Beta
×

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!

Former Congressman Learns About Streisand Effect

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the this-is-my-backup-plan dept.

Media 527

corbettw writes "Ted Alvin Klaudt, a former South Dakota lawmaker convicted of raping his two foster daughters, has sent news organizations what he claims is a copyright notice that seeks to prevent the use of his name without his consent." The story says Klaudt maintains "no one can use his name without his consent, and anyone who does would owe him $500,000."

cancel ×

527 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Fair Use? (5, Funny)

EraserMouseMan (847479) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465188)

I wonder how many times he used the foster girls without their permission.

Re:Fair Use? (4, Funny)

Tetsujin (103070) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465286)

I wonder how many times he used the foster girls without their permission.

Well, I think his line of defense there has been that the girls laughed at his penis: therefore the entire act falls into the "parody" category.

Re:Fair Use? (1)

master5o1 (1068594) | more than 4 years ago | (#30466008)

I think his first line of defense is to claim that he is the content creator. It might work, but then again, he's not 'The Creator' so probably not.

Four Factors (5, Funny)

langelgjm (860756) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465372)

Well, he might have a defense given three of the four factors: [wikipedia.org]

Was the nature of the use commercial, or for non-profit, educational use?

Did he use the entire work, or just portions of it? (I'm guessing just portions.)

Did his use of the work affect its marketability?

Wow. Even I found that tasteless.

Re:Four Factors (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30465506)

Wow. I applaud your resolve.

Re:Four Factors (5, Informative)

HarrySquatter (1698416) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465578)

Laura Malone, associated general counsel for intellectual property at The Associated Press, said names of people, companies and products cannot be protected under copyright law. Names can be protected under trademark law, but only in association with goods or services used in commerce, she said.

''Even if there was a valid trademark, the mere use of the name in a news story is not an infringement of trademark,'' Malone said Tuesday.

''There is no legal substance to these claims,'' she added.

Re:Four Factors (5, Insightful)

Beardo the Bearded (321478) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465634)

Wow. Even I found that tasteless.

Yeah, even for the Internet, that was bad.

Re:Four Factors (1)

lattyware (934246) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465804)

Indeed. Next we'll be seeing pornography on it! Can you imagine?

Re:Four Factors (5, Funny)

Kjella (173770) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465948)

Indeed. Next we'll be seeing pornography on it! Can you imagine?

If it's related to this case I'd rather not.

Re:Fair Use? (3, Insightful)

0100010001010011 (652467) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465472)

+1 Sad.

Scarring two teenage girls probably for life = Not Funny.

Re:Fair Use? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30465974)

Welcome to the internet, friend.

Re:Fair Use? (4, Insightful)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465532)

Wikipedia says 8 times proven in court. He must have gone to the Larry Craig/Mark Foley School of Family Values.

Re:Fair Use? (2, Insightful)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465808)

Larry Craig is a jerk, not a predator.

Re:Fair Use? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30465544)

What's the chance Fox News runs this with a (D-SD) next to his name?

Typical Republican "do as I say, not as I do"

While in office, he co-sponsored several bills that took aim at sex offenders, including "community safety zones," prohibiting sex offenders from residing, working, or entering within 500 feet of schools, public parks and swimming pools. He also co-sponsored the bill that required South Dakota to be included in the National Sex Offender Registry, a bill that requires the Department of Social Services to inform parents about abuse or neglect involving their children in state custody, and a (defeated) bill that would have prohibited the distribution of birth control to high school students.

Re:Fair Use? (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465700)

While in office, he co-sponsored several bills that took aim at sex offenders...

They say that like some congresscritters haven't done something similar.

Re:Fair Use? (5, Funny)

megamerican (1073936) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465870)

While in office, he co-sponsored several bills that took aim at sex offenders,

Ted Alvin Klaudt was simply thinking of the children by making sure no one like him would be around them, ever. That's what is known as a compassionate conservative.

Re:Fair Use? (3, Insightful)

digitalunity (19107) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465574)

Indeed, but I think more noteworthy than this copyright claim is that he was sentenced to 44 years for rape.

Seems excessive doesn't it? I read the affidavit [66.231.15.194] describing what he did exactly and it seems very predatory and wrong, but 44 years is a lot...

Re:Fair Use? (3, Insightful)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465652)

and how many years will those young girls suffer for what he has done? 44 years isn't enough.

Re:Fair Use? (4, Funny)

selven (1556643) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465932)

I find it hard to imagine that they're now suffering anything close to the way in which being locked in a 3*3*2 meter cage for half the day is suffering. 44 years is way more than I would give even for a double murder.

Re:Fair Use? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30465784)

Chris Hansen would like to have a talk with you, after you have a seat over there...

Re:Fair Use? (2, Insightful)

Tezcat (927703) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465788)

I'd happily argue for lighter and proportional prison sentences for a variety of reasons; from prison populations to rehabilitation and education. Just not when I'm fired up after reading about a hypocritical incestuous rapist. Screw his vile guts. Like many people who are socially liberal, I admit my bias towards forgiving the 'victims of society', the poor, mentally disturbed and undereducated. That people given a good break in life still behave abominably is deeply depressing.

Re:Fair Use? (1)

Aeros (668253) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465950)

wrong? I think 44 years isnt't nearly enough for doing that do someone. I would rather see someone who does that put away for life!

Re:Fair Use? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30465770)

If I were him [state.sd.us] , I'd try to prevent them posting images of my face.

I feel a little bad calling this guy out for being fat and ugly; only because I worry it'll associate other fat and ugly people with this sack-of-shit rapist.

You said 'it' (0, Offtopic)

dainbug (678555) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465196)

Slashdot is down a Million.

Re:You said 'it' (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30465230)

Ted Alvin Klaudt
Ted Alvin Klaudt

Re:You said 'it' (4, Informative)

rockNme2349 (1414329) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465270)

I wanted to post it 10 times in a row, but slashdot has a filter on too much repetition... who knew?

Re:You said 'it' (5, Funny)

Pieroxy (222434) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465478)

who knew?

All of us that already tried to do something that stupid.

Re:You said 'it' (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30465522)

They did this to prevent people from summonging Derek Smart.

Re:You said 'it' (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30465620)

Derek Smart

Re:You said 'it' (1)

Beardo the Bearded (321478) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465664)

Sorry, that's my fault. I pointed out that the lameness filter (all caps, code, etc) could be bypassed by ending the comment with "...and because /. thinks this comment is obscene, I've copied the word "fuck" 100 times: fuck fuck... etc."

Re:You said 'it' (5, Funny)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465354)

One more time and he would have appeared in your room.

An idea (3, Funny)

enderjsv (1128541) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465244)

Can I legally change my name to "The".

Re:An idea (1)

Brian Gordon (987471) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465322)

You don't even need to change your name; you just have to maintain that anyone who uses the word The owes you $500,000.

Re:An idea (5, Funny)

langelgjm (860756) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465400)

That'll be $1 million, please.

Re:An idea (1)

RichardJenkins (1362463) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465820)

Cool. Can I have the letter 'e'? Just lower case, obviously.

Re:An idea (1)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465934)

Mr. Burns would still come out on top though.

Re:An idea (2, Funny)

Idiomatick (976696) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465534)

I copyrighted punctuation to piss of the grammar Nazis. Unfortunately, the value has been dropping ever since the advent of the internet. :(

Re:An idea (1)

noidentity (188756) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465658)

Sir, you would be infringing on the copyright I have on my name: T H E (first, middle, last). If you wish to proceed, I can work out a licensing arrangement.

Re:An idea (1)

HeadSoft (147914) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465834)

Can I legally change my name to "The".

Too late, I trademarked the letter "e".

Re:An idea (1)

selven (1556643) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465962)

Yes, you can try, but I doubt le copyright office would be happy about that.

still free: (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30465256)

CmdrTaco is a pedophile.

Wait, slow this train down (0)

Useful Wheat (1488675) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465272)

I wonder what kind of legal precedent this sets. Not the situation where everybody copyrights their name and sues the world to pieces, but the situation where Facebook buries a notice in their terms and conditions that says they now own your name. You'd end up having to send them a few dollars every time you signed a check, which would lead to a never ending cycle of check writing and sending to Facebook.

Hmm...I like it. Time to buy facebook stock.

Re:Wait, slow this train down (1, Redundant)

postbigbang (761081) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465470)

None at all.

The man is obviously a twit.

May justice be served.

Re:Wait, slow this train down (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465638)

So what you're saying is that he belongs on Twitter instead of Facebook?

Re:Wait, slow this train down (5, Insightful)

EndlessNameless (673105) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465486)

You cannot copyright a legal name. I.e., if a word or phrase is your official identifier it cannot be copyrighted. There is no precedent being set here; this man is simply stupid.

Whoever decided to make Klaudt a lawmaker is armed with weapons-grade stupidity and should be prosecuted as a terrorist.

Re:Wait, slow this train down (0)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465702)

Tell that to the people that get told they cant have a domain name that says 'Disney', even if their name IS Disney.. Its not always cut and dry like one would expect.

( but i agree, he's stupid )

Re:Wait, slow this train down (4, Insightful)

Fieryphoenix (1161565) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465912)

Even Disney cannot copyright "Disney". What they have is a trademark.

Re:Wait, slow this train down (3, Informative)

mea37 (1201159) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465968)

A few things.

1) The domain name disputes are over trademark, not copyright. The rules for trademark are completely different from the rules for copyright.

2) The domain name disputes are not a direct result of any IP law - not even trademark, and certainly not copyright. They are essentially a result of regulatory policies specifically surrounding domain name management. Trademark law would not, on its own, forbid me from registering disney.com (though it would prevent me from using disney.com to compete in any commercial space where Disney is a recognized trademark).

3) In any event, even if the esteemed congressman had asserted trademark over his name, that would not forbid its use by news outlets. Trademark protection is not nearly that broad.

The copyright assertion is not only stupid, it is in direct contradiction to the law.

Re:Wait, slow this train down (1)

WCguru42 (1268530) | more than 4 years ago | (#30466016)

Tell that to the people that get told they cant have a domain name that says 'Disney', even if their name IS Disney.. Its not always cut and dry like one would expect.

Could that be that the domain name Disney is already spoken for. Just because your name is Steve doesn't mean you get to have the website www.steve.com. Now, what wouldn't be fair would be if Disney could sue you for being named Disney.

Re:Wait, slow this train down (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30465780)

Genius! Now I just have to change my name to be identical to the lyrics for "Nothing Else Matters" and I can post it online all I want!

Re:Wait, slow this train down (1)

Razalhague (1497249) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465852)

Besides, wouldn't the copyright holders to your name be your parents? (provided you haven't changed your name, of course)

Re:Wait, slow this train down (1)

tinkerghost (944862) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465766)

He actually doesn't have standing to copyright his name. He didn't engage in the creative act - his parents did. By filing the paperwork saying he did, he's committed an act of fraud. Outside of that, he's not the first criminal to pull this stunt. It's going nowhere and any attempt to enforce it will be laughed out of court - probably with sanctions for any lawyer who actually brings it.

Lawyer in a Can (5, Insightful)

b4upoo (166390) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465280)

Where did this poor fool get his law training? Despair can make a fool out of a man but then again raping one's daughters sort of establishes that he is warped to begin with. It seems to me that we have special places to put people who rape their daughters.

Re: Lawyer in a Can (3, Funny)

enderjsv (1128541) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465316)

The south? I kid. I kid.

Re: Lawyer in a Can (1)

Idiomatick (976696) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465668)

He's a super fat white religious republican from South Dakota. The only thing that could make this more stereotypical is if he were a minister.

Re: Lawyer in a Can (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30465794)

He was a rancher, does that count?

Re: Lawyer in a Can (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30465904)

Do you mean he's NOT a minister?

Re: Lawyer in a Can (1)

selven (1556643) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465982)

Look, everyone knows that bishops move diagonally.

Re: Lawyer in a Can (1)

d34dluk3 (1659991) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465940)

It seems to me that we have special places to put people who rape their daughters.

Or special things to put in the special places of people who rape their daughters?

Sex offender shuffle (1)

ickleberry (864871) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465294)

Do they have sex offender shuffles in South Dakota? I'd like to see him in version 2.0

Only 500k? (1)

e2d2 (115622) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465302)

Why not a Bajillion? It's just as likely.

Who is this Ted Alvin Klaudt? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30465318)

I've never heard of Ted Alvin Klaudt before, but it sounds like Ted Alvin Klaudt is a grade A jerk. Who does Ted Alvin Klaudt think Ted Alvin Klaudt is to try to claim copyright on Ted Alvin Klaudt's name? I can't wait to see Ted Alvin Klaudt get slapped down for trying to copyright Ted Alvin Klaudt. ...Ted Alvin Klaudt.

Re:Who is this Ted Alvin Klaudt? (3, Funny)

RancidPickle (160946) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465524)

Did someone clone wacko lawyer Jack Thompson? It makes me nervous to have a politician with two of the three chipmunks in his name. Maybe he'll owe the trademark owner of Alvin and the Chipmunks 2/3rds of the proceeds.

Re:Who is this Ted Alvin Klaudt? (1)

RancidPickle (160946) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465628)

By the by, if we can't refer to Ted Alvin Klaudt's name, perhaps the legal system can assist by changing his name to "The State Lawmaker Currently Referred To As 'The Receiver' By His Cellmates"

Re:Who is this Ted Alvin Klaudt? (1)

getmerexkramer (955191) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465862)

Now that you mention it, how come we never see Jack Thompson and Ted Alvin Klaudt in the same place at the same time? Does that seem suspicious to anyone else?

What a silly dollar amount... (1)

nweaver (113078) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465350)

You really should sue for $47 Bazillion dollars...
It has a much better ring to it than $500K.

Volokh's Reasons Why Not (2, Informative)

porges (58715) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465382)

According to Eugene Volokh at his well-known (conservative) legal blog [volokh.com] :

That’s legally wrong on so many levels: Short words and phrases can’t be protected by federal copyright law; common law copyright has been almost entirely preempted by federal copyright law, and in any event was applicable only to unpublished works; copyright of any sort would only apply to your own creative work, and Ted Klaudt’s name wasn’t created by him (unless it’s an assumed name); fair use would in any event allow people to use the name to refer to him, if there was a copyright claim to begin with, which there isn’t; and trademark law doesn’t preclude uses of a trademark in an article to refer to the trademarked item.

Ted Alvin Klaudt (2, Funny)

uvajed_ekil (914487) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465386)

Ted Alvin Klaudt Ted Alvin Klaudt Ted Alvin Klaudt Ted Alvin Klaudt Ted Alvin Klaudt Ted Alvin Klaudt
No, you can not have $3 million, Ted Alvin Klaudt! Idiot.

Re:Ted Alvin Klaudt (0, Redundant)

AnonChef (947738) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465646)

Ted Alvin Klaudt? Ted Alvin Klaudt. Ted Alvin Klaudt.

Re:Ted Alvin Klaudt (1)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465902)

Hey, I have a derivative work.

Ted Alvin Klaudt Child Rapist, Ted Alvin Klaudt Child Rapist, Ted Alvin Klaudt Child Rapist, Ted Alvin Klaudt Child Rapist, Ted Alvin Klaudt Child Rapist, Ted Alvin Klaudt Child Rapist,

Re:Ted Alvin Klaudt (1)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465998)

Just don't say that into a mirror.....

Son of Sam (4, Interesting)

Wireless Joe (604314) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465406)

Assuming for a second that he actually has any ground to stand on.

Since his name is related to his crime (and felony conviction), wouldn't newspapers be protected by South Dakota's Son of Sam law, preventing him from profiting from stories/descriptions of his crimes? I guess he could win and give the money to charity, but that would mean even more publicity. The whole thing's ridiculous and he deserves whatever he gets.

From TF New York Times A: (4, Interesting)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465414)

To quell any speculation on the legitimacy of Klaudt's claims:

Laura Malone, associated general counsel for intellectual property at The Associated Press, said names of people, companies and products cannot be protected under copyright law. Names can be protected under trademark law, but only in association with goods or services used in commerce, she said.

"Even if there was a valid trademark, the mere use of the name in a news story is not an infringement of trademark," Malone said Tuesday.

"There is no legal substance to these claims," she added.

Re:From TF New York Times A: (2, Interesting)

langelgjm (860756) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465498)

Seriously. The guy wouldn't have a leg to stand on under federal law - words and short phrases cannot be copyrighted. That's why he sent the notice asserting common law copyright (which varies by state, mind you). In any case, even if that common law claim is technically legitimate, the compelling public interest in freedom of speech, freedom of the press, etc., would likely ensure this case was thrown out. And the title of the /. article is right on - all this idiot has done is drawn more attention to himself.

Re:From TF New York Times A: (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465530)

So if he trademarked his name and another molesting raping pedophilic pile of dog excrement came along and tried to use his name, he could sue.

That's a whole lotta love (1, Troll)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465428)

Holy crap. I didn't realize that the Streisand Effect was where you suffocate your bed partner [rapidcityjournal.com] . Props to the Rapid City Journal for using "Rapist" as the first word in the headline of their story about his copyright claims. Since he is a convicted rapist, it's a matter of public record and totally OK say that Ted Klaudt is a rapist, right?

Re:That's a whole lotta love (1)

Beardo the Bearded (321478) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465584)

Yes, if Ted Klaudt was convicted in a court of law, then ipso facto he is a rapist. You aren't stating anything libelous or slanderous, as it is a simple repetition of facts.

MLPWDW
(My Law Prof was Dick Wolf)

Re:That's a whole lotta love (2, Insightful)

cthulu_mt (1124113) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465782)

Not to nit pick, but the first word should have been "Child" the second word should have been rapist.

The last sentence should be "A copy of this edition is being provided, free, to every inmate at his place of incarceration."

Ted Alvin Klaudt (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30465440)

Ted Alvin Klaudt, Ted Alvin Klaudt, Ted Alvin Klaudt,

bite me.

Alvin Klaudt! What now? (1)

MrCrassic (994046) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465458)

And now for something completely different, "I'll take the rapists for $1200, Trebek."

IANAL, but... (4, Informative)

ghostis (165022) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465476)

I thought names and phrases were the purview of trademark law and not covered by copyright law?

Of course... (1)

Jkasd (1663231) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465488)

According to the Wikipedia article, he cosponsored several anti sex offender bills.

Re:Of course... (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465734)

According to the Wikipedia article, he cosponsored several anti sex offender bills.

Didn't want the competition?

Seriously, this is no different from all the other "family values" crowd. Preach against something in public, and do exactly the same thing in private.

So if his daughters used his name (1)

phonewebcam (446772) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465556)

they'd get screwed too?

Title wrong (5, Informative)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465570)

He isn't a "Congressman". He is a former member of the South Dakota House of Representatives, which would make him a former state legislator.

More Info (5, Informative)

DeadPixels (1391907) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465636)

The New York Times [nytimes.com] has a little bit more info on the story. Apparently he sent this notice from prison, where he's serving a 54-year sentence (44 for rape, 10 for witness tampering).

Re:More Info (1)

cowboy76Spain (815442) | more than 4 years ago | (#30466042)

Surely he is afraid that if the news appear on internet he'll have a hard day finding a job when he gets out.
Looks like this guy has lost contact with the real world long time ago.

Ted Alvin Klaudt pulled a "Two-peat" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30465650)

If he had raped 3 foster children, he would've owed Pat Riley.

What a tard (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465660)

I doubt it's legal to say the news can't report on something because its name is trademarked. That would allow for major abuse by companies wanting to silence the meda.

Secondly, I did a search on his name and he's not in the US copyright database. He needs to prove he owns the copyright and lastly, does he not mean trademark? I'm not sure about the US but I would guess a name or title can't be copyrighted but registered as a trademark and he's not in TESS either.

I suggest the convicted rapist blow out his ass.

Been tried before (2, Interesting)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465674)

This particular scam has been tried before, [interesting-people.org] especially by convicts. At best it creates a lot of spurious legal paperwork that has to be dealt with. It's a great way to cause headaches for the legal folk.

So the witness tampering didn't work out so well.. (1)

macraig (621737) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465680)

... and now he's resorting to media tampering. That's a pretty natural progression, I guess....

convicted (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465690)

Sorry dude, you deserve every ounce of grief you get. ( and more )

Not in Jail long enough (2, Funny)

icebike (68054) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465708)

Look, he hasn't been in jail long enough to take the whole Jail-house Lawyer course yet. Its just a first-year noob mistake.

Give him a few years of study in the prison library, and he won't be making these fresh-meat mistakes. I'm sure he will have a lot more experience "behind" him in a couple years.

Not a "Congressman" (4, Informative)

MushMouth (5650) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465742)

In the United States a Congressman is specifically a member of either the US Senate or US House of Representatives. This guy was a member of the South Dakota House of Representatives, which makes him a State Legislator or State Representative, but not a "Congressman".

here it goes...not to troll but to prove a point.. (2, Funny)

Mr.Fork (633378) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465842)

Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt. That should be good for a $12.5 million lawsuit. BTW - I'm in Canada, and lawsuit trolls are treated, well, fairly for the defendant - usually I'm entitled for damages - sometimes equal to what people are sued for. And frivolous copyright lawsuits are well, treated with as much respect by the justice system as they would treat a rapist... wait a minute...

But... (1)

The MAZZTer (911996) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465844)

copyrights are owned by the people who come up with the idea, right? So wouldn't his parents own the copyright? Maybe they should sue him.

Ok, here we go! (5, Funny)

Weaselmancer (533834) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465854)

Ted Alvin Klaudt! Ted Alvin Klaudt!

Hm. So that's what it feels like to spend a million dollars.

Less satisfying than I had imagined.

well.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30465898)

The man was in the wrong party: republicans. They prefer that their criminals remain un-convicted.

Ted Alvin Klaudt (5, Funny)

Adrian Lopez (2615) | more than 4 years ago | (#30465960)

Sorry Slashdot, but I agree completely with Ted Alvin Klaudt. If I were Ted Alvin Klaudt and had been convicted, as Ted Alvin Klaudt was, of raping my foster daughters, I too would have scrambled for ways to prevent the media from commenting on my transgressions, just like Ted Alvin Klaudt is doing. Some may say employing copyright law in the manner of Ted Alvin Klaudt constitutes blatant abuse of the legal system, but I, as Ted Alvin Klaudt, feel otherwise. Ted Alvin Klaudt hasn't done anything wrong (with respect to the copyright thing, not the rape thing), and I wish him (Ted Alvin Klaudt) the best of luck.

Godspeed, Ted Alvin Klaudt. Godspeed.

Are Criminals A Higher Percentage of Republicans (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30465976)

than DemocRATs?

I doubt it. The two party system in the U.S.A. is a sham.

What do you think?

Yours In Novy Urengoy,
K. Trout

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>