional copies of the books.
As for agency, it is beyond all doubt that when the agent knows the principal has died, the agent such as sysadmin, has no further power to act on behalf of the principal. At common law, notice of death is not required.
Notice that Goldi claimed a copyright but the site never displayed one nor do sysadmin or Neil seem to know anything about a copyright. Also, no trademark is displayed. To protect intellectual property, you have to prominently display and vigorously defend any infringement of your copyrights/trademarks.
I accept your representation that Neil and sysadmin know nothing of copyright. Copyright does not arise from a notice. It automatically exists. Copyright attaches to a work when it is created. Goldi could not copyright material created elsewhere and used on her site. She would, however, own the archive copy of her site.
U.S. law no longer requires the use of a copyright notice, although placing it on your work is often beneficial. Prior law did, however, contain such a requirement, and the use of a notice is still relevant to the copyright status of older works. This circular describes the copyright notice provisions enacted in the 1976 Copyright Act (title 17, U. S. Code), which took effect January 1, 1978, and the effect of the 1988 Berne Convention Implementation Act, which amended the law to make the use of a copyright notice optional on copies of works published on and after March 1, 1989. Specifications for the proper form and placement of the notice are included.
Works published before January 1, 1978, are governed by the 1909 Copyright Act. Under that law, if a work was published under the copyright owners authority without a proper notice of copyright, all copyright protection for that work was permanently lost in the United States. For more information about the law governing copyright notice before January 1, 1978, see 37 C.F.R. 202.2, Copyright Notice, on the Copyright Office website at www.copyright.gov/title37.
At Page 5:
The omission of notice does not affect copyright protection, and no corrective steps are required if the work was published on or after March 1, 1989.
Ownership of the registered domain name is a real asset.
True. There are ways to acquire it by stealth but apparently it is renewed, making this a moot point.
I believe you are incorrect in your claim that the forum software is public domain. Doesn't Neil sell or license Pinguinite?
He didn't sell or license the copy that I have. It is public domain. There are no notices of copyright at all.
Copyright attaches to a work when it is created. Goldi could not copyright material created elsewhere and used on her site. She would, however, own the archive copy of her site.
So you say she "owned" the copyrighted articles posted on her site? Or that she "owned" a copy of them? And what of the comments?
I think you are trying to apply estate law for things like books and other intellectual property to an anonymous user-driven non-profit news aggregation site that is dark web (i.e. never advertising its presence on the web).
True. There are ways to acquire it by stealth but apparently it is renewed, making this a moot point.
This is why I mentioned that it can just be allowed to expire and be released to the public. However, then the first applicant for the domain name likely wins the cookie. That may, or may not, be desired.
It is renewed, but in a renewal of a license, the name of the owner does not change. In the case of LP, nobody would have the legal authority to effect any change until the estate releases any claim.
So you say she "owned" the copyrighted articles posted on her site? Or that she "owned" a copy of them? And what of the comments?
She owned the archive of her site, whatever was on it. If the servers were hers, she could disconnect them and put them in her computer room. She could make a backup copy and delete whatever was on the servers.
And, --- N O ---, I did not say she owned copyrighted articles, or the copyrights to the copyrighted articles. If you own a book, you own the pages in the book and that copy of the words on the pages. You do not own the copyright.
She owned the entire archive which is the stored data files.
We're saying pretty much the same thing. You just attach more importance to it.
LP (software and database) are contained in a virtual machine which can be easily moved from server to server. It is being adapted to run on sysadmin's personal server at present.
For multiplication of the Federal debt of all those who preceded him, Reagan exceeded the accomplishments of Obama.
Not really. That belongs to LBJ and FDR. They gave us socialist/communist security and the Awful Society legislation. That is what most of the growth in government comes from.
In my view, the next logical successor would not be an anonymous sysadmin. It could be that person with his or her LP handle revealed so the members would know who is being put in charge. If his/her posting history is unobjectionable, his/her handle should not be a problem.
Members have no legal right to know the true identity of SysAdmin. Therefore, assuming control of the site does not obligate SysAdmin to disclose his own personal information.
This argument lacks merit. Who paid is not important. Who held the title when Goldi died is important. If you pay for a car and place the title in my name, you have no claim to the car should I die. It would be part of my estate. If the domain name or the site has value, it belongs to the estate.
Well, the key here is the domain name and data have a pretty much zero value, which will be evidenced by the fact that no claim will be made on it.
SysAdmin has defacto and IMO, moral right to run the site.
Actually, Sysadmin has no authority. Any authority he had as Goldi's agent died with Goldi and his knowledge of her death.
That's why I say it's now de facto his site. He has control of both the domain and the DB. Any laws saying otherwise mean nothing unless and until something is acted upon through those laws. Absent such actions, he has full power over the site. And unchallenged power = de facto authority. That is how it works when one country invades another, after all, and for the same reasons.
Nolu, one thing I have gained an appreciation for living in Ecuador is just how limited laws are. Laws are not some kind of magical, inescapable, edicts of God that intertwine with the fabric of the universe. They are merely tools which affected people either seek to use to further their own causes, or obstacles which people seek to overcome in furthering their own cause. Laws are limited by the degree to which they are enforced, and have no power beyond that point. This is true in every country, including the USA.
Ergo, no matter what laws exist, such as those you cited, that might imply that LP is part of Goldi's estate, if no action is taken on such laws then the laws are of no significance whatsoever. That's the reality, and reality trumps law.
Nolu, one thing I have gained an appreciation for living in Ecuador
Escaping the authorities who were on to your your shenanigans in the US?
Laws are not some kind of magical, inescapable, edicts of God that intertwine with the fabric of the universe. They are merely tools which affected people either seek to use to further their own causes, or obstacles which people seek to overcome in furthering their own cause. Laws are limited by the degree to which they are enforced, and have no power beyond that point. This is true in every country, including the USA.
I actually agree with this. The US was enforcing the law you flaunted, so you ran to Ecuador. What happens when Ecuador makes you pay taxes?
Obama has played at being a president while enjoying the perks … golf, insanely expensive vacations at tax-payer expense. He has ignored the responsibilities of the job; no plans, no budgets, no alternatives … just finger pointing; making him a complete failure as a president
nolu chan (#41) ---- And In my view, the next logical successor would not be an anonymous sysadmin. It could be that person with his or her LP handle revealed so the members would know who is being put in charge. If his/her posting history is unobjectionable, his/her handle should not be a problem.
Pinguinite--- Members have no legal right to know the true identity of SysAdmin. Therefore, assuming control of the site does not obligate SysAdmin to disclose his own personal information.
Pinguinite, technically, I'd suppose you're right. But I doubt a group of your peers would agree. -- And the consent of our peers is a big part of what our law is based upon.
In the FWIW category, I'd say that sysadmin doesn't have to be public but has to be available for a DMCA takedown notice. It's one of the things attached to domain names and keeping accurate records for your registrar, even if you stealth your DNS registration through Panama to hide the site's owners' info from the public.
In the FWIW category, I'd say that sysadmin doesn't have to be public but has to be available for a DMCA takedown notice. It's one of the things attached to domain names and keeping accurate records for your registrar, even if you stealth your DNS registration through Panama to hide the site's owners' info from the public.
Thanks for your comment, and in my opinion it's part of the reason that you should take over LP.
Its pretty obvious that my offer to do so will fail, and I think you should make one, as I don't think the present sysadmin can keep the site together.
In my view, the next logical successor would not be an anonymous sysadmin. It could be that person with his or her LP handle revealed so the members would know who is being put in charge. If his/her posting history is unobjectionable, his/her handle should not be a problem.
Members have no legal right to know the true identity of SysAdmin. Therefore, assuming control of the site does not obligate SysAdmin to disclose his own personal information.
Ok, let me clarify. If he wanted people to vote for him, he should have sought those votes using his known handle and not as the anonymous Sysadmin.
People making a choice should have the opportunity to make an informed choice.
Your milage may vary, but would other candidates be permitted to seek votes as the anonymous Candidate #1, Candidate #2, etc.
Moreover, the true identity of Sysadmin is not his LP handle. That only allows people to see what he has posted under his anonymous handle, unless he used his real name as his handle.
What exactly did Clinton to to make the economy better? Nothing that I can think of.
Clinton did not pile up a mountain of debt. For all the good things Reagan did, he exploded the deficit and the debt. Doing so under Reagan deserves the same criticism as doing it under Bush I, Bush II, or Obama.
Its pretty obvious that my offer to do so will fail, and I think you should make one, as I don't think the present sysadmin can keep the site together.
I concur.
Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.
#63. To: TooConservative, tpaine, Pinguinite (#58)
In the FWIW category, I'd say that sysadmin doesn't have to be public but has to be available for a DMCA takedown notice. It's one of the things attached to domain names and keeping accurate records for your registrar, even if you stealth your DNS registration through Panama to hide the site's owners' info from the public.
People making a choice should have the opportunity to make an informed choice.
Your milage may vary, but would other candidates be permitted to seek votes as the anonymous Candidate #1, Candidate #2, etc.
Moreover, the true identity of Sysadmin is not his LP handle. That only allows people to see what he has posted under his anonymous handle, unless he used his real name as his handle. Goldi-Lox was not the true identity of the previous owner.
Moreover, the true identity of Sysadmin is not his LP handle. That only allows people to see what he has posted under his anonymous handle, unless he used his real name as his handle. Goldi-Lox was not the true identity of the previous owner.
I know you're making a point but it escapes me. It seems you're stating the obvious. Probably I'm reading poorly as I don't see how that relates directly to our earlier topic.
I'm just saying that sysadmin can be anonymous but the website has to have official contact info to receive takedown notices if necessary. Some ISPs will terminate you for not keeping your info up to date as a result of bad experiences with this.
Its pretty obvious that my offer to do so will fail, and I think you should make one, as I don't think the present sysadmin can keep the site together.
I think you're winning the vote pretty easily. Too late to avoid it now. : )
[#55 Pinguinite] Members have no legal right to know the true identity of SysAdmin.
[#58 TooConservative] In the FWIW category, I'd say that sysadmin doesn't have to be public but has to be available for a DMCA takedown notice.
[#60 nc] Ok, let me clarify. If he wanted people to vote for him, he should have sought those votes using his known handle and not as the anonymous Sysadmin. People making a choice should have the opportunity to make an informed choice.
[#63 nc] People making a choice should have the opportunity to make an informed choice. Your milage may vary, but would other candidates be permitted to seek votes as the anonymous Candidate #1, Candidate #2, etc. Moreover, the true identity of Sysadmin is not his LP handle.
[#64 nc] I know you're making a point but it escapes me. It seems you're stating the obvious. Probably I'm reading poorly as I don't see how that relates directly to our earlier topic. I'm just saying that sysadmin can be anonymous but the website has to have official contact info to receive takedown notices if necessary.
The official notice for takedown notices can list Sysadmin with contact information. Its purpose is to facilitate contact with an authorized and legally responsible person.
I am speaking to having a vote and not knowing who you are voting for. Pinguinite's objection is that no one has a right to know the true identity of SysAdmin. I agree, but the voting members of LP have an apparent interest in knowing the handle by which all the candidates are known.
It just sounds too much like Obamacare. You have to elect him to find out who he is and what he will do. And only a single candidate has the option to suppress knowledge of his handle. I do not think asking to know who you are voting for is asking too much. I am not referring to a true real world identity, but to the handle by which the site members have come to know sysadmin and his expressed opinions.
I am just clarifying that the reference to true identity is obscuring and inapplicable. Nobody has mentioned or cares what his true identity is.
[#60 nc] Ok, let me clarify. If he wanted people to vote for him, he should have sought those votes using his known handle and not as the anonymous Sysadmin. People making a choice should have the opportunity to make an informed choice.
LP has had a sysadmin account for years. I'm not sure it has been held by the same guy all that time. Even in 2003, you can see sysadmin posting system-type messages to Neil or posts to Goldi about outages.
So this current sysadmin may only be the latest in a series for all we know.
At any rate, sysadmin only ever posted info about the server, downtime, upgrades, etc.
[#60 nc] Ok, let me clarify. If he wanted people to vote for him, he should have sought those votes using his known handle and not as the anonymous Sysadmin. People making a choice should have the opportunity to make an informed choice.
LP has had a sysadmin account for years. I'm not sure it has been held by the same guy all that time. Even in 2003, you can see sysadmin posting system-type messages to Neil or posts to Goldi about outages.
More diversion. Who gives a rat's ass about the number of people who may have been sysadmin and made some system status announcements as sysadmin. Nobody is interested in what has been posted by the sysadmin(s).
There just might be some interest about what Mystery Man did when posting on the discussion forum under his usual handle. Opinions about tpaine and Pericles are formed based on their forum activity. Opinions about Mystery Man are based on a vacuum of information.
There was no need to use the sysadmin anonymous ID to seek member approval to take over the site. Everyone knew Goldi was owner. Nobody ever gave a damn who was sysadmin. He could have sought the takeover under his normal handle. There would have been no need to link it to the sysadmin position.
Whoever it is could have used their common handle and then all those voting would have some knowledge of the person and be able to determine whether to give their informed consent.
It is interesting to observe the LPe maneuver to tender control of the site to an anonymous person and to defend said anonymity.
Pinguinite, technically, I'd suppose you're right. But I doubt a group of your peers would agree. -- And the consent of our peers is a big part of what our law is based upon.
Can you agree with that?
I'm not sure what you are getting at.
You want me to say I'm wrong because a lot of others disagree with something I believe?
I'm just saying that sysadmin can be anonymous but the website has to have official contact info to receive takedown notices if necessary. Some ISPs will terminate you for not keeping your info up to date as a result of bad experiences with this.
One can be both anonymous, and yet also have contact info avaylable to the public. Many domain name registration services offer this. If you want to contact an anonymous domain owner, you simply go through the registration service to do so.
I think it's apparent he doesn't want people to vote for him. His vote on the thread is to shut LP down.
I think it is equally apparent that all candidates for President really do not want that office. They only agree to run after much wringing of hands, praying to their Lord, consulting with the family about the great sacrifice, and reluctantly agreeing to run because it is their civic duty, and it is a time of crisis in which their country needs them. They do not want it but cannot just walk away from it, even if it involves great sacrifice.
It is amusing to see the many variations of defending an anonymous candidate and an UNinformed electorate.
Pinguinite, technically, I'd suppose you're right. But I doubt a group of your peers would agree. -- And the consent of our peers is a big part of what our law is based upon. Can you agree with that?
I'm not sure what you are getting at. --- You want me to say I'm wrong because a lot of others disagree with something I believe?
I think you know that one of the basics of law in the USA is the consent of the governed, (as in 75% of states must approve amendments) -- and you don't want to admit it.
If there is no majority, he can shut it down or run it
Carnac the Magnificent says the site is not getting shut down.
If it were really to shut down and the domain name be released, anyone could purchase the domain name and start a brand new Liberty Post. It would be like starting Liberty's Flame but selecting a different domain name. Don't hold your breath waiting for the name to released.
I think you know that one of the basics of law in the USA is the consent of the governed, (as in 75% of states must approve amendments) -- and you don't want to admit it.
I still don't know what it is you think I don't want to admit.
If it were really to shut down and the domain name be released, anyone could purchase the domain name and start a brand new Liberty Post. It would be like starting Liberty's Flame but selecting a different domain name. Don't hold your breath waiting for the name to released.
Anyone can start an alternate/similar forum if they would like, regardless of the vote. They just would not have LP's past posting archives, which is not even needed.
I would not expect the name to be released in the event of a shutdown though. It may be retained as a memorial, and also to assist any relatives of Sally's in the event she is searched for at some point in the future. Someone could always register a similar name.