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.
The bloviating gasbag also known a tpaine was removed from the site for knowing violating posting rules and putting any and all owners of this site in legal and fiscal peril.
The registration information shows eNom, Inc (R39-LROR), and "Raw Registrar Data December 28, 2014" indicates registrar info in Panama, with the name of the contact information listed as "WhoisGuard Protected."
The "Old Registrar Info" shows shows Tucows Inc. (R11-LROR), and "Old Raw Registrar Data February 17, 2010" with a location of 12 Carroll St., Suite 6022, Westminster, MD 32256 with the administrative contact information listed as Goldi Lox at the same address. The technical contact information lists Goldi Lox at the same address except the zip code is listed as 21157.
32256 is Jacksonville, FL. 21157 is Westminster, MD.
The legal owner of the site would appear to be the estate of Goldi-Lox. The site registration was changed post-mortem. If the domain ownership was released for non-payment, it could have been purchased by a new owner of the domain name. If someone just paid the bill, then the domain name remains with the estate of Goldi. Any equipment owned by Goldi, such as a server, would be part of her estate. I recall LP having a fund raiser to buy a new server some time back.
Assuming Goldi was truly intestate (no will), if the State does not find a living relative, estate property goes to the State of Florida. Unless someone at LP is a living relative, they are not going to inherit any property such as a server.
Things such as insurance policies designated to some person or organization go as designated.
LP is running on a rented server, so there is no physical material associated with the Liberty Post web site.
In my view, given the time SysAdmin has been working with Goldi, he is the next logical successor to taking over LP.
In spite of that view, SysAdmin has made it clear on LP that it's possible the domain name could be legally claimed by some party who claims a right to Goldi's estate. But unless and until that happens, SysAdmin has defacto and IMO, moral right to run the site.
BTW, Goldi did not pay for the domain's initial domain name registration, so if a legal issue were to be made on those grounds....
Finally, SysAdmin is a very good guy. That he has unwillingly found himself having to make decisions that would inevitably result in him being called profanities by some objectionable party doesn't change the fact that he's a good guy.
Former clown posse members are NOT welcome here. Please leave on your own. Or as soon as you are outted by those here who hate you, you will removed.
FYI, as I was a former CP member, and Goldi said none were welcome at LP anymore, I voluntarily chose to stop posting at LP a little over five years ago when Goldi published her policy (several years after CP went out of existence).
I have no personal interest in what LP does other than the curiosity of an outsider looking in. It is a rather unique circumstance I haven't heard of before.
Certainly, all those who consider it "home" would like the site to continue.
In my view, given the time SysAdmin has been working with Goldi, he is the next logical successor to taking over LP.
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.
In spite of that view, SysAdmin has made it clear on LP that it's possible the domain name could be legally claimed by some party who claims a right to Goldi's estate. But unless and until that happens, SysAdmin has defacto and IMO, moral right to run the site.
I doubt anyone with a claim on the estate will turn up and be interested in LP. All that needs be done is to let the domain ownership expire and be released, and then have sysadmin or whoever claim it and pay for it. When CP (Clown Posse) expired, someone bought the domain name.
I reckon someone has to suppervise the site, if it is to continue, and sysadmin seems to be one who knows what needs to be done, and has the ability to get it done (with assistance from someone such as yourself, as necessary).
As I noted upstream at #12, "It should be noted that tpaine was wrong to post the offending material. tpaine was also wrong to advocate doing it again. His banning was justified — LP can't just let him do it again and again. Removing the offending material was correct and necessary."
BTW, Goldi did not pay for the domain's initial domain name registration, so if a legal issue were to be made on those grounds...
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.
Finally, SysAdmin is a very good guy.
Sysadmin may be a wonderful, very good, very talented guy who is the best person for the job. Title to the site does not devolve on the basis of being an anonymous good guy, or even a known good guy. Title does not devolve even upon unanimous support of LP posters. The domain is owned and not by them.
That he has unwillingly found himself having to make decisions that would inevitably result in him being called profanities by some objectionable party doesn't change the fact that he's a good guy.
A saint could take over and would be called objectionable names. I have not called him any names.
A problem is that LP is just a website. Nothing belongs to it. Even the archives belong to the estate of Goldi. Somebody must be responsible to answer potential copyright or libel actions. Right now, I reckon that is probably the executor of the estate of Goldi.
Any authority granted by Goldi to her agent sysadmin died with Goldi. Even had he been granted a power of attorney to act as sysadmin, it died with the Principal, Goldi. Sysadmin has published knowledge of Goldi's death and there can be no legal claim to use prior authority to take over the management of her affairs post mortem.
Absent a will, it is just a bit messy.
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.
Section 111 of the Uniform Power of Attorney Act provides that the power of attorney terminates when the principal dies. This rule is followed in all states. For example, Florida laws state that a power of attorney expires upon the principal’s death. In this situation, the agent no longer has authority to act on behalf of the principal, and the principal’s successors take over the management of his affairs.
Validation of Agent's Actions
In some situations the agent may not know of the principal’s death and may continue to act under the power of attorney, for example, by paying bills or signing documents. If the agent does not know that the principal has died, the law generally allows him to continue acting as agent until he is notified of the death. For example, Chapter 1337.091 of the Ohio Code states that if an agent carries out his duties without knowing that the principal has died, his actions remain valid, provided that he acts in good faith.
709.2109 Termination or suspension of power of attorney or agent’s authority.—
(1) A power of attorney terminates when:
(a) The principal dies;
(b) The principal becomes incapacitated, if the power of attorney is not
durable;
(c) The principal is adjudicated totally or partially incapacitated by a court,
unless the court determines that certain authority granted by the power of
attorney is to be exercisable by the agent;
(d) The principal revokes the power of attorney;
(e) The power of attorney provides that it terminates;
(f) The purpose of the power of attorney is accomplished; or
(g) The agent’s authority terminates and the power of attorney does not provide
for another agent to act under the power of attorney.
(2) An agent’s authority is exercisable until the authority terminates. An
agent’s authority terminates when:
(a) The agent dies, becomes incapacitated, resigns, or is removed by a court;
(b) An action is filed for the dissolution or annulment of the agent’s marriage
to the principal or for their legal separation, unless the power of attorney
otherwise provides; or
(c) The power of attorney terminates.
(3) If any person initiates judicial proceedings to determine the principal’s
incapacity or for the appointment of a guardian advocate, the authority granted
under the power of attorney is suspended until the petition is dismissed or
withdrawn or the court enters an order authorizing the agent to exercise one or
more powers granted under the power of attorney.
(a) If an emergency arises after initiation of proceedings to determine
incapacity and before adjudication regarding the principal’s capacity, the agent
may petition the court in which the proceeding is pending for authorization to
exercise a power granted under the power of attorney. The petition must set
forth the nature of the emergency, the property or matter involved, and the
power to be exercised by the agent.
(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of this section, unless otherwise ordered by
the court, a proceeding to determine incapacity does not affect the authority of
the agent to make health care decisions for the principal, including, but not
limited to, those provided in chapter 765. If the principal has executed a
health care advance directive designating a health care surrogate, the terms of
the directive control if the directive and the power of attorney are in conflict
unless the power of attorney is later executed and expressly states otherwise.
(4) Termination or suspension of an agent’s authority or of a power of attorney
is not effective as to an agent who, without knowledge of the termination or
suspension, acts in good faith under the power of attorney. An act so performed,
unless otherwise invalid or unenforceable, binds the principal and the
principal’s successors in interest.
History.—s. 11, ch. 2011-210.
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.
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 owner’s 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.
