Woman sues WayBack Machine
p2pnet.net news:- The famed WayBack Machine, aka the Internet Archive, aims to gather and save copies of web sites for the future. And a fantastic job it does, too.
But it’s now being sued by a Colorado woman under the RICO Act (Racketeering Influence and Corrupt Organizations act) more usually reserved for the likes of the Mafia or the Big 4 music cartel’s RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America).
Suzanne Shell is going after the archive for, "conversion, civil theft, breach of contract, and violations" of RICO and the Colorado Organized Crime Control Act, says Information Week.
"In December 2005, Shell requested that Internet Archive remove her www.profane-justice.org site from its database, with which request Internet Archive complied," says Martin Samson on the Phillips Nizer site, going on:
Shell subsequently demanded a payment of $100,000 for plaintiff’s unauthorized copying. In response, plaintiff commenced this lawsuit, seeking a declaratory judgment that its activities did not infringe Shell’s copyright. Shell, proceeding pro se, counterclaimed, asserting that Internet Archive’s copying of her site gave rise to claims of copyright infringement, conversion, civil theft and RICO. Shell also asserted that the Internet Archive’s activities breached the contract formed between the parties as a result of plaintiff’s act of copying portions of defendant’s site, which act purportedly constituted an acceptance of the site’s terms and conditions of use.
Shell’s site, profane-justice.org/, states, "IF YOU COPY OR DISTRIBUTE ANYTHING ON THIS WEB SITE, YOU ARE ENTERING INTO A CONTRACT," at the bottom of the main page, and refers readers to a more detailed copyright notice and agreement".
"Her suit asserts that the Internet Archive’s programmatic visitation of her site constitutes acceptance of her terms, despite the obvious inability of a Web crawler to understand those terms and the absence of a robots.txt file to warn crawlers away," says Information Week..
The case reached the US District Court of Colorado, "and in an order from Feb. 13, 2007 the court dismissed most of Shell’s claims, except for the breach of contract cause of action" says The Center for Internet and Society (CIS) at Stanford Law School.
It says the court held:
[W]hile Internet Archive states that no human being from Internet Archive actually knew of the terms of use of Shell’s website, Shell has alleged that Internet Archive expressly entered into a contract with Shell through her Copyright Notice, and that Internet Archive "possesses the capacity and authority to enter into contracts." Shell does not have to allege in her complaint every fact necessary to prove breach of contract … While Internet Archive may be correct that the absence of human consent to this contract dooms Shell’s claims, Shell has not had the opportunity to develop a factual record on this point. Shell has alleged the existence of a contract, breach and damages, which is sufficient to make out a claim for breach of contract.
"So," adds the CIS post, "litigation will continue and the Internet Archive might have to convince the court that a contract was not formed, is unconscionable or otherwise not binding. Should be interesting to follow. If the court upholds this contract (chances are greater than zero…) thousands of sites’ operators will find incentive to do the same as Shell did.
"At stake is the future of the Internet Archive and the past of the Internet. Hope the court will see it this way too."
Also See:
RIAA – Victim sues RIAA under RICO Act, March 16, 2007
Information Week – Colorado Woman Sues To Hold Web Crawlers To Contracts, March 15, 2007
Phillips Nizer – Internet Archive v. Suzanne Shell, Civ. No. 06-cv-01726-LTB-CBS (D. Colo., Feb. 13, 2007)
CIS – Action against the Internet Archive for breach of contract will proceed, March 15, 2007
If your Net access is blocked by government restrictions, try Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at thIs the end (of the Net) nigh?zze University of Toronto’s Munk Centre for International Studies. Go here for the official download, here for the p2pnet download, and here for details. And if you’re Chinese and you’re looking for a way to access independent Internet news sources, try Freegate, the DIT program written to help Chinese citizens circumvent web site blocking outside of China. Download it here.
rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php | | And use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site
Tired of being treated like a criminal? They depend on you, not the other way around. Don’t buy their ‘product’. Do bug your local politicians. Use emails, snail-mail, phone calls, faxes, IM, stop them in the street, blog. And if you’re into organizing, organize petitions, organize demonstrations and then turn up on your local political rep’s doorstep, making sure you’ve contacted your local tv/radio station/newspaper in advance. Don’t just complain. Do something!
March 17th, 2007 at 2:36 pm
some of this has some bad implications
It says the court held:
[W]hile Internet Archive states that no human being from Internet Archive actually knew of the terms of use of Shell’s website, Shell has alleged that Internet Archive expressly entered into a contract with Shell through her Copyright Notice, and that Internet Archive “possesses the capacity and authority to enter into contracts.” Shell does not have to allege in her complaint every fact necessary to prove breach of contract … While Internet Archive may be correct that the absence of human consent to this contract dooms Shell’s claims, Shell has not had the opportunity to develop a factual record on this point. Shell has alleged the existence of a contract, breach and damages, which is sufficient to make out a claim for breach of contract.
March 17th, 2007 at 6:35 pm
so, she did not used a language for the contract she alleges that was agred upon; here some metatag telling the machine what the contract says.
lets say I host a page on US servers: My “contract” for visiting the page comes in a language that the judge that visited my site did not know. Then he of course breached some terms of what he can’t read and I will sue for breach of contract.
Should I bet on it that his collegues from this case here will let the claim against him stand like they did in this case where the “visitor” did not understand the language of the contract?
This lady was to stupid to use the right contract language and sues now. I’m not sure who is more to blame; she or the judge(s) that allowed this nonsense about “breach of contract”!
__
Alter_Fritz
March 17th, 2007 at 11:29 pm
The basic problem with this (as in just about EVERY OTHER ‘lawsuit’) is that the collosal mindf*ck which passes for “law” in just about every nation has been allowed to become so convoluted and extensive that nobody can actually comply with it anymore.
If you comply with one law, you’re probably breaking ten or twenty others. Add to this the fact that the “damages” awarded in lawsuits usually run into the thousands of dollars — if not more, and the existence of “retroactive laws” and you have a surefire recipe for subhuman vultures like this bitch to feed upon.
This woman is a symptom — just like the “Mcdonald’s spilled coffee” thing was a symptom. Until — and unless — the big systematic fiction known as “law” is either abandoned outright, or trimmed back to something resembling reasonable levels, this type of garbage is bound to continue to happen.
First step would be to disallow any lawsuits seeking “damages” or further penalization if the person/organization has complied with the resuest/order. A reasonable civilization would have said “The Internet Archive removed it already, so you can go f*uck yourself.” But we’re not a reasonable civilization. (IF we WERE, the RICO act would never have been passed in the first place, but that’s another story.)
The vultures have been circling the Internet Archive for a while now.
March 18th, 2007 at 8:14 am
“First step would be to disallow any lawsuits seeking “damages” or further penalization if the person/organization has complied with the resuest/order.”
This is a good idea that can be applied to many situations, although not all, related to unauthorized copying. If whatever is copied is sold, the copyright owner (hopefully but hardly ever, the creator) should somehow be compensated as if royalty for the copied work was paid for to the copyright owners.
But let’s be realistic. As long as the legal system is profitable for lawyers on a contingency or a huge (100 to 1,000 dollars an hour) fee basis, the system will be manipulated. After all, judges are always lawyers (and their friends are largely lawyers) and legislators are either lawyers or finance by lawyer-lobbyists.
Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com
March 18th, 2007 at 1:48 pm
Suzanne Shell has a degree in computer programming. She left out the robot.txt on purpose.also http://www.profane-justice.org owns a website http://badadvocates.com/ proving what kind of person she is..billy
http://thetruthistold.com
March 20th, 2007 at 11:24 pm
Donna Suzanne Ostrum-Strand-Shell is currently married to a Dennis Gene Shell, who is the epitome of a momma’s boy. Donna and Dennis live in his daddy’s trailer on a crappy chicken farm in Colorado. They still live with his parents.
Allegedly, Dennis sought greener pastures in the arms of another woman awhile back, and has allegedly kindled some more extramarital bonds just recently.
One William O. Tower of Sacramento California sued Donna Suzanne Shell for putting slanderous information about him on her website http://www.badadvocates.com. Interestingly, she claims that the site isn’t hers, even though it is registered in her name, and all email from the online forms goes to her own personal email account.
Donna is a graduate of the Coon Rapids High School. She got knocked up at age 17 which is the alleged reason for her father, a Mr. Donald Ostrum of Minnesota, punching her in the face. She was a high school cheerleader and alleged floozy.
Donna had two sons from her first marriage, which were the subjects of her involvement with Child Protective Services. While it is true that she got CPS off her back with her tactics of bullying, the boys deigned to reside with their father instead. Thus she allegedly never truly retained custody.
She not only allowed, but condoned, her new husband, Dennis Shell, an upholsterer, to beat her child Jacob with a martinet, which is a cat’o'nine tails. Allegedly this whipping left no marks, and resulted in an acquittal for Mr. Shell.
Since then, Ms. Shell has proclaimed herself to be the expert on how to deal with parents falsely accused of Child Abuse and Neglect. However, her longstanding ability to alienate others who refused to kowtow to her leadership has earned her relentless scorn and ridicule from usenet groups and other areas of the vast internet. Truth be told, her tactics of bullying lawyers guardian at litem (LGALs), CPS caseworkers, judges, and other officials, have only caused woe to her cases and clients rather than weal.
While other groups emerged to combat the false allegations of child abuse and neglect rampant in the United States, Ms. Shell has done everything within her power to discredit, disparage, and disenfranchise those people who worked hard to make a difference in their respective communities. Particularly those who disagreed with her.
Claiming to be a journalist, Ms. Shell, who actually does possess some published works of dubious quality, chose to create what would later be known as the “Bad Advocate List” (BAL). This BAL’s purpose was to slander and malign any of her competitors in the Child Protection Reform “Industry”. Despite most of her claims, very few of the people on her BAL actually charge any money for their advocacy/activism work. This BAL can be found at the same place mentioned above.
Ms. Shell then tangled with a man by the name of Billy Wiseman, who really is a journalist. His website may be found at http://www.thetruthistold.com.
Every single person on her Bad Advocate List had not been contacted by her prior to their inclusion on the list, to show their side of the story. Most of her allegations involve some sort of sexual impropriety, such as a California man being a child molester, a Michigan pastor having an affair, and an Illinois woman being a strip club dancer. Also, most of her BAL entries are men, as she has a victim complex and hates men.
To fully relay the details of this poor, sick woman would take as many pages as her huge book of dubious value, “Profane Justice”. Let it suffice to say that it shouldn’t take a judge long to realize what a scam artist she is, and rule accordingly. However, she is a force to be pitied, not feared, and her evil shenannigans under the auspices of Christianity should not be taken seriously.
March 20th, 2007 at 11:25 pm
Donna Suzanne Ostrum-Strand-Shell is currently married to a Dennis Gene Shell, who is the epitome of a momma’s boy. Donna and Dennis live in his daddy’s trailer on a crappy chicken farm in Colorado. They still live with his parents.
Allegedly, Dennis sought greener pastures in the arms of another woman awhile back, and has allegedly kindled some more extramarital bonds just recently.
One William O. Tower of Sacramento California sued Donna Suzanne Shell for putting slanderous information about him on her website http://www.badadvocates.com. Interestingly, she claims that the site isn’t hers, even though it is registered in her name, and all email from the online forms goes to her own personal email account.
Donna is a graduate of the Coon Rapids High School. She got knocked up at age 17 which is the alleged reason for her father, a Mr. Donald Ostrum of Minnesota, punching her in the face. She was a high school cheerleader and alleged floozy.
Donna had two sons from her first marriage, which were the subjects of her involvement with Child Protective Services. While it is true that she got CPS off her back with her tactics of bullying, the boys deigned to reside with their father instead. Thus she allegedly never truly retained custody.
She not only allowed, but condoned, her new husband, Dennis Shell, an upholsterer, to beat her child Jacob with a martinet, which is a cat’o'nine tails. Allegedly this whipping left no marks, and resulted in an acquittal for Mr. Shell.
Since then, Ms. Shell has proclaimed herself to be the expert on how to deal with parents falsely accused of Child Abuse and Neglect. However, her longstanding ability to alienate others who refused to kowtow to her leadership has earned her relentless scorn and ridicule from usenet groups and other areas of the vast internet. Truth be told, her tactics of bullying lawyers guardian at litem (LGALs), CPS caseworkers, judges, and other officials, have only caused woe to her cases and clients rather than weal.
While other groups emerged to combat the false allegations of child abuse and neglect rampant in the United States, Ms. Shell has done everything within her power to discredit, disparage, and disenfranchise those people who worked hard to make a difference in their respective communities. Particularly those who disagreed with her.
Claiming to be a journalist, Ms. Shell, who actually does possess some published works of dubious quality, chose to create what would later be known as the “Bad Advocate List” (BAL). This BAL’s purpose was to slander and malign any of her competitors in the Child Protection Reform “Industry”. Despite most of her claims, very few of the people on her BAL actually charge any money for their advocacy/activism work. This BAL can be found at the same place mentioned above.
Ms. Shell then tangled with a man by the name of Billy Wiseman, who really is a journalist. His website may be found at http://www.thetruthistold.com.
Every single person on her Bad Advocate List had not been contacted by her prior to their inclusion on the list, to show their side of the story. Most of her allegations involve some sort of sexual impropriety, such as a California man being a child molester, a Michigan pastor having an affair, and an Illinois woman being a strip club dancer. Also, most of her BAL entries are men, as she has a victim complex and hates men.
To fully relay the details of this poor, sick woman would take as many pages as her huge book of dubious value, “Profane Justice”. Let it suffice to say that it shouldn’t take a judge long to realize what a scam artist she is, and rule accordingly. However, she is a force to be pitied, not feared, and her evil shenannigans under the auspices of Christianity should not be taken seriously.
March 22nd, 2007 at 8:00 pm
She’s a scammer. She has a degree in computer programming:
http://www.ppld.org/communityconnections/authors/authors_Download.txt
145|Shell, Suzanne||14053 Eastonville Rd|Elbert|CO|80106||||Freelance Writer, Accountant, Upholsterer, Computer Programmer|BOOK:Profane Justice:A Comprehensive Guide to Asserting Your Parental Rights|Yes||Degree in Computer Programming & Accounting||Lived in Colorado Springs 1975-1978. Returned in 1982. Lived in Elbert County 1991-1996. Now live East of Black Forest.|Roswell, New Mexico|3-7-56
March 22nd, 2007 at 11:22 pm
by FlaccidWanker on 3/19/07
[comment buried, show commenthide comment] + 1 digg
Donna Suzanne Ostrum-Strand-Shell is currently married to a Dennis Gene Shell, who is the epitome of a momma’s boy. Donna and Dennis live in his daddy’s trailer on a crappy chicken farm in Colorado. They still live with his parents.
Allegedly, Dennis sought greener pastures in the arms of another woman awhile back, and has allegedly kindled some more extramarital bonds just recently.
One William O. Tower of Sacramento California sued Donna Suzanne Shell for putting slanderous information about him on her website http://www.badadvocates.com. Interestingly, she claims that the site isn’t hers, even though it is registered in her name, and all email from the online forms goes to her own personal email account.
Donna is a graduate of the Coon Rapids High School. She got knocked up at age 17 which is the alleged reason for her father, a Mr. Donald Ostrum of Minnesota, punching her in the face. She was a high school cheerleader and alleged floozy.
Donna had two sons from her first marriage, which were the subjects of her involvement with Child Protective Services. While it is true that she got CPS off her back with her tactics of bullying, the boys deigned to reside with their father instead. Thus she allegedly never truly retained custody.
She not only allowed, but condoned, her new husband, Dennis Shell, an upholsterer, to beat her child Jacob with a martinet, which is a cat’o'nine tails. Allegedly this whipping left no marks, and resulted in an acquittal for Mr. Shell.
Since then, Ms. Shell has proclaimed herself to be the expert on how to deal with parents falsely accused of Child Abuse and Neglect. However, her longstanding ability to alienate others who refused to kowtow to her leadership has earned her relentless scorn and ridicule from usenet groups and other areas of the vast internet. Truth be told, her tactics of bullying lawyers guardian at litem (LGALs), CPS caseworkers, judges, and other officials, have only caused woe to her cases and clients rather than weal.
While other groups emerged to combat the false allegations of child abuse and neglect rampant in the United States, Ms. Shell has done everything within her power to discredit, disparage, and disenfranchise those people who worked hard to make a difference in their respective communities. Particularly those who disagreed with her.
Claiming to be a journalist, Ms. Shell, who actually does possess some published works of dubious quality, chose to create what would later be known as the “Bad Advocate List” (BAL). This BAL’s purpose was to slander and malign any of her competitors in the Child Protection Reform “Industry”. Despite most of her claims, very few of the people on her BAL actually charge any money for their advocacy/activism work. This BAL can be found at the same place mentioned above.
Ms. Shell then tangled with a man by the name of Billy Wiseman, who really is a journalist. His website may be found at http://www.thetruthistold.com.
Every single person on her Bad Advocate List had not been contacted by her prior to their inclusion on the list, to show their side of the story. Most of her allegations involve some sort of sexual impropriety, such as a California man being a child molester, a Michigan pastor having an affair, and an Illinois woman being a strip club dancer. Also, most of her BAL entries are men, as she has a victim complex and hates men.
To fully relay the details of this poor, sick woman would take as many pages as her huge book of dubious value, “Profane Justice”. Let it suffice to say that it shouldn’t take a judge long to realize what a scam artist she is, and rule accordingly. However, she is a force to be pitied, not feared, and her evil shenannigans under the auspices of Christianity should not be taken seriously.