Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

Steffi Graf Wins Case Vs. Microsoft

timothy posted more than 12 years ago | from the refusal-to-promise-a-perfect-tomorrow dept.

The Courts 461

scaramush writes: "The AP is reporting that Steffi Graf has won her lawsuit against Microsoft for hosting nude doctored photos of her. Although Microsoft had removed the images when they appeared in June, MS declined to sign a formal agreement that they would not appear again. This is the second loss for MS in this case. Scary precedent."

cancel ×

461 comments

another perfect cut (-1)

Anonymous Cowrad (571322) | more than 12 years ago | (#3596919)

can ya believe it?

Re:another perfect cut (-1)

YourMissionForToday (556292) | more than 12 years ago | (#3596987)

I can believe it! Taste my steel!

Slashdot Sued Over OT III (-1)

l33t j03 (222209) | more than 12 years ago | (#3597142)

OT III

1. Check for any BTs (E-meter, theta perceptics, intention, pressure areas, telepathy is HOW) on and in:

1. Body surface (WHERE)
2. Body inside
3. In thetan's space (Approx. 40' X 60')
4. On thetan

2. Run Incident 2, then Incident 1, until BT(s) have gone and are released. Then, check for additional Incidents 1's and 2's until dry (on the meter).

3. Return to Step 2, to find new ones to run. Use ruds while running if necessary. There is an effort to stop and hurry on Incident 1.

4. When complete, exact date and run both of the incidents on self.

5. If a bog, do Millazo Pack. Write down some 'mutual associations'. Re each one on this list, FIND THE INCIDENT THAT MADE THEM ONE, and run that. Then, run OT III, Incident 2 and 1 after that cluster is broken up. Occasionally, BTs will have an incident that made them one other then Incident 2, thus this action.

INCIDENT 2: Dates approx. 75 million years ago, earth years, location, Earth, named TEEGEEACK at that time (meaning planet of sorrow), involved 33 planets of this sector, each with populations of 80 - 200 BILLION PER PLANET. XENU, the ruler, and 'Renegades' decided to solve overpopulation as follows, but was halted and XENU placed in a mountain trap after over 5 years of war.

Incident 2 Patter: DETERMINE IF A LOYAL OFFICER, RESIDENT OF EARTH, or FROM ANOTHER PLANET. If the latter two, start at their being picked up and shot and if from another planet, frozen in an ice cube, transported (flying saucer), taken to mountain, a volcano always, H BOMB EXPLOSION, TERRIFIC WINDS, EFFORT TO ORIENT, MAGNETIC STRIP UP FROM CENTER OF VOLCANO OR DOWN FROM AN AIRPLANE, EFFORT TO GET OFF AND FIND REST OF SELF, PROTEST, BEING PULLED ON STRIP, VISUAL DISPLAY OF INSTRUCTION BY A 'GO TO THE PILOT', WHO SAYS 'HE'S MOCKING IT UP'. There are 26 - 29 days of implanting (the CC and OT II, God and Devil material, reasons for this being done, helicopters, etc.) that need not be run. SOME WERE PACKAGED INTO CLUSTERS in the HAWAII and LOS PALMAS ISLANDS (8 to a cluster). If a loyal officer, the sequence is SURPRISE at being shot, placed at the volcano. Use meter to determine and determine volcano. Watch for earlier beginning (pulled in for a tax audit), run only up to the 'HE'S MOCKING IT UP' as BTs can go into 'free fall', spin and get sick from the 29 days implanting, with pneumonia and death the implanted phenomena of free fall in addition to insomnia. Coltus, the Reigning planet, Hubbard a part of the 'rescuing force that put an end to it'. Don't force or push them off, and answer the BTs questions. There were probably not any good or bad guys in this incident, although Hubbard insists the sector to have been a cultural desert since. Very SP BTs can usually be brought around with adept 2WC, Charm, Ruds, but if not use Power Processing on the rare hard core.

Incident 1: Dates 4 QUADRILLION YEARS AGO (which is 15 zeros or 4,000 trillion years ago).

Incident 1 Patter: LOUD SNAP, WAVES OF LIGHT, HORSES DRAWING CHARIOT RIGHT TO LEFT, CHERUB COMES OUT, BLOWS HORN, COMES CLOSE, SHATTERING SERIES OF SNAPS, CHERUB FADES, RETREATS, BLACK MASS IS DUMPED ON THE THETAN.

Volcano List

HAWAII Pacific Ocean
MT HOOD Pacific NW
MT BAYER Pacific NW
MT RAINIER Washington
MT ETNA Mediterranean
MT ST. HELENS Washington
MT EREBUS Antarctica
MT FUJI Japan
MT EVEREST Himalayas - Nepal & Tibet
MT KILIMANJARO Northeastern Africa
LAS PALMAS Canary Islands off NE
Africa MT SHASTA California
MT VESUVIUS Italy
MT KRAKATOA Indonesia
MT PELEE Martinique
MT MCKINLEY Alaska
Volcanoes existed New Zealand
at these locations Philippines
then, but no Mexico
longer South America
North Dakota
Vermont
Scotland
Iceland

Note: These were the most common locations. 600 other volcanoes did and do exist, which I did not list.

You clear up that a BT is a body thetan, The instructions are self explanatory, Basically, the reason they are doing this is to where they won't be confused with hundreds of different thoughts so that they can have some peace and quiet, and so they won't be other-determined. After they have run all these remnants of folks out by telepathic auditing on them, they attain the state of freedom from overwhelm and a return of full self determinism. One cleans off those 4 areas in the order listed. It is generally underrun, it is rarely overrun. What you have been doing all the way up the Bridge is breaking these clusters apart. With Expanded Dianetics, Grades and all the previous auditing, you have been taking these off. About 1/2 of the BTs come off and leave and go live their own lives by doing the lower Bridge right, and the other 1/2 come off here by doing OT III correctly. So, if you don't do the lower Bridge correctly on someone and they do a real good job on OT III, they will get about 1/2 of it done. It is pretty wild material to run and the gains of it are beyond description. It is not a crazy idea at all. The irony of it is that it happened alot more than once. It is listed as an event that happened 75 million years ago. It probably happened to the preclear dozens of times. So, watch out for your dates.

After that you do not do OT VII, and then put them on OT III again, like the churches do. You do OT IV which is included here. After they have done that they have attained the state of certainty of self as a being and freedom from uncertainty of self.

On OT V they attain the state of freedom from fixated introversion into MEST and gain the ability to refamiliarize as a thetan exterior with the physical universe.

fp? (-1)

n3r0.m4dski11z (447312) | more than 12 years ago | (#3596920)

props to green tea

Darn.... (0, Troll)

b0r0din (304712) | more than 12 years ago | (#3596927)

I was hoping that link would take me to the doctored nude photos. Of course that would probably get slashdot sued, too...

Thank god for Anna Kournikova...

The nipples don't fit! (0, Funny)

Strom Thurmond (R-SC (310866) | more than 12 years ago | (#3597079)

You must acquit!

Re:Darn.... (2)

joib (70841) | more than 12 years ago | (#3597086)

Yes exactly! What an evil bait to link the words "hosting nude doctored photos of her. "!!! Would I have clicked the link if I had known it was just a boring press release? NO, NO, NO!!! ;-)

Hmmm, next... (2, Funny)

bryan1945 (301828) | more than 12 years ago | (#3596932)

When do we get to see doctored nude photos of Bill Gates...

...never mind

(shudder)

The Next Big MS Money Maker (2)

EXTomar (78739) | more than 12 years ago | (#3596974)

When do we get to see doctored nude photos of Bill Gates...


Are you kidding? I would good money to clense the internet of Bill Gates nude photos let alone doctored ones. Talk about blackmail...

Try this picture (2)

seizer (16950) | more than 12 years ago | (#3597098)

I can't give you doctored ones, but how about this lovely [thesmokinggun.com] mugshot of him, after being arrested (yes, it seems to be true) in 1977.

So.... confused... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3596935)

Don't know what to think... Microsoft evil... yet... Microsoft right... too much... head pain...

*POP*

Next monopoly? (1, Funny)

morhoj (573833) | more than 12 years ago | (#3596940)

Its good to see the MSFT is further branching out its operations to soft pornography...

Microsoft Porn™ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3596965)

Soon to be bundled with Windows! This will get those linux guys to switch!

Re:Microsoft Porn™ (-1)

YourMissionForToday (556292) | more than 12 years ago | (#3597044)

Linux guys aren't interested in seeing naked women. If they were, would they be spending hours editing .conf files and recompiling their kernel? Please rethink your statement.

Re:Microsoft Porn™ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3597061)

Dual monitors, babeeeee!

Re:Microsoft Porn (-1)

neal n bob (531011) | more than 12 years ago | (#3597045)

They will only get the linux crowd if it is kiddie pr0n

Re:Microsoft Porn™ (1)

just someone (13587) | more than 12 years ago | (#3597071)

I can see the announcement:
More than 85% of the visitors to internet porn sites use Internet explorer on MS Windows opertating systems. We see this a mandate to integrate Hidden Porn using the Hailstorm single sign web service into the OS. This will protect our customers from unscrupulus porn sites.

Re:Microsoft Porn™ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3597073)

No, that would be Microsoft Bedroom

Libel precedent? (1)

A.Soze (158837) | more than 12 years ago | (#3596947)

Interesting. It would seem that this decision is saying that if a publication is sued for libel, it can now be held to also promise that this will never run again. I can hear the tabloids blinking out of existence as we speak...

Re:Libel precedent? (4, Interesting)

aengblom (123492) | more than 12 years ago | (#3597048)

I can hear the tabloids blinking out of existence as we speak...

For a PUBLICATION such as a tabloid, what reason would they or should they be permitted to not sign such an agreement. The problem HERE is that USERS are posting the photos and Microsoft is removing them as requested.

Stefi Graf says Microsoft should promise that it will examine every photo and won't allow these pictures to be posted. This has very bad implications for user based public forums (I.E. everything must edited by the host company or it is liable for damages.

Isn't she a carpet-muncher? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3596948)

My mom says that if you want to be a lesbian you have to learn how to eat carpet.

Re:Isn't she a carpet-muncher? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3597013)

She's married to Andre Agassi.

I wouldn't mind watching her having hot, lesbian sex with Kournikova, though.

Nude photos of Stefi Graf? Ugh! (1)

nagora (177841) | more than 12 years ago | (#3596951)

There are some real weirdos out there...

TWW

Re:Nude photos of Stefi Graf? Ugh! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3597138)

How could this not get a funny tag with the score...

Someone is missing the point here ... (5, Insightful)

dzym (544085) | more than 12 years ago | (#3596961)

Microsoft, as an ISP, hosting someone's pictures, is successfully sued for hosting those images. The point is not that it's Microsoft, the point is that an ISP has lost the case. Although it's definitely of interest that even Microsoft is not immune to this sort of suit. This case is a set-back to ISPs everywhere.

Point taken (5, Insightful)

LittleGuy (267282) | more than 12 years ago | (#3597070)

This is a worst defeat for ISPs than you can consider *because* it goes against a big giant like M$. And if M$.com can be liable, who knows what could happen to the mom-and-pop ISPs with the deep pockets or the legend of lawyers.

That loud SLAPPing sound in the background is getting closer.

Set back in Germany... (5, Insightful)

sterno (16320) | more than 12 years ago | (#3597080)

The set back here happened in Germany, which continues to bring into question the legitimacy of national courts in the international medium of the Internet. Micrsoft does business in Germany and will, of course, comply with the verdict to avoid pissing the Germans off. What if Microsoft had no direct dealings with Germany though?

Eventually a court case will come up in some major venue (the US, or a major eurpoean country I'd guess) that will be promptly ignored by the party involved because they don't operate under that country's jurisdiction. Then who knows what will happen.

Re:Someone is missing the point here ... (1)

anthony_dipierro (543308) | more than 12 years ago | (#3597093)

Who's missing the point? Certainly not the submitter, who stated that it was a "Scary precedent." Probably Timothy, since he tends to miss every point, but we don't know that for sure since he also rarely adds his own words of wisdom.

Re:Someone is missing the point here ... (2)

ivan256 (17499) | more than 12 years ago | (#3597137)

The person missing the point is you. I don't see where this story singles out Microsoft as anything but the defendant in this case. There's no Microsoft bashing going on here.

Besides, it's worse then you let on. Microsoft removed the images. They lost the lawsuit because they wouldn't agree to police their servers and remove all images of that type in the future. That is a burden that no ISP should carry. Honestly, I'm having a hard time seeing how the images were illegal in the first place; I mean, sure it's wrong, but I don't know what law would enforce that. Even then, the defendant should be the creator and owner of the content, not the ISP. This is like going after the phone company because someone used their home line to make a death threat.

Re:Someone is missing the point here ... (1)

scaramush (472955) | more than 12 years ago | (#3597141)

I posted the article. The reason I mentioned it was MS that lost the case was because....it was MS that lost the case. ;)



The importance (as I hope the last line indicated) is for the precedence it sets for all ISPs in the future.

Why this case? (5, Insightful)

Lemmy Caution (8378) | more than 12 years ago | (#3596962)

Of all the cases I wanted Microsoft to lose, this is not one of them. ISP's cannot promise that their users will never upload a given photo, unless they get in the business of reviewing each and every upload. And that would be a monstrous slap in the face of free speech, as well as creating a huge workload for ISP's (and raising costs accordingly.)

Not to flog the dead horse, but it's more evidence of ways in which the private sector is quite happy to cramp civil liberties for its own purposes, using civil law.

who cares? It's freaking Germany. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3596996)

If this were Wisconsin I'd be worried. Who gives a rats ass about other countries. Hell if we gave a shit we wouldn't have the death penalty, Europe doesn't. Just one more case of irrelevent news for the average US reader.

Re:Why this case? (2, Offtopic)

Lemmy Caution (8378) | more than 12 years ago | (#3596998)

Not to flog the dead horse, but it's more evidence of ways in which the private sector is quite happy to cramp civil liberties for its own purposes, using civil law.

I am going to flame myself and note that this case demonstrates nothing of the kind. My bad, my bad.

What is it with the Germans? (1, Troll)

rgoer (521471) | more than 12 years ago | (#3596963)

Who wants to see nude photos of Steffi Graf, anyway? Between this and the whole David Hasselhoff thing, I'd have to say that the Germans are weird as hell.

Re:What is it with the Germans? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3597117)

You're kinda slow to catch on, aren't you? Most of the planet figured out there was something off about the Germans when they did that whole 'let's try to kill all the Jews' thing back in the early 40's.

obvious but (1)

JeanBaptiste (537955) | more than 12 years ago | (#3596969)

how can m$ promise they wont appear anymore? I am reasonably sure I could get a nude pic of graf or anyone else onto a m$ server somehow...

MS and Slashdot (0, Offtopic)

Zach978 (98911) | more than 12 years ago | (#3596977)

This is an unfair lawsuit, just like the antitrust lawsuit..

Slashdot, here to protect all freedoms besides the freedom to choose Windows.

Re:MS and Slashdot (2)

Sc00ter (99550) | more than 12 years ago | (#3597075)

I agree!

God forbid if Dell, Gateway, IBM and all the other retailers of computers stood up against Microsoft and told them to stick their OEM agreement up their ass.

If anybody else bent over and signed a stupid ass contract like that we would call them stupid. The computer retailers do it and we call in the government and blame MS.

Re:MS and Slashdot (1)

mjstrom (244211) | more than 12 years ago | (#3597145)

OK, call me flamebait, but...

This is an unfair lawsuit, just like the antitrust lawsuit.

Wow, that's a really profound statement. I originally thought that the antitrust lawsuit might have been a good idea, but now you have me convinced that I was so wrong and that M$ has never done a thing wrong. I've seen the light....

Not.

Although, I do have to agree that the result does not seem to be "fair" - but, in Germany, it seems to be "legal" which is what counts.

The DMCA may actually HELP in this case (1)

PurpleFloyd (149812) | more than 12 years ago | (#3596978)

Doesn't the DMCA have some provisions covering this sort of thing? It was my understanding that one of the (ahem) positive aspects of the act is that it exempts service providers from liability for content that they host but do not otherwise control.

Re:The DMCA may actually HELP in this case (2)

jimmcq (88033) | more than 12 years ago | (#3597016)

Doesn't the DMCA have some provisions covering this sort of thing?

The DMCA doesn't exist in Germany, where the court case was held.

Re:The DMCA may actually HELP in this case (1)

javatips (66293) | more than 12 years ago | (#3597027)

Yes it does. However, the case was pursued in Germany. So it's not under US jurisdiction.

Re:The DMCA may actually HELP in this case (1)

Dr. Bent (533421) | more than 12 years ago | (#3597028)

The DMCA doesn't help (or hurt) anyone in Germany, unless someone made Germany the 51st state and didn't tell me.

"Scary Precedent"? Um, what? (1, Troll)

Wakko Warner (324) | more than 12 years ago | (#3596982)

I guess it's a really scary precedent if you're intent on publishing libelous material online.

For the rest of us, Our Rights Online are not affected. Next Chicken Little story, please.

- A.P.

Re:"Scary Precedent"? Um, what? (4, Insightful)

isaac (2852) | more than 12 years ago | (#3597040)

I guess it's a really scary precedent if you're intent on publishing libelous material online.


For the rest of us, Our Rights Online are not affected. Next Chicken Little story, please.


As others have pointed out, the scary part is that an ISP (in this case, Microsoft) is being held liable for material posted by its users.

The precedent part is somewhat less relevant as the German legal system does not rely on precedent the same way as the US or British systems do.

-Isaac

Re:"Scary Precedent"? Um, what? (2)

Sc00ter (99550) | more than 12 years ago | (#3597046)

The problem isn't that somebody put up something libelous and got sued. The person put it on a MS server run by the MS ISP (MSN?) and THEY got sued. So if you run a website on your ISPs server and put up something libelous, the ISP can get sued.

Re:"Scary Precedent"? Um, what? (2)

rodgerd (402) | more than 12 years ago | (#3597047)

Please, enlighten us how an ISP is going to guarantee never to have any customer use its facilities to publish anything that might upset someone.

Re:"Scary Precedent"? Um, what? (2)

jimmcq (88033) | more than 12 years ago | (#3597050)

I guess it's a really scary precedent if you're intent on publishing libelous material online.

Microsoft didn't publish the pictures in question.

Quote from the article: "The photos... appeared last year on the site operated by Microsoft Germany where users could post pictures and texts to share with others".

Microsoft was merely acting as ISP in this case.

Re:"Scary Precedent"? Um, what? (4, Insightful)

night_flyer (453866) | more than 12 years ago | (#3597057)

Microsoft didnt post it, a person on one of their sites posted it "where users could post pictures and texts to share with others"

this precedent, should scare you...

Re:"Scary Precedent"? Um, what? (1)

scaramush (472955) | more than 12 years ago | (#3597088)

No, you misunderstand. I wrote the article write up: The "scary precedent" isn't that an ISP was forced to remove libelous material. The scary precedent is that they were sued (and beaten) because they refused to promise that no more material like this would be published in the future.

This decision pushes ISPs into the role of "Content Cop", which is not acceptable to me. Do really want MS (and every other ISP) to be legally responsible for checking every website it hosts for "bad" things?

Re:"Scary Precedent"? Um, what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3597090)

F

Re:"Scary Precedent"? Um, what? (2)

Erasmus Darwin (183180) | more than 12 years ago | (#3597124)

"I guess it's a really scary precedent if you're intent on publishing libelous material online."

Except that Microsoft didn't publish the pictures any more than Slashdot publishes user comments. They merely automatically reproduced user-provided content and removed the content once a complaint was generated.

Furthermore, while the intent behind the site is unclear, I doubt it was created with the implicit understanding that it would be used to primarily host libelous material (unlike, say, Napster which apparently had a wink-wink-nudge-nudge relationship with music piracy).

Re:"Scary Precedent"? Um, what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3597134)

Let's try that again. I wrote an actual post, previewed it and everything, and when I submitted it, slashdot changed it to the letter 'F'. Great, thanks.

It's a scary precedent because it means ISPs are now responsible for reviewing everything that they host before they host it. If you take this decision to its logical conclusion, there is no way any ISP can provide user-run web hosting, because they are now liable for what their users post. It doesn't make any difference if they take it down as soon as they are notified - Microsoft did that, and they still lost the case because they wouldn't promise that it would never happen again. They can't make that promise without setting up a system where they review each and every page and image that gets posted beforehand.

Let's put it this way: if you post something libelous to slashdot, who should be responsible for that, you or slashdot? If this ruling stands, slashdot is responsible. I hope you see how wrong that is. It has the potential to eliminate free speech on the internet.

Re:"Scary Precedent"? Um, what? (2)

colmore (56499) | more than 12 years ago | (#3597139)

The precedent is not "One ISP gets sued for one particular type of offensive content" the precedent is that ISPs can be sued for the actions of their customers. This is *bad* because the only way they can protect themselves is to examine and censor *everything* that people publish through their service online.

If I say something bad about the chinese government, and my ISP is an international company, will I be censored because my ISP wants to be in good relations with Beijing?

To normal, thinking adults, there is a pretty obvious divide between juvinile and offensive libel and the free speech worth protecting. But remember, we're not dealing with normal, thinking adults, we're dealing with lawyers, zealots, politicians, and corporations. If you don't think there's a possibility that this case will translate into real-world free speach violations, then you fail to grasp the way legal precedent works in practice.

Oh well... just my $.02, until Slashdot gets sued into removing them, that is.

One case MS should have one... (3, Insightful)

Nos. (179609) | more than 12 years ago | (#3596989)

As much as I dislike MS most of the time, this is one time they should have won in court. They did take the pictures down, but lets face it, there's no way to make sure it doesn't happen again unless you have people sitting there 24 hours reloading the webpages ready to delete any picture that shows up. Or you could disallow pictures all together. I dislike forum sites that all images in sigs, but I think people able to post images to a forum is fine. Of course the individuals who actually posted the pics are the ones that should have been in court, but that's besides the point.

Once compaines are afraid to let communities post pics, its not that far to stop posting of comments as well (its a bit of a slippery slope I know). I'm all for the open expression of opinion and beliefs, and I do believe that once contacted, the webmaster/admin should remove the pics, but they shouldn't be fine because the pics were there.

Re:One case MS should have won... (1)

Nos. (179609) | more than 12 years ago | (#3597026)

Okay before the grammer police come out of hiding, that should have been:
One case MS should have won...

Re:One case MS should have won... (2, Funny)

Schwamm (513960) | more than 12 years ago | (#3597140)

Okay before the grammer police come out of hiding...

You'd better fix that before the spelling police come out of hiding. ;-)

How do you control what someone might post (3, Interesting)

flatrock (79357) | more than 12 years ago | (#3596992)

How do they expect board operators to control what someone might post. I can understand the board operators being forced to remove these pictures, but it's nearly impossible for them to prevent doctored pictures don't show up. I keep being more and more amazed at the narrow mindedness of courts all over the world.

Irony (0, Troll)

Black Aardvark House (541204) | more than 12 years ago | (#3596993)

Grander said Microsoft is "examining further legal steps.

They used Graf's likeness without permission and they lost the case. When will they just quit already?

It's ironic that they got bitten by the same laws they so sternly uphold. It works both ways, y'know.

Re:Irony (2)

Lemmy Caution (8378) | more than 12 years ago | (#3597029)

Um, they didn't use her likeness. One of their customers used her likeness. That's a big, big, big difference.

Re:Irony (1)

ryepup (522994) | more than 12 years ago | (#3597058)

read the article. They were hosting a forum, and someone posted the picture on there. MS are the good guys in the this one.

Someone club this guy over the head (1)

dr_db (202135) | more than 12 years ago | (#3597060)

MS didn't post them - they were acting as an ISP in Germany, and a customer posted them. They are basically getting sued over not promising to put them there again - how in the hell would they stop it.

It would be like slashdot getting sued over the content of a post - and losing. IIRC, they have been threatened before though

Re:Irony (1)

cetan (61150) | more than 12 years ago | (#3597096)

What's not ironic is that you didn't read or comprehend the article.

This reminds me of (2, Interesting)

WickedChicken (459613) | more than 12 years ago | (#3596994)

the charges Microsoft was pressing in which Slashdot was responsible for people who posted some document covered by an NDA. I'd have to agree on Microsoft's side this time, they are true in that the way that this ruling does inhibit some online speech, for example posting on Slashdot. I could see in the future where posts are simply removed because they might infringe on the DMCA or other laws.

I'm so conflicted... (1)

chuckgrosvenor (473314) | more than 12 years ago | (#3596999)

I want to hate Microsoft, but lately they've been losing cases like this, where they clearly should have won..

With all those lawers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3597002)

It is amazing with all the lawyers and $$$ that microsoft has that they couldn't win a case like this. It's pretty scary that they couldn't win a case like this.

I run a web design/hosting business... This ruling is damn scary. Too bad they didn't win this ruling... ouch...

Well (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3597008)

Can or can't we see these pictures?

Conflicting Slashdot Views? (3, Insightful)

hkhanna (559514) | more than 12 years ago | (#3597011)

Wow, I took one look at this article and thought, "Hurray! Microsoft lost a legal battle. Chalk one more up for Open Source!" Yeah, then I clicked the link only to find they lost a case dealing with the openness and freeness of the internet. Just think of the precedent this sets if a web site's owner is responsible for the content other, perhaps anonymous users post on his/her website. Wouldn't that make CmdrTaco liable if I posted the source to DeCSS in one of the comments? (just an example, folks)

Well that brings up the interesting case of conflicting /. views. Think about it: Well, we generally hate Microsoft, but we also hate censorship on the internet. Here, Microsoft and censorship are on opposite sides. Where does that leave us? Oof, good question.

Bottom line: scary precedent.

Hargun

what do you expect? (4, Insightful)

night_flyer (453866) | more than 12 years ago | (#3597014)

Its not the criminals fault, its the gun's
Its not the pirates fault, it's Napster's
Its not the poster's fault, it's the ISP's

noboby is guilty of anything, its the tool's fault... doesnt that make everyone feel better about themselves?

Re:what do you expect? (1)

CitznFish (222446) | more than 12 years ago | (#3597039)

I couldn't have put this any better. Ok, maybe I could have, but it would have taken me a very long time and the results would be similar.. =]

Re:what do you expect? (1)

locutus2k (103517) | more than 12 years ago | (#3597149)

Guns don't kill people, class 2 phasers do... just FYI :)

Does this mean... (2)

smoondog (85133) | more than 12 years ago | (#3597023)

Does this mean I could sue /. everytime an AC calls me a linux-loving fag [slashdot.org] ?

-Sean

Re:Does this mean... (2)

warpSpeed (67927) | more than 12 years ago | (#3597095)


No you can only sue /. for emotional trauma caused by reading Katz...

~Sean

The danger of doctored text (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3597024)

Look! I put Jon Katz's head on Steffi Graf's body:
@
(* *)
) (
( Y )

uhhh guys? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3597025)

Not to point out the obvious, but this is in Germany. There are plenty of precedents in the U.S. to prevent this sort of thing.

This is misleading... (5, Informative)

Raetsel (34442) | more than 12 years ago | (#3597031)


This is a case in Germany, under German law, against the German division of Microsoft. From the article:
  • "...Steffi Graf won a court case against Microsoft Germany..." (my emphasis)
Frightening though it may be, this isn't about any of the draconian US laws.

Re:This is misleading... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3597123)

This is a case in Germany, under German law, against the German division of Microsoft.

Why do I keep coming back? This bullshit misleading nonsense is put on the front page over and over, and I keep coming back for more... Maybe I should just try banning Timothy from the front page. Worked well enough for Katz.

Sneaky . . . (2)

theghost (156240) | more than 12 years ago | (#3597041)

Slashdot the site by making the link out of the "nude doctored photos" part of the text. I wonder if MS submitted the story that way to ensure that no one who doesn't already hate MS sees the site?

I can't figure out if the desire to trash MS will win out over the anti-DMCA urge. It'll be interesting to see which way the knee-jerks go with this one.

Microsoft's reaction..... (1)

nrosier (99582) | more than 12 years ago | (#3597043)

Microsoft Germany spokesman Bernhard Grander said the company disagrees with the court's decision and said it "endangers the existence of live-chat and private (Internet) communities."

I thought MS had a monopoly on this (endangering live-chat... Messenger-bug... Internet communities... IE-bugs, proprietary standards); now they have to share that power with a court. That's funny...

But in al seriousness, as mich as I hate MS's bussiness practices, this time they are right; an ISP should not be held responsible for what their users post; if needed, they can remove the content, but they cannot garantuee that users won't do this again.

The burden of 0wnership (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3597054)

Sorry, but you need to look at the fineprint. In their old terms of use they claimed ownership of all contend they were hosting for you. So it became their property, and they were possibly making money of it.
IANAL, but i guess that put them in the same legal situation like a newspaper printing that stuff.

Re:The burden of 0wnership (5, Insightful)

pnuema (523776) | more than 12 years ago | (#3597136)

In their old terms of use they claimed ownership of all contend they were hosting for you. So it became their property, and they were possibly making money of it.

If this is true, then this court case is absolutely on the money. We should give our German friends the benefit of the doubt.

MS can't have it both ways. I assume they demanded ownership of the content so that they could remove content they did not want posted - like anti-MS rants etc. However, when they were held responsible for the "property" they demanded, they tried to claim it was the website "owner's" responsibility.

This is not a frightening precedent at all, and it doesn't apply to any ISP with normal terms of service. MS just got exactly what it deserved.

I repeat - SHOULD NOT APPLY TO THE REST OF THE NET. Move along. Nothing to see here.

Obvious conspiracy (1)

L. VeGas (580015) | more than 12 years ago | (#3597055)

Steffi Graff was having an affair with a German judge who took the photos. They engineered this entire fiasco In a desperate attempt to cover up their affair.

Europe (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3597065)

and you europeans say the US is fucked up? With the French Yahoo fiasco, and now this, methinks you should clean up shit on your side of the pond.Eurotrolls begone!

I don't get it... (2)

Uttles (324447) | more than 12 years ago | (#3597067)

If the pictures are fake, then what's the problem? Having legal ramifications for running a public, uncensored community that can post whatever they want is one thing, I mean we don't want kiddie porn to happen, but come on, there's no harm in a little Gimping around the 'net. I mean damn, look at the Mr. T Vs. Series... that's some serious laughter inducing stuff. People need to take it easy.

Why this is a good thing (3, Insightful)

1984 (56406) | more than 12 years ago | (#3597069)

This is a good thing because it's a bad thing (yes, yes, I realise that's pompous). The precedent set is disquieting. But it was always going to happen; in either large chunks or small bites (perhaps both) the responsibility of ISPs was always going to be defined this way. People suing because they don't like what they see, and ISPs saying "but we're a common carrier, it's not our fault" in court cases.

So anyway, this is good because it's not a mom and pop ISP. This is someone who can afford to press a point, if it's worth it to them. Thus it opens the potential for a real debate on these issues. If it were an easily-trampled minnow, that wouldn't happen.

In this case, be happy it's Microsoft. Your enemy's enemy and all that...

Microsoft in this case is getting screwed (1)

Phoenix (2762) | more than 12 years ago | (#3597074)

As much as I hate to admit it, I have to side with M$ on this case.

They can be asked to remove content that is offensive, they can agree to remove such content in a reasonable and timely fashion should it ever re-appear...

...but there is no way in hell they can keep it from *ever* appearing there again. Short of shutting down the site completly, but then that defeats the purpose of having a web comunity.

As much as we dislike M$, we have to keep an eye on this case as this could have serious problems for us in the future. What if ./ were to be sued because someone said something that offended Bill Gates (ok, when doesn't that happen?) and ./ were sued to take it off then told that they *must* keep it off forever. Short of shutting down the discussion boards that can't happen.

It's scarey to think about

In other news... (2, Funny)

X86Daddy (446356) | more than 12 years ago | (#3597076)


Dazed and confused Slashdot readers everywhere were found siding with Microsoft today...

The really scary part (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3597083)

The really scary part is: who would waste time posting pix of that dog instead of Ms. Portman?

Microsoft loses == bad (2)

quantaman (517394) | more than 12 years ago | (#3597089)

This is one case which we would want Microsoft to win. Microsoft didn't put up the photos themselves, the pictures were put up by users of the website presumably just like we post comments. Microsoft also took down the pictures upon request, the problem came when MS refused to sign an agreement that the pictures would never appear again. In addition

The company would have to pay a fine if similar photos emerge on the site in future, court spokesman Christian Grueneberg said.

From my understanding this would be roughly equivalent to /. having to pay up every time links to goatse.cx or any other sites of that nature were put up, I don't see how this is even enforcable on MS's part. This is a very disturbing preceden and I hope that there are some significant additional facts that the article is ignoring. Then again if you want to cost MS some $$ you know what to do!!

Of course she won... (5, Funny)

tps12 (105590) | more than 12 years ago | (#3597094)

Microsoft has a weak backhand.

Okay, who was the wise guy who posted this under "The Courts"? Ha ha.

The image (1, Troll)

Smallpond (221300) | more than 12 years ago | (#3597107)


For those of you who want to see the image:

http://www.harvey-mayson.co.uk/steffi.jpg

Empty promises... (2)

Pollux (102520) | more than 12 years ago | (#3597108)

The photos - computer manipulations that put Graf's head on a nude body - appeared last year on the site operated by Microsoft Germany where users could post pictures and texts to share with others.

The photos were taken down in June at Graf's request, but the company declined to sign a formal agreement that they wouldn't appear again, and Graf sued.

You know, I would be seriously pissed if some guy broke into my house, stole my rifle, used it to shoot and kill a cop, and the police arrested me for owning the murder weapon.

When is our judicial system going to get it through their heads that ISPs cannot control the actions of their users, just like I cannot control who might break into my house. I'm sure Microsoft Germany had no intention of putting nude photos on their website, just like I have no intention of killing someone with my rifle, but I cannot guarantee that it won't happen.

CompuServ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3597114)

A very similiar thing happened to CS many years ago... nothing to do with nudie pix, but the fact that they claimed publishing rights to the content. As soon as one claims to be a publisher of the content, they are responsible for the content... so, yeah, it's MS's fault for not screening properly... However, MS is right in saying they cannot guarantee it won't happen in the future -- Who can? I say, if you hate MS, now would be the time to get a MSN community setup with fake nudie pics of celebs...

Headline is Misleading, Insufficient (2)

4of12 (97621) | more than 12 years ago | (#3597115)

If read the story, you'll see that, much to the chagrin of myself and others who decry Microsoft's behavior in many other venues, Microsoft deserved to win this one.

They are merely permitting users to post. Like Slashdot.

The principle here is exactly the same one that would apply if Slashdot were sued because someone posted links to sites critical of the Church of Scientology, or to places where they could download DeCSS.

I think the best thing here would be if the public provider only agreed to investigate allegations of slander if they are submitted in writing, with no obligation to remove any postings if they are not found to be libelous of individuals.

Postings are expressions of their respective authors only!

1 down 1000 to go. (1)

Target Drone (546651) | more than 12 years ago | (#3597118)

The problem for her though is that the Internet never forgets. Acording to google [google.ca] she still has to get the picture removed from at least a 1000 more sites.

In related news (4, Funny)

CaffeineAddict2001 (518485) | more than 12 years ago | (#3597126)

Bea Arthur is outraged that they put steffi graff's head on her body.

Legal clauses (1)

TibbonZero (571809) | more than 12 years ago | (#3597143)

Isn't there normally a clause that says something like: We are not responsible for content of the sites that we host. In addition we do not allow pornographic material to be posted to our site.

Why is Microsoft responsible? I am not a MSFT lover, but blame who is to blame. Who doctored the photos? Who posted them? Isn't that defaming her image? That's illegal right? So why is Microsoft the one in jeopardy over this?

I know that the posting of "we aren't responsible for stuff on our site posted by users" doesn't always fly legally, but don't they have a responsiblity to know who their users are?

Does anyone think that for a company as big as Microsoft that to trace down a person, well having IP logs of where the person came from, because they posted to their web server.. (Or does IIS log anything..). With a court order shouldn't they be able to trace that ever through 'anonmyous' proxies? Come on MSFT, use that technology and find that sicko.

I think Adobe wants to talk to him as well, because he's probably running a pirated copy of Photoshop on his computer.

For this week: (1)

haggar (72771) | more than 12 years ago | (#3597144)

"This week Microsoft are the good guys. Who are the bad guys, anyone? How 'bout Lucent, we haven't been slandering them in a long time."

M$ claiming the rights for the photos (1)

thkoch (523130) | more than 12 years ago | (#3597153)

In an former article about this case, it was said the reason why the judge made M$ responsible, was that M$ is claiming the rights for all stuff that is published in the MSN forum.
There is some legel stuff in the rules for the use of the forum that any content published goes over to M$.
And of course, if it is yours, you are responsible.
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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...