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.
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.
The best news today is the Packers, kicking ass!!!
Really?
“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.”
And it proved the Cowboys still need to do some more work with their Defense. If they manage to resign their important free agents on Offense that will enable them to concentrate on drafting some defensive linemen, a linebacker and maybe a corner.
But the first thing on the agenda is getting all of the current coaching staff resigned, they did a pretty good job considering what they had in the way of talent on the defense.
“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.”
