Comments on: p2pnet wins landmark ‘linking’ defamation case

By: Charles Duffy

Charles Duffy — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 23:53:50 +0000

Reader’s Write, look at how California’s anti-SLAPP provisions were misused in the JMRI case. Given that context, they give me far less comfort than they do you.

By: bh

bh — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 22:11:57 +0000

Awesome! HUGE Congrats!

Also, 2nding what Dreddsnik says One down, one to go.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 21:27:10 +0000

Dan Burnett, the lawyer for p2pnet has done an interview, explaining why the case matters for the future of the net. He says that there is a chance of an appeal against the judge’s ruling: http://www.newslab.ca/?p=114

By: Jile

Jile — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 18:31:03 +0000

Congrats!

I also hope you get money for damages!

By: Rafael Venegas

Rafael Venegas — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 12:14:38 +0000

“Good job. I hope you countersued for legal costs.”
Add to that damages. Being sued causes real emotional and time damages.
Go get them, just to discourage the next persecutor, whether plaintiff or lawyer, who wants to get some easy unearned defamation money.
Congrats.

By: RG

RG — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 05:57:45 +0000

Jon – congratulations on you and Dan Burnett setting a significant precedent. Paragraphs [24] and [34] of the judgment clearly spell out the rights and wrongs when hyperlinking, and thus this matter has now been defined. This is a great result.

By: Dave

Dave — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 05:37:01 +0000

Good job. I hope you countersued for legal costs.

By: freeman

freeman — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 04:33:34 +0000

Oh, I almost forgot. You have just made the national legal internet news of Michael Geist
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/3473/125/

By: Andy

Andy — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 04:22:06 +0000

That was the news we all wanted to hear. I realise it’s not the end of the story, but it’s a good chunk of it. It’s a pity you had to live under the cloud for so long.

By: freeman

freeman — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 04:16:33 +0000

Congrats Jon
Anything to spread the truth about anything or anyone is a definite plus. I like the KISS rule [Keep It Simple Stupid]. I this case it translates to “be responsible for what you do or be exposed”. No I don’t know who originally said it
You deserve full bragging rights and KUDOS to you.

If link’s content should change it’s the links owner’s fault.

I definitely agree with anon about anti-SLAPP. I think anyone who starts a frivolous suit should pay 10% of their gross worth and any costs incurred when they are found to be … [in my opinion] greedy lying manipulating idiots.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 03:51:30 +0000

Interesting twist on the “making available” argument.

Apparently the legality/liability of offsite linking depends on the type of (’illegal’) content being linked to.

In general, it would seem that:

posting (offsite) links that lead to INFRINGING content —-> statutory crime, liability
posting (offsite) links that lead to CHILDPORN content —-> statutory crime, liability
posting (offsite) links that lead to DEFAMATORY content —> no crime, no liability

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 02:30:53 +0000

Great! This helps.

From now on, if anyone sues over something as ridiculous as a link in a blogroll, a judge can use this case as precedent to throw the lawsuit out at an earlier stage. This helps a bit with SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) suits.

Next, we need a national statute that punishes those who launch vexatious torts attacking citizen media, volunteers and the like working in the public interest.

California has anti-SLAPP legislation.

There’s still several Crookes lawsuit in the wings.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 01:46:21 +0000

Congratulations! That’s got to be a relief.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 01:35:26 +0000

This is just one big self-brag.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 23:42:08 +0000

Congrats, really good to see

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 23:06:19 +0000

>This is still troubling.

Not really, because in that case the statement is a lie which intends to damage the reputation of the person in question. Context is always important.

By: Eric

Eric — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 22:32:54 +0000

Great to hear. In a world where our freedoms are being taken away, it’s nice to know that sometimes one can prevail who fights for one’s rights.

By: Go2Null

Go2Null — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 20:57:01 +0000

What happens if the remote site changed the linked page to include defamatory statements? (Ex: Wikipedia)

By: Drake

Drake — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 20:27:28 +0000

Congrats!

By: Dreddsnik

Dreddsnik — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 19:06:36 +0000

This could be pretty bad for someone else who is suing P2Pnet