Legal question about liability

[SkyHog]

We're not talking about 'looking at someone funny', we're talking about potential public defamation and intellectual property rights violations.

That's just it, no, neither he, nor you are looking at a potential defamation and intellectual property rights violations.

This is exactly the same as looking at someone funny. There is no merit or legal base to their claims, just as with Paypalsucks.com or Ebaysucks.com or Somethingawful.com. If Jesse had not parodied the picture of Troy's website, then yes, you'd be right, he'd be using copyrighted material without permission. Now that it is a parody, its coverd under fair use.

The AP Picture he used is a different matter. I don't understand how AP works, so if the AP contacted him, I wouldn't know what to say, but they haven't. The only one who has contacted him is Troy's "Legal Team" which probably doesn't exist anyways. Remember - lawyers don't send emails.

I think you had brought up disclosing private emails also. Once an email has been received it is the recipient's property. Those little disclaimers that say "Not for public dissemination"? Useless. So Jesse's ok there, as well.

What we need, is one of the board's native lawyers to come in here and confirm this, because obviously, regardless of what proof we show y'all, you keep harping on "Ooh, its illegal, you're gonna get sued and lose everything!" despite the fact that Jesse has done nothing "legally" wrong.

 

[Greebo]

Suit yourself. But if you don't want assumptions made about you, don't make them about others. As I said, there's a far cry between living in fear and exercising some prudent judgement. You get what you give, neh?

 

[Greebo]

Nick the original post specifically mentioned AvWeb, and the lawsuit that killed their forum community. Something Awful also got mentioned.

SomethingAwful is a parody/satire site - to a large degree they can claim protections as that kind of site that neither AvWeb, nor PoA, as serious sites, can claim. SA.Com flames EVERYTHING, afterall.

AvWeb, as I understand it (and I'm not clamiing any inside knowledge, just stuff I've picked up), they did do something dead stupid to get themselves found at fault. Namely, after being notified of the issue at hand, they chose not to act on the complaint, and became complacent through negligence or something like that.

 

[jesse]

You get what you give, neh?

Yeah. That's it. I was dishing it out to everyone. Oh wait.. No.. I just said what I do..and what I beleive in.

 

[Greebo]

If your intent was NOT to insult everyone who would opt to play it safe by accusing them of "Living in fear" then I misunderstood you and am quite happy to apologize.

But thats certainly how it sounded to me, and my cynical side (which is guilty of playing just those kinds of word games at your age) has a suspicion that you know exactly how it sounded - just close enough to play the semantics game of "Me? No! I never meant that! I'm being persecuted!".

But, like I said, thats my cynical side, so again, if I misunderstood, you have my apologies.

 

[Richard]

Nick, if I were a lawyer I would think twice and then again before attaching my name to this potential mess.

All that can be said, has been said. In the event of some action, are you or Jesse prepared to defend POA too? There are real costs even before you get to court, assuming you would even have a chance to get before a judge.

There will be some mighty ****ed off pilots if this site is placed in jeopardy because of this.

 

[Greebo]

There will be some mighty ****ed off pilots if this site is placed in jeopardy because of this.

Let me just stress that we are not, repeat NOT, concerned about any liability in this particular issue. We've had no contact from anyone complaining about our content, and several threads on the subject at hand remain open.

The two that were closed were closed at either the originators request (who happened to be MC), or because they posted an email that was not sent publicly. Yes, the ownership of the email at that point is the recipients, but sometimes we feel it prudent to extend the same rules regarding PMs to emails.

Yes, it was a discretionary judgement, yes it may not always be that we close down threads containing emails, and yes, we reserve the right to exercise our judgement on every single thread.

But like I said, we are not concerned about any liability. We have asked that discussions of other members of the aviation community be carried out with an eye towards staying away from bashing because we do not want anyone in the aviation community to feel unwelcome here.

 

[jesse]

But thats certainly how it sounded to me, and my cynical side (which is guilty of playing just those kinds of word games at your age) has a suspicion that you know exactly how it sounded - just close enough to play the semantics game of "Me? No! I never meant that! I'm being persecuted!".

Or perhaps I was just saying I'll do what I think is right and I'm not going to get all worked up or be in fear of what may happen for me doing so.

My age has little to do with any of this in my opinion. But my opinion is also diluted with my lack of responsibility and common sense associated with my age..So you must be right..since my view is so fogged...

Either way. I'm done w/ this thread.

 

[SkyHog]

Just to be clear, I'm not arguing just for the sake of arguing, I don't want anyone to think that I'm trying to stir the pot and be a jerk, but I am only arguing because whether you agree or disagree with the way Jesse is doing this, you gotta admit 2 things:

1) His Video is funny as hell
2) Precedent has been set to where Jesse's liability is almost nil.

I don't know anything about the avweb case, except a few names dropped from time to time. What's interesting is that I see lots of forums go through the same name calling and accusations as the red boards went through before the shut down, and none of them ever got sued. Threats? Yeah, no suits. So I conclude that Avweb must have done something wrong themselves.

I'm not trying to tell you guys how to run this place, I'll admit, at first I was a bit frustrated seeing the policy about bashing Troy, but now, I understand if you don't want to take that stance. But Jesse's website is his, and there's no danger for him (or you, should you rescind the censorship).

But I gotta say, this thread is getting a little stale. Its been what, a week now? I think we're all gonna have to agree to disagree.

 

[Brian Austin]

What we need, is one of the board's native lawyers to come in here and confirm this...

That would be not-so-smart on their part. Most lawyers know when to stay out of this kind of small but potentially blown out of proportion scenario.

And you both are wrong about costing more than "gas to court". Think about your job and the time you'll need away from it. Think about your responses to motions and the time to prepare them. Think about the lost opportunities that can start accumulating while THEIR lawyers drag this out.

I realize that you're trying to take a stand here. That's great but for what? MAG is no different than hundreds of other businesses that have taken a concept, rewrapped it, and sold it as new.

Side bet: with no mention of it, this will become another archived site on the 'Net within 3 months....probably less. Indignation takes motivation.

 

[wsuffa]

Guys,

While I think this has been a useful discussion, some of the posts today have been edging a little close to the imaginary "personal" line. I'd hate to see this disintegrate into one of those arguments that we have to close.

'nuff said.

bill

 

[flyifrvfr]

Some people are a bit too paranoid.

No, I am trying to educate you in regards to the improper use of a copyrighted photo.

 

[SCCutler]

Guys,

While I think this has been a useful discussion, some of the posts today have been edging a little close to the imaginary "personal" line. I'd hate to see this disintegrate into one of those arguments that we have to close.

'nuff said.

bill

Bill:

What you said, and thanks for saying it.