×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

UK Court Order Served Over Twitter, To Anonymous User Posing As Another

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the summon-our-powers-of-indignation dept.

The Courts 205

SpuriousLogic spotted this story on the BBC, from which he excerpts: "The High Court has given permission for an injunction to be served via social-networking site Twitter. The order is to be served against an unknown Twitter user who anonymously posts to the site using the same name as a right-wing political blogger. The order demands the anonymous Twitter user reveal their identity and stop posing as Donal Blaney, who blogs at a site called Blaney's Blarney. The order says the Twitter user is breaching the copyright of Mr. Blaney. He told BBC News that the content being posted to Twitter in his name was 'mildly objectionable.' Mr. Blaney turned to Twitter to serve the injunction rather than go through the potentially lengthy process of contacting Twitter headquarters in California and asking it to deal with the matter. UK law states that an injunction does not have to be served in person and can be delivered by several different means including fax or e-mail."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

205 comments

Copyright on his name? (2, Interesting)

seifried (12921) | more than 4 years ago | (#29614287)

So what about all the other Mr. Blaney's? Or am I missing something about specifically what copyrighted material is being infringed?

Re:Copyright on his name? (2)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 4 years ago | (#29614347)

You're missing that you can sue anyone for anything and they have to show up, no matter how stupid the claims.

Thankfully some courts don't like this stuff and hand out stiff penalties for it.

Sued? (1, Interesting)

siloko (1133863) | more than 4 years ago | (#29614449)

Nice rant but the twitterer is being served an injunction [wikipedia.org] and not being sued at all . . .

Re:Sued? (-1, Troll)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 4 years ago | (#29614469)

Umm.. are you completely unaware of legal process.. oh wait, you're an idiot on Slashdot, of course you are.

Re:Sued? (3, Funny)

siloko (1133863) | more than 4 years ago | (#29614515)

Ahh yes, you're right . . . I was completely ignorant, but thanks to your measured and intelligent response I did a bit of research and am suitably chastened. Thanks.

Re:Sued? (3, Informative)

FatdogHaiku (978357) | more than 4 years ago | (#29614525)

Nice rant but the twitterer is being served an injunction [wikipedia.org] and not being sued at all . . .

Twitter is the delivery method, not named as a party to an action. If you mail someone an injunction, you are not serving an injunction on the post office, you are using the post office to serve a third party... same thing here.

For what is thought to be the first time Twitter is being used to send a court order to a user of the Twitter service.

Yet another reason not to use the thing.

Re:Copyright on his name? (5, Informative)

ldrydenb (1316047) | more than 4 years ago | (#29614687)

The twitter account in question is @blaneysblarney, which is the name of Mr Blaney's blog. The account photo is copied from Mr Blaney's blog. The first post of @blaneysblarney says "Comrades, I thought I would set up a more political twitter and keep my other twitter account for more personal stuff."

So it seems he's trying to prevent someone using his photo and the name of his blog to pass off their words as his. I'm guessing he's asserting copyright on his photo and the name of his blog, which seems reasonable.

Re:Copyright on his name? (2, Insightful)

Homburg (213427) | more than 4 years ago | (#29614751)

The copyright assertion on the photo makes sense, but name of the blog can't be copyrighted. It's possible that he's claiming the name of his blog as a trademark, or, under the UK law for unregistered trademarks, "passing off." I would have thought you would have to actually be engaging in trade to make such a claim, and I don't think a blog qualifies; but I may be wrong about UK trademark law.

Re:Copyright on his name? (3, Funny)

ldrydenb (1316047) | more than 4 years ago | (#29614919)

As soon as I posted, I realised that I'd probably overstated by mentioning copyright on the name of the blog ... and just knew that would be the subject of the first reply: geeks will be geeks ;-)

No "I'm the real Mr Blaney" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29614761)

He downloaded the image from my gay porn site and photoshopped some clothes onto it. I'm the real Donal Blaney and I'm a gay retard.

Re:No "I'm the real Mr Blaney" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29614777)

see my twitter account Twits [twitter.com]

Cue the deluge of people... (4, Funny)

Majik Sheff (930627) | more than 4 years ago | (#29614303)

claiming to be this guy in various contexts. Streisand effect here we come.

Re:Cue the deluge of people... (5, Funny)

DonalBlaney (1648379) | more than 4 years ago | (#29614493)

claiming to be this guy in various contexts. Streisand effect here we come.

Don't matter I'll sue them all!!!
I have friends in thee RIAA!

Re:Cue the deluge of people... (1)

Idiomatick (976696) | more than 4 years ago | (#29614699)

Was it worth making the account just for that?

I guess at least with slashdot you can count on a dupe and use the joke twice.

Re:Cue the deluge of people... (2, Funny)

DonalBlaney (1648379) | more than 4 years ago | (#29614723)

Was it worth making the account just for that?

I guess at least with slashdot you can count on a dupe and use the joke twice.

I've had this account for over a year now!

Re:Cue the deluge of people... (1)

pjt33 (739471) | more than 4 years ago | (#29614875)

Sure you have. Despite never posting with it before today and having a UID in the >1.6m range.

Replica Watches (0, Offtopic)

benkss (1643359) | more than 4 years ago | (#29614673)

claiming to be this guy in various contexts. Streisand effect here we come.

A friend of mine purchased Replica Watches [newstylerolex.com].The appearance of the watch is so nice that i also want to own it! We together lodged in the web http://www.newstylerolex.com/ [newstylerolex.com] and chose an attractive women watches [newstylerolex.com].It feels so good that i always wear it on my hand.By now i have worn it for three months and have not found any problem.No wonder the quality is favorable. I believe it and will introduce it to more people!

Thats about it for me (5, Insightful)

Seriousity (1441391) | more than 4 years ago | (#29614321)

Time for me to delete my social networking accounts methinks, it's lost all the glitter and sparkle as my eyes have been gradually opened to the loss of privacy they effect and the risk of identity theft they engender. I've watched facebook degenerate into an oozing fest of self indulgence and crappy quizzes about peoples aura/star sign/some other mystic crap or how good they are in bed, and too many of my friends now use it to grandly announce every mundane detail of their life to the world as if they're some sort of celebrity and we're all supposed to be deeply concerned about them cutting their pinky finger or enraptured by their new haircut, etc etc. A friend related similar sentiments to me earlier today, saying people were using it as if it were twitter.

What concerns me the most is the loss of privacy entailed in having an account with any of these sites, knowing that cops and employers can pull up all this info instantly... it's a worry. Enough ranting for me, I'm going to delete my facebook account and my twitter account (which I created once and used never :P)

Re:Thats about it for me (4, Insightful)

gzipped_tar (1151931) | more than 4 years ago | (#29614421)

Time for me to delete my social networking accounts methinks

You can't. It's cursed.

I mean, do you honestly believe you are allowed to do that in the first place? As today's business best practice is to bury terms like "we retain the right of owing your data for as long as we are pleased, even if after you 'delete' your account" in the crap known as "the License Agreement", prepare to fight through legal obstacles and win a Pyrrhic victory at the cost of a kidney and a liver before you can really delete all your social-networking accounts, if for some reason you can win at all.

Re:Thats about it for me (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29614793)

Dont delete them. I create accounts just so that no one else can use my identity on there, but never use more than the cursory first update that says I am Online. Some of my friends think I am a luddite who can't use new trends of social networking, but I am happy with email.

Ashraya

Re:Thats about it for me (1)

selven (1556643) | more than 4 years ago | (#29615009)

Information that's out there is out there, you can't change that. But you can do stop putting new things on there.

Re:Thats about it for me (1)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 4 years ago | (#29614427)

Degenerate into an oozing fest of self indulgence and crappy quizzes about peoples aura/star sign/some other mystic crap or how good they are in bed, and...?

That's what Facebook is.

Re:Thats about it for me (5, Funny)

z0idberg (888892) | more than 4 years ago | (#29614459)

too many of my friends now use it to grandly announce every mundane detail of their life to the world

Would you consider their decision to delete their social networking sites a mundane details of their life? and the fact that they only ever used these once? I would. Just sayin'

Re:Thats about it for me (1)

Idiomatick (976696) | more than 4 years ago | (#29614715)

Atleast he said it articulately...
"Time for me to delete my social networking accounts methinks, it's lost all the glitter and sparkle as my eyes have been gradually opened to"

Probably wouldn't have cut it. Oh well its not like language served any purpose or conveyed subtlety, lets all switch to point form with mangled words.

Re:Thats about it for me (3, Insightful)

draco664 (960985) | more than 4 years ago | (#29614465)

I've watched facebook degenerate into an oozing fest of self indulgence and crappy quizzes about peoples aura/star sign/some other mystic crap or how good they are in bed, and too many of my friends now use it to grandly announce every mundane detail of their life to the world as if they're some sort of celebrity and we're all supposed to be deeply concerned about them cutting their pinky finger or enraptured by their new haircut, etc etc.

A great many people think that their lives are far more important and eventful than those of others, without making the mental leap to realise that other people think the same about their own.

Re:Thats about it for me (1)

TheLink (130905) | more than 4 years ago | (#29614781)

But it is indeed more important to the person that's experiencing it. We're not a Borg. You feed your stomach first...

I don't know why he's making such a fuss about it all, he doesn't have to read all of it. OK the quizzes are a bit of a spam problem since facebook treats each of them differently so you can't just exclude them all in one go.

But I think it's a bit like sitting in the same room as friends who are going "Ouch, I just cut my pinky", or "Yay I just got a new haircut", if you're not willing to ignore it and find that such a huge annoyance, why are you in the "same room" as them? Why are you even friends with them?

Don't like it, don't "sit in the same room". Fact is, most of the rest of us in the world don't actually see your facebook friends "mundane postings" so they aren't really announcing it to the world. They're just announcing it to their friends, and stalkers...

Re:Thats about it for me (1)

asdf7890 (1518587) | more than 4 years ago | (#29614909)

I don't know why he's making such a fuss about it all, he doesn't have to read all of it. OK the quizzes are a bit of a spam problem since facebook treats each of them differently so you can't just exclude them all in one go.

http://lite.facebook.com/ - not one single silly application, no quizzes, nothing. Not even updates on how my cousin's pretend farm is doing. Just the humorous shit (and the mundane shit, but sometimes it is actually nice to see people's mundane thoughts if only as evidence that they are still alive) that we post as messages/photos/videos.

I no longer log into the full-fat version now.

Re:Thats about it for me (2, Insightful)

argent (18001) | more than 4 years ago | (#29614583)

Time for me to delete my social networking accounts methinks, it's lost all the glitter and sparkle

It ever had any?

Re:Thats about it for me (1)

Jeian (409916) | more than 4 years ago | (#29614627)

too many of my friends now use it to grandly announce every mundane detail of their life to the world as if they're some sort of celebrity and we're all supposed to be deeply concerned about them cutting their pinky finger or enraptured by their new haircut, etc etc.

Don't know about you, but I'm actually interested in what's going on in my friends' lives.

Re:Thats about it for me (1)

RicRoc (41406) | more than 4 years ago | (#29614819)

I guess you will be deleting you Slashdot account as well, then? Are you talking seriousity? :-)

Might as well cut yourself out of society. Facebook et al are minuscule steps toward the singularity - do you think that will happen without loss of privacy? It will be painful.

Stand up and sing out: "YES! I cut my finger today! Revel in the mundane details of my life, will you?" And the discordant songs shall melt in the fire of onrushing destiny until we are all united as one melody, beating in harmony with the pain and dreams of an entire civilization.

Man, what am I smoking today?

Re:Thats about it for me (5, Funny)

gsslay (807818) | more than 4 years ago | (#29614861)

Time for me to delete my social networking accounts methinks

too many of my friends now use it to grandly announce every mundane detail of their life to the world

Mmmmmm, delicious irony.

Jurisdiction? (4, Interesting)

bogidu (300637) | more than 4 years ago | (#29614323)

IANAL, but if the person in question is not a UK citizen, does the UK law, which says the injunction can be sent by fax or email, apply?

Re:Jurisdiction? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29614387)

It all depends on the countries involved! If it were France and the United States- where the United States attempted to do the injunctioning to a person in France the French would realize it isn't within the US's power. Same thing but with the UK and many other countries and well... your screwed.

Re:Jurisdiction? (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29614551)

FYI, the corresponding verb for 'injuction' is 'enjoin'.

Re:Jurisdiction? (5, Informative)

Wizard Drongo (712526) | more than 4 years ago | (#29614455)

Oh, you can deliver an injunction anywhere. Hell, if they were on the Moon, as long as they can receive it, you can deliver it. The correct question here is "if they're not in the UK, is there anything stopping them from just completely ignoring it?" and the answer would be "no". Of course, you next recourse then would be to either attempt to get the criminal courts involved, so you can have them extradited (doubtful in this case;the courts are rightly leery of getting involved in civil actions like this), or you go to the country they're in (e.g. the US) and get a judgement against them there, which depending on the locale can be easy or hard. In the EU, the court would be likely to take the UK's court decision into consideration, likewise the US, Canada and other commonwealth nations. China or Nigeria etc., not so much.

Re:Jurisdiction? (1)

Malc (1751) | more than 4 years ago | (#29614643)

Yes, aren't there treaties between some of these countries that mean decisions made in one country's courts are recognised in another's? So an ex-wife who sues successfully for support in an a Canadian court could expect a British court to uphold and impose the conditions on the ex-husband if he moves to the UK after the divorce. I have no idea of the legal terms, etc, etc, or even if it's the same context ;)

Re:Jurisdiction? (3, Insightful)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 4 years ago | (#29614693)

Those can also be one-way. For example, the US can make Britain extradite random British citizens to be tried in the US for alleged crimes comitted anywhere in the world, but Britain cannot make the US extradite a US citizen to face a British court. Apples and oranges.

Re:Jurisdiction? (1)

Idiomatick (976696) | more than 4 years ago | (#29614735)

Chicken and the Egg problem. If the country the person is in values privacy couldn't it be illegal to find the persons IP? If so then you can't know what country they are in and can't expect them to follow the injunction. There only needs to be one country to think this way for it to screw the whole system.

Re:Jurisdiction? (1)

meerling (1487879) | more than 4 years ago | (#29614953)

"Oh, you can deliver an injunction anywhere...." I think it might be a little more correct to say that you can SEND an injunction anywhere, delivery assumes it's been received. That's the problem with dumping official stuff on blogs or twitters, you have no idea if the intended recipient ever got it.

It's kind of like when the UPS dumped a new computer I'd ordered somewhere near the house, I never got it. 3 weeks later I got a brand new computer, and UPS not only payed the bill, but this time they actually rang the doorbell and ensured it was received. :)

Like so many cheesy shows on tv: the moral is, if you can't verify that the recipient actually got it, you didn't really send it...
(eww... I just got a bad flashback to Harvey Birdman.... "Did you get that thing I sent you?".... ACK!)

Re:Jurisdiction? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29614661)

you can deliver it, but it can be safely ignored... different countries have different laws, including those that allow impersonation (comedians doing voice/facial impersonations) as well as comedic / satirical pieces...

They finally got anonymous coward! (4, Funny)

syousef (465911) | more than 4 years ago | (#29614329)

Three cheers for finally serving a court order against that anonymous coward bastard. He's always cluttering up slashdot with horse porn stories, trolling posts and all sorts of objectionable and inflamatory shite. Maybe now the Internet-web-thingie will be easy to use and headache free and we'll only ever have truth posted! Yay!

Re:They finally got anonymous coward! (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29614345)

Yeah!

Why don't you go fuck yourself? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29614365)

AC is legion. We will have a massive bukkake fest all over your face and that of Mr. Blaney.

Open wide, little bitch.

Re:They finally got anonymous coward! (5, Interesting)

Psyborgue (699890) | more than 4 years ago | (#29614419)

Actually, "Anonymous coward" is exactly the term the real Blarney actually used on his blog [blogspot.com], writing "I successfully obtained, thanks to the masterful advocacy of Matthew Richardson, in the High Court today compelling an anonymous coward to stop pretending to be me on Twitter and to reveal his or her identity.".

Re:They finally got anonymous coward! (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29614689)

Actually, "Anonymous coward" is exactly the term the real Blarney actually used on his blog [blogspot.com], writing "I successfully obtained, thanks to the masterful advocacy of Matthew Richardson, in the High Court today compelling an anonymous coward to stop pretending to be me on Twitter and to reveal his or her identity.".

But, then, wasn't this guy pretending to be me?

Re:They finally got anonymous coward! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29614503)

The truth? OMGZ Linux is teh best!!!1! Leenux Trovalds is the smartest man ever to live!

Typical American arrogance.

Re:They finally got anonymous coward! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29614845)

You'll enjoy this American dick up your ass soon enough, Eurofag.

Hope you like cut cock.

Yet another reason to hate people. (2, Interesting)

Capsy (1644737) | more than 4 years ago | (#29614337)

If the real Mr. Blaney has a problem with this, he should consult the person himself. That's not say he has a case anyways, as your name, as long as it isn't being used illicitly, is free for anyone to use. For example, the was a real James Bond, and Ian Flemming simply used his name for a character in his books and movies. The real Bond sent him a letter telling him it wasn't right, and Flemming replied with "Feel free to use my name for anything you wish." Flemming was not in the wrong, because for all intensive purposes, he wasn't portraying the real person. Regardless of this, Blaney cannot complain because, regardless of the fact he's in politics, no one listens to these fools posing as other fools. I still remember the Jessica Alba page on Xanga...

Re:Yet another reason to hate people. (5, Insightful)

Animaether (411575) | more than 4 years ago | (#29614413)

for all intensive purposes

*twitch*
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=intensive+purposes [urbandictionary.com]
THAT out of the way...

There's a bit of a difference between your case of the real James Bond and Ian Fleming's James Bond. The real James Bond wasn't a spy, and Ian Fleming certainly wasn't trying to pass of the books' character James Bond as if they were the real James Bond-the-spy.
The real james bond was an ornithologist, says wikipedia with some citation to lord knows whether it's a credible source, but whatever.

This Donal Blaney chap, however, is complaining that somebody else posting under the name Donal Blaney is actually trying to pass themselves off as being this particular Donal Blaney chap... using not only his name, but his picture, his actual blog's name, etc.

Whether or not he has a case will be up to the courts to decide anyway, but I do believe he's got -a- point.. even if it's not a very sharp one, given that twitter does usually look into these things to make sure celebrities get to use their own name if a fan or foe set up a twitter account with that celebrity's name and was posing as them.
( not too sure what they do if it's really just an account from somebody else with the same name and they do -not- pose as the celebrity; I should hope they'd tell the celeb to go take a hike and open a new account under a different name. )

Copyright? (1)

Toksyuryel (1641337) | more than 4 years ago | (#29614351)

I wasn't aware you could copyright your own name. This looks like yet another attempt to grossly extend the reach of copyright by dinging a guy who is genuinely guilty of a crime and trying to change that crime to copyright infringement. Blizzard would be so proud.

Re:Copyright? (1)

Andorin (1624303) | more than 4 years ago | (#29614407)

Agreed. Copyright protects creative works. Unless you change your name to something totally original (like Humpledeimer Arsface), I don't think you can claim a copyright on it.

Re:Copyright? (4, Interesting)

Psyborgue (699890) | more than 4 years ago | (#29614529)

You can attempt to trademark your own name, but it rarely holds up in court, especially against the many fair use defenses. I should know. I run a website that had to deal with a WIPO dispute [google.com] from a woman claiming her name was trademarked (decision here [wipo.int], full details and all case files here [fornits.com]). Her argument was similar that a person could misunderstand my site to be hers, but even if that were true, there are cases dealing with that specifically, finding it to be acceptable for public comment purposes (form of protest). One of the funny things is she registered the mark only after I put up the website about her.

Re:Copyright? (2, Interesting)

El_Muerte_TDS (592157) | more than 4 years ago | (#29614585)

Trademarks are not the same thing as copyright. Copyright covers creative, intellectual, scientific, or artistic forms, or "works". Names are generally not considered to be part of that. Even if there was a possibility of having a copyright on a name, this guy wouldn't own the copyright, but his parents do. They "created" the name.

Re:Copyright? (1)

Psyborgue (699890) | more than 4 years ago | (#29614807)

I totally agree, which is why I think the summary and the BBC were incorrect in the use of their terminology. "Copyright" and "Trademark" are very often confused. You can't copyright certain things for sure, but you can easily claim your own name as a mark in an attempt to stop another person from speaking about you, which is most likely what is happening here and what happened in my case.

Re:Copyright? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29614833)

If the AC was copying sentances from the actual persons blog onto twitter, that would be copyright infringement.

Re:Copyright? (3, Insightful)

Psyborgue (699890) | more than 4 years ago | (#29614897)

Yes, but that's not what the article implies. It says he was posing as Donal Blarney, not copying his work. All in all I think Donal is doing this not to get something removed from the internet, but for attention, and to portray himself as some sort of martyr/avatar of justice who stands up against the legions of internet ruffians. He's more or less an attention seeking troll and I think we all play a part in the guilt of feeding him. Take a look at his blog and tell me he doesn't strike you as the sort of person who would do that.

Re:Copyright? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29614883)

Completely separate from the dispute...

The Domain Name, , was registered on August 7, 2007 in the name of the Respondent, "Psyborgue". The registrant's address was given as an apartment on Rue Rennequin in "Slippery Rock, PA", but with a postal code in France, not Pennsylvania. Michael Crawford was shown as the administrative and technical contact, at the same address. There is no evidence in the record indicating that "Psyborgue" is a natural or legal person.

...Your domain name registration should have failed due to the above alone.

Re:Copyright? (4, Informative)

Homburg (213427) | more than 4 years ago | (#29614611)

The twitterer isn't actually using Donal Blarney's name, they're using the name of his blog. Maybe he's claiming the name of the blog as a trademark? Most of the news reports seem to be parotting the law firm [griffinlaw.co.uk], who say that the twitterer is "breaching the copyright and intellectual property of the blogâ(TM)s owner," which is some uselessly vague bollocks, unfortunately, as it doesn't say what the intellectual property involved actually is.

Re:Copyright? (1)

ldrydenb (1316047) | more than 4 years ago | (#29614931)

The twitter account in question is using a photo of Donal Blaney taken from his blog, creating the impression that it's his account. I'd imagine he's asserting copyright over his photo?

Court order served against fictional characters! (1)

syousef (465911) | more than 4 years ago | (#29614355)

Pinocchio and Rumplestilskin are said to be quaking in their boots.

In all honesty if you can't be bothered going through the motion of finding out who this anonymous poster is, what are the chances that there will be any consequences to face if he doesn't abide by the order? This seems like a waste of court time and money. But it doesn't surprise me. We don't have one sane legal system on the planet that isn't steeped in medieval nonsense. Well at least we've gotten over trying donkeys for adultery.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_trial#Commonly-tried_animals [wikipedia.org]

http://www.hedweb.com/animal-trials.html [hedweb.com]

Re:Court order served against fictional characters (3, Insightful)

lazy_playboy (236084) | more than 4 years ago | (#29614657)

"Modding down to bury an inconvenient truth doesn't change that truth but does make you look foolish"

Modding is anonymous, no one looks like anything.

You're all Dicks! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29614361)

Stop posting as me or i'll sue! I have already sent the injunctions out cease and desist!

Discretionary Power of court to serve by email (2, Interesting)

chicane (38348) | more than 4 years ago | (#29614371)

Disclaimer : IANAL , But I'm smarter than some so called legal professionals who put disclaimers at the end of the text NOT the beginning - duh!

I believe its a discretionary power of the court and as such is done by application typically with supporting evidence that normal methods have been tried without success or that they are less applicable due to the location of party.
(I had occasion to help provide the supporting evidence which led to such a succesful application)

it would be funny (1)

arbiter1 (1204146) | more than 4 years ago | (#29614373)

"The order demands the anonymous Twitter user reveal their identity and stop posing as Donal Blaney, who blogs at a site called Blaney's Blarney." it turns out the Anonymous poster was named Donal Blaney. Well then his copy write to the name is nothing more then toilet paper to said person

What if there are two Donal Blaneys? (4, Interesting)

feedayeen (1322473) | more than 4 years ago | (#29614381)

What if Donal Blaney is his real name? Or better yet, since names can apparently be copywrited, what if the Twitter Donal Blaney is older than the Donal Blaney at Blaney's Blarney? Can the Twitter Donal Blaney sue the other one to force him to change the name of his blog?

Re:What if there are two Donal Blaneys? (1)

distilate (1037896) | more than 4 years ago | (#29614535)

What if Donal Blaney is his real name? Or better yet, since names can apparently be copywrited, what if the Twitter Donal Blaney is older than the Donal Blaney at Blaney's Blarney? Can the Twitter Donal Blaney sue the other one to force him to change the name of his blog?

Bullshit,

I'm the only Donal Blaney!

I have total rights over my name and no one else may use it

I have just set the RIAA's lawyers getting onto the case.

But can it . .. (1)

Masterofpsi (1643965) | more than 4 years ago | (#29614439)

I think from now on, instead of asking "Can it run Linux?" we ought to be asking "Can you do it over Twitter?"

Re:But can it . .. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29614619)

Can you run linux over twitter?

serving is one thing ... (3, Insightful)

petes_PoV (912422) | more than 4 years ago | (#29614445)

... enforcing is another.

If the target of this injunction is anonymous, how can the writ be enforced? If he (or she) decides to ignore it, there seems very little that the server can do. It sounds to me like there is a good chance that the law will be shown to be an ass in this case.

Re:serving is one thing ... (1)

DonalBlaney (1648379) | more than 4 years ago | (#29614575)

I'll just send a goon squad over to twitter headquarters to extract the location of the anonomous cowerd!

ps my goon squad also work for the RIAA.

LEAVE ME ALONE (5, Funny)

DonalBlaney (1648379) | more than 4 years ago | (#29614473)

Stop posting as me,

I'll sue!!!!

you have been warned

Re:LEAVE ME ALONE (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29614589)

That's what I've been saying for years

Re:LEAVE ME ALONE (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29614615)

Fuck off, mate.

Twitter can serve everyone! (1)

KenMcM (1293074) | more than 4 years ago | (#29614519)

My congratulations to the Court for their embrace of technology. I propose that we use social networking to serve legal papers to everybody! Not using twitter? Not a problem! Enough RTs will mean somebody you know can hand you the tinyurl address to the PDF!

something just doesn't make sense (2, Insightful)

lordharsha (1101875) | more than 4 years ago | (#29614565)

Um, 2 things:
1. If he's posting anonymously, how is he using a name (I've quite possibly missed something, being as it is that I don't use twitter)?
2. More importantly, what if said anonymous person has the same name as Donal Blaney?

ja (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29614587)

ja i ejaculate so much more and harder anytime twitter on slashdot is mentioned!!! jajajaja!!!!!

What is stoppping me (1)

Idiomatick (976696) | more than 4 years ago | (#29614753)

What's stopping me from mailing, twittering and faxing a few million people injunctions? I could try to get 1/3rd of London to show up to the courts one day. Either injunctions have some legal power/meaning or it is just an angry letter that is meaningless ("I'm gunna sue you!"). If it does have any meaning in the UK legal system then it is very easily abused. ACs here on /. could reply to this post with an injunction and I'd be legally obligated to do something.

Re:What is stoppping me (2, Informative)

Homburg (213427) | more than 4 years ago | (#29614797)

What's stopping me from mailing, twittering and faxing a few million people injunctions?

The same thing that's stopping you from sentencing a million people to 20 years in jail. Only a court can issue an injunction.

Re:What is stoppping me (1)

Idiomatick (976696) | more than 4 years ago | (#29614913)

How is that informative?

What, does the court have some sort of special bits? If the court sends an injunction over twitter it wouldn't look any different than if I did. In fact it would be 100% indistinguishable. Probably the same with e-mail, perhaps not fax. If I can't be reasonably assured it is a legitimate source when it is then any random idiot could make a convincing fake.

Re:What is stoppping me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29614911)

What's stopping me from mailing, twittering and faxing a few million people injunctions? I could try to get 1/3rd of London to show up to the courts one day. Either injunctions have some legal power/meaning or it is just an angry letter that is meaningless ("I'm gunna sue you!"). If it does have any meaning in the UK legal system then it is very easily abused. ACs here on /. could reply to this post with an injunction and I'd be legally obligated to do something.

I hereby serve Idomatick with an induction preventing him from continuing to post on the website www.slashdot.org

publicity stunt (4, Informative)

jipn4 (1367823) | more than 4 years ago | (#29614873)

The law firm serving the order is Blaney's own law firm. The whole thing sounds like a publicity stunt. The reason Blaney isn't serving the order in California is because it would be worthless: you can't copyright a name, and people have a right to anonymous free speech and satire. For an anonymous author to use a slightly offensive variation of Blaney's name to make fun of him and his positions is precisely what US free speech laws are about.

Re:publicity stunt (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29614929)

Hurrah! Someone's read between the lines of the story (which is more than most UK meeja people did).

Ignore? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29614951)

What happens if the poster just lets the twitter account go dark, or deletes it? The lawsuit becomes in permanent limbo?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...