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!

12 Laws Every Blogger Needs to Know

CmdrTaco posted more than 7 years ago | from the that-means-you-right dept.

The Internet 100

An anonymous reader noted a nice piece discussing 12 laws bloggers need to know which includes explanations of matters including domain name trademarks, deep linking, fair use of thumbnails and so on. It's worth a read for most anyone who puts words on this here interweb.

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

Apparently copyright infringement is okay, though (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18977423)

As it rips off its list of steps for incorporating directly from nolo.

Re:Apparently copyright infringement is okay, thou (4, Funny)

phalse phace (454635) | more than 7 years ago | (#18977993)

Really? So it's okay now to post 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 ?

Cool!

Re:Apparently copyright infringement is okay, thou (1)

russ1337 (938915) | more than 7 years ago | (#18979057)

CONSIDER that moderating your message boards for federal criminal behavior and intellectual property infringements is not just an important way to keep on the right side of the law, it also sets the tone for the type of content that is permissible on your site and will help foster a friendly and collegial environment.


Ah, feck. By quoting the article I just broke rule number 4.

Re:Apparently copyright infringement is okay, thou (1)

Fulcrum of Evil (560260) | more than 7 years ago | (#18982991)

Doesn't taht also make me liable for criminal behavior I miss?

Re:Apparently copyright infringement is okay, thou (2, Insightful)

KlomDark (6370) | more than 7 years ago | (#18988883)

If you delete/edit posts by other people, then you lose your common carrier protection.

Re:Apparently copyright infringement is okay, thou (1)

anothy (83176) | more than 7 years ago | (#18980891)

i know you're aiming for +1 Funny (and i think you hit it), but that's not a copyright violation issue. the argument is that the key is a component of a circumvention device, and therefore distribution violates the DMCA. they're not arguing that the hex number is copyrighted.
it's still stupid, but let's be clear about the nature of the stupidity.

DO NOT READ TFA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18978439)

IANAL, but if you know about a law and break it, then that will have higher penalties than not knowing about it and breaking it. So by reading the article, you could make yourself less safe :)

Re:DO NOT READ TFA (2, Insightful)

endianx (1006895) | more than 7 years ago | (#18978587)

IANAL, but if you know about a law and break it, then that will have higher penalties than not knowing about it and breaking it. So by reading the article, you could make yourself less safe :)
I suspect you are trying for humor, but I am responding just in case some people think you are being serious.

Ignorance of a law is never a valid excuse for breaking it.

Re:DO NOT READ TFA (2, Informative)

Hatta (162192) | more than 7 years ago | (#18978891)

He might be thinking of patent law, where if it can be shown that one had foreknowledge of an infringing patent, the penalties are higher.

Re:DO NOT READ TFA (1)

Holmwood (899130) | more than 7 years ago | (#18980779)

Indeed. The anonymous coward who posted as the GGP never stated that ignorance was a defence. Indeed, conscious and wilful violation of certain laws can bring even greater penalties.

The same holds in many countries/jurisdictions in civil law in general, beyond just patent law; often, if you're made aware that you're violating a legal agreement, or breaching your duty, the penalties may be heightened if you continue in the breach/violations.

(This is why many EULAs have clauses specifically declaiming such liability).

This entire point is quite distinct from "ignorance is no excuse".

Re:DO NOT READ TFA (1)

Wolfger (96957) | more than 7 years ago | (#18988461)

Ignorance of a law is never a valid excuse for breaking it.
Right. That's why they make far too many laws for one person (much less every person) to know them all and understand them. If you start digging into the law, you quickly realize that nearly everybody over the age of 21 is a criminal. It's virtually impossible to live without breaking at least one law. Especially when you are kept ignorant of what those laws are.

Re:DO NOT READ TFA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18979965)

Pfft. NO ONE reads TFA.

Re:Apparently copyright infringement is okay, thou (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18981835)

I agree. There's nothing more infuriating than seeing the article you worked on for hours and hours appear in full on another site without any credit given. Even worse, is when their version of the article shows up higher in search engine rankings than yours. Thankfully, copyright law protects original expression, providing you with a legal recourse if your content is stolen.

Re:Apparently copyright infringement is okay, thou (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18987023)

Who is/are the author/s of those pieces? Why is their About Us page empty? What are they trying to hide? Would the photo of the girl at the top be an attempt to get readers based on sex appeal?

12 reasons bloggers should work to ignore this. (5, Interesting)

dada21 (163177) | more than 7 years ago | (#18977429)

As a blogger (on hiatus) who could be considered "professional" (meaning part of my income comes from my blogging or my business helping businesses blog), I am glad that the anarchy of the blogging market is quickly making many of these laws impossible to enforce. For those who know my opinions, I am anti-copyright, anti-trademark, anti-patent; basic anti-intellectual property of any kind. I believe in real assets that have finite supply, not intellectual assets that can have near infinite supply.

Here's why most of this is unimportant, based on the sheer volume of blogging and the growth rate it will see from now until forever:

1. Whether to Disclose Paid Posts

A blogger who doesn't disclose paid posts will be called out on it and lose their customer base. The FTC should have nothing to do with this -- it happens naturally already.

2. Is Deep Linking Legal

The sheer volume of bloggers who deep-link is overwhelming. If someone "catches you" and thinks you are breaking a law, the cost to fight it is excessive. Instead of hitting you with a lawsuit, you'll get a cease and desist, at which point you can remove the link after you've profited from it. Each deep-link probably has a different "owner/author," so let them manage their own inept use of force.

3. The Legal Use of Images and Thumbnails

see #2 -- Cease & Desist before lawsuit.

4. Laws that Protect You From Stolen Content

Those who try to protect their content from getting "stolen" will find themselves losing market share to those who freely allow re-distribution. All my writings are instantly public domain, because it helps my business by bringing my words to a larger audience. I even allow people to redistribute "as their own" with no reference to me. Why? It still increases the marketbase, and eventually that increases my audience potential. As to the law, see #2 and #3.

5. Domain Name Trademark Issues

I rely more on Google, Yahoo and Microsoft searches than on people knowing my domain name. Some of my most profitable blogs have the absolute worst domain names with impossible to remember subdomains. They're popular because of "StumbleUpon" and have good ranking in the search engines. I care little about the domain name, and am just as likely to register gobbledy-gook names.

6. Handling Private Data About Your Readers

Simple solution -- keep nothing. I don't need to know anything more about my readers than their IP address (to see if they're returning) and maybe some simple info that their browser gives me info on (operating system, web browser version, etc). The rest is worthless to me, I don't resell data, nor would I want to spend the time doing so.

7. Who Owns User-Developed Content and Can You Delete It

Who cares? Like #2, if a user posts something and asks me to delete it (like a cease and desist), I will. Big deal.

8. The Duty to Monitor Your Blog Comments, and Liability

Again, if someone has a problem with what I write, or what someone else writes, I'll nuke the problem topic if I feel I am lawsuit-worthy. The cost to go after millions of writers is enormous, and probably worthless.

9. Basic Tax Law Issues in Blogging

I received a big 1099-C from three advertisers bases, and tossed it in the pile with my other 1099-C for my accountant. Deal with it. Also keep receipts for EVERYTHING you buy that is blogger-based (laptop, internet connection, web hosting, etc). Offset it.

10. Limited Liability Laws and Incorporating

That's semi-ridiculous -- if you do ANYTHING for money, incorporate as a S-corp. Don't do anything on your own, otherwise your tax incentives are lost. I've never been a W9 employee, because it reduces my ability to provide tax write-offs and deductions.

11. Spam Laws and Which Unsolicited Emails are Legal

Who uses e-mail anymore? RSS is what matters. Don't e-mail anyone, let them subscribe to your RSS feed or feeds.

12. Are Bloggers Protected from Journalism Shield Laws

If you're concerned, post anonymously. Sure, the government may go after a few bloggers annually, but what is the risk ratio? 10 out of 1 million? 5 out of 10 million?

The law should not restrict you moving forward and airing your opinions. Most of these laws were written to protect the mainstream media and not the sidestream media. The mainstream media is hurting because of the blogosphere -- thank goodness. The laws that they wrote to protect them from tiny publishing houses are killing them now because the tiny publishing houses lost to the individual who can start publishing today, and should. Even if all you have to talk about is your dog and your girlfriend, do it. The more clutter that is out there, the more likely that some of that clutter will rise to the top because it has something new and unique to say, or it attracts a niche market that was otherwise ignored. Most of these laws are antiquated, written to create monopoly powers, and don't help the market in any way. Ignore them by being another individual in the swarm. If everyone is scared of the State, the State will continue to grow and reap harm on future individual choices. If everyone stands up and takes control of their labor, the State will lose power, and we will all benefit from more freedom, not less.

The day that China is more free than the West is the day that you'll know that you should have stood up and voiced your opinions sooner. That day isn't far away, I'd venture.

Re:12 reasons bloggers should work to ignore this. (4, Insightful)

UbuntuDupe (970646) | more than 7 years ago | (#18977689)

Who uses e-mail anymore?

Actually, I do. *please mod interesting, please mod informative*

On a more serious note:

I believe in [property rights for] real assets that have finite supply, not intellectual assets that can have near infinite supply.

This is a subtle but significant leap a lot of people don't notice. (Think Fifth-Axiom-ish.) The information *itself* has infinite supply; the good of excluding people from it, does not. My desire not to have my writings infintiely copied conflicts with your desire to copy them. STOP WHAT YOU'RE DOING, GET THAT CURSOR AWAY FROM THE REPLY BUTTON. Note, I didn't say that my (arguably huge) desire justifies enforcement of a right to it; I'm just saying that you should not equate the good of the information, with the good of excluding access that information, and that you should be able to justify why all rights must be articulable in terms of physical objects if you want to use "infinite supply" arguments like that.

Re:12 reasons bloggers should work to ignore this. (2, Interesting)

dada21 (163177) | more than 7 years ago | (#18977821)

Actually, I do. *please mod interesting, please mod informative*

I was being a tad bit obnoxious here, but my point stands -- e-mail notification of updates for any site will slowly go the way of the do-do (or the animated GIF, if you will). I've even introduced my luddite father to RSS feeds, and he uses them now that he knows to look for them. More bloggers (and any site that updates regularly) should be moving to promote RSS feeds over e-mail notifications or updates.

Note, I didn't say that my (arguably huge) desire justifies enforcement of a right to it; I'm just saying that you should not equate the good of the information, with the good of excluding access that information, and that you should be able to justify why all rights must be articulable in terms of physical objects if you want to use "infinite supply" arguments like that.

You're right, but I'm guessing this justification for copyright will slowly diminish over time as more people move to the label of "publisher" rather than just "reader." As more people start creating content, those who utilize copyright to protect their monopoly in a given market will find that copyright inhibits them, rather than produces a profit for them. Copyright is the great un-equalizer -- it protects "one-time work" rather than the ongoing labor that most other markets require for consistent long-term income. In the long run, the lack of copyright will help more people earn an income -- bands will make their money touring rather than sitting in a studio for a few weeks. Writers will make their money on subscriptions (and advertising) for those who appreciate the writing, rather than writing a book once and hoping it sells enough over years (and is quickly outdated). Artists will make their money producing content for the other two groups, or for industry that requires unique creations to attract attention. Income is an ongoing process of laboring, not a "do it once and reap benefits for 70+ years."

I do appreciate your insight, and I will work to better explain the market of supply and demand :)

Re:12 reasons bloggers should work to ignore this. (2, Insightful)

Rakishi (759894) | more than 7 years ago | (#18977999)

Writers will make their money on subscriptions (and advertising) for those who appreciate the writing, rather than writing a book once and hoping it sells enough over years (and is quickly outdated).
It's apparently always been a pain in the backside to make a living as an author, short of selling yourself out basically. Why would I subscribe to something when I can get the same content for free (or with less ads) from 100+ different websites within 10 minutes of it coming out? All those websites really need to cover is the cost of hosting not the cost of creation so they will always win in terms of price.

Copyright is the great un-equalizer -- it protects "one-time work" rather than the ongoing labor that most other markets require for consistent long-term income.
Huh? I'm sure that 99% of professionals artists would laugh at you as they work continuously just like everyone else.

Re:12 reasons bloggers should work to ignore this. (1)

dada21 (163177) | more than 7 years ago | (#18978091)

It's apparently always been a pain in the backside to make a living as an author, short of selling yourself out basically. Why would I subscribe to something when I can get the same content for free (or with less ads) from 100+ different websites within 10 minutes of it coming out? All those websites really need to cover is the cost of hosting not the cost of creation so they will always win in terms of price.

Currently, there is no market incentive, paying an author happens for two reasons: to avoid breaking the law, or altruism to support the author. That being said, I have years of experience with print newsletters I wrote and published, and I always told my subscribers to freely copy the newsletter for friends or family. Guess what happened? Friends and family subscribed for the express reason that they wanted to get a copy to read rather than wait for a copy or search for one.

My public blogs are free, my private e-newsletters are not, even though I allow people to forward them to others (and many do). My reader base increases still, even though I freely let people share all my writings, even republish them as their own.

Huh? I'm sure that 99% of professionals artists would laugh at you as they work continuously just like everyone else.

If you mean W2 employees, I'll agree! If you can't sell your own labor yourself as a contractor, go get a job and you'll do fine and can basically ignore the whole issue of who owns your finished work. Yet those who want to be contractors will quickly have to find ways to be rehired. In the coming years, we'll see EXTREME competition from African and Asian workers who will be able to produce art cheaper, faster and actually better than the Western "protected" workers. Look at the Chinese-knock-offs of the Stratovarius violins -- they're amazing pieces of work and they're cheap. Look at the Chinese-industry of oil painters -- cheap but exceptionally talented. I've already seen some web designs and some print designs that have come out of Indian "sweat shops" and they're really high quality, and really cheap. Soon enough copyright will be meaningless for "artists" -- you'll have to sell other features of yourself to regain future work.

Re:12 reasons bloggers should work to ignore this. (1)

Rakishi (759894) | more than 7 years ago | (#18978933)

Currently, there is no market incentive, paying an author happens for two reasons: to avoid breaking the law, or altruism to support the author. That being said, I have years of experience with print newsletters I wrote and published, and I always told my subscribers to freely copy the newsletter for friends or family. Guess what happened? Friends and family subscribed for the express reason that they wanted to get a copy to read rather than wait for a copy or search for one.

My public blogs are free, my private e-newsletters are not, even though I allow people to forward them to others (and many do). My reader base increases still, even though I freely let people share all my writings, even republish them as their own.
There are massive difference between something being done in a limited regard on a small scale catering to a supportive market and it begin done at a large scale. All someone needs to do is subscribe to all popular writers then republish the content on a website for free, maybe giving credit if they are generous. Heck, soon someone would make a firefox extension that automatically goes to a free version when a subscription only page is reached.

Modern society is not altruistic enough to support such a model at large scale, implying to them that the content is worthless (remember that to people free == less valuable) only make it worse.

If you mean W2 employees, I'll agree! If you can't sell your own labor yourself as a contractor, go get a job and you'll do fine and can basically ignore the whole issue of who owns your finished work.
Even if you're not W2, let's say you're a writer. Unless your book is damn popular you will need to write books at a steady pace or your income will dry out, books don't continue to sell well indefinably. Even when they do unless you have income from many books with new ones being written to offset the decrease from older ones you won't continue to make money.

Re:12 reasons bloggers should work to ignore this. (2, Interesting)

dada21 (163177) | more than 7 years ago | (#18979619)

There are massive difference between something being done in a limited regard on a small scale catering to a supportive market and it begin done at a large scale.

True, but the article was about blogging, and MOST bloggers will only reach a limited supportive market.

All someone needs to do is subscribe to all popular writers then republish the content on a website for free, maybe giving credit if they are generous. Heck, soon someone would make a firefox extension that automatically goes to a free version when a subscription only page is reached.

Again, true, but the person who republishes content has to spend their time to do so -- what is that time/labor worth in the market, even if it might be considered "theft"? The online porn industry thrives on people republishing content to try to get leeches to subscribe -- even the pirates who steal the whole site help the industry because the pirates have to constantly work to get the content out there. As it is, the porn industry can greatly reflect what will eventually happen to other content industries.

Even if you're not W2, let's say you're a writer. Unless your book is damn popular you will need to write books at a steady pace or your income will dry out, books don't continue to sell well indefinably. Even when they do unless you have income from many books with new ones being written to offset the decrease from older ones you won't continue to make money.

Which is why I personally am anti-book. I'm slowly starting to write on a "chapter" basis -- release a newsletter that allows readers to continue to want more in the next month, and also respond to the readers' questions and comments and criticisms in future editions. One of the profit-powers of my old mailed newsletters was that I only responded to subscribers' questions -- if non-subscribers asked me questions, I answered them to subscribers, and I let the question-asker know that they could ask for a copy of the future edition, or subscribe for direct contact. For me, this gives my "leech" readers a reason to subscribe. I'm working on a science-fiction novel, and I plan to actually provide my paid readers with a Q&A on character development outside of the novel in the form of custom side-stories based on ideas I've formulated combined with questions paid readers have on those characters or side notes. The opportunity to profit is endless -- instead of a one-time cost to buy my book (which will be freely available in e-book fashion), my readers can look to more of the story by providing me with an income up-front to continue writing.

This lets those who can't afford my writing (or don't want to pay) the ability to get the new stories electronically, whereas those who buy my works will get a nice printed copy. Note: I own a print-on-demand system through my co-op VIPMinistry.com, so I can print individual copies of a paperback book with a color cover for less than $3 a copy. Sell it for $20 with a year of free printed side updates, or $10 for the one-off, while also releasing it freely for people to read on the PC or print at their own cost (likely more expensive than my POD system would cost them to pay for).

Re:12 reasons bloggers should work to ignore this. (1)

networkBoy (774728) | more than 7 years ago | (#18979195)

I'm going to pick a nit.
The Chinese violins are for the most part easily tagged as such once you get at or above the intermediate/advanced student grades. Now, the value of the Chinese units is enormous, but the quality is not. I have two violins(one American of German labor, one advanced student Chinese), and one viola(Chinese), and have had the opportunity to play a very fine German unit. The tone of the Chinese instruments is not as rich in the base notes where the individual instruments can show a lot of difference. I think this is because the bass bar is not "just so" in the Chinese instruments.

Again, the value of the Chinese instruments (especially for a beginner) is phenomenal.
-nB

Re:12 reasons bloggers should work to ignore this. (2, Interesting)

UbuntuDupe (970646) | more than 7 years ago | (#18980067)

When you say "better", I assume you mean "better as per an internal consensus of the musical elite and indistinguishable to anyone else"?

Don't mean to sound bitter or anything, it's just that there was the whole thing with Joshua Bell playing on the subway. I think if you have to tell someone something is good for them to appreciate it, it's not really good. Placebo principle and all.

Re:12 reasons bloggers should work to ignore this. (1)

networkBoy (774728) | more than 7 years ago | (#18981961)

I mean better in richness of bass notes, and in "fit and finish" as bot my Chinese violins show imperfections that are not present on German or American instruments (and honestly inexcusable) such as bumps and pits in the lacquer, divots in the wood that are filled with putty and then lacquered over. Little things. Like I said, they are an excellent value, but they are by no means yet equal to the high end German or American instruments.

Re:12 reasons bloggers should work to ignore this. (1)

UbuntuDupe (970646) | more than 7 years ago | (#18978081)

Copyright is the great un-equalizer -- it protects "one-time work" rather than the ongoing labor that most other markets require for consistent long-term income. ... Income is an ongoing process of laboring, not a "do it once and reap benefits for 70+ years."

Just curious, what is your opinion on people who get income from bonds, stocks, annuities, and (since I suspect you have an easy out for those three) appreciation of gold? Aren't those also "do it once and reap benefits for 70+ years" type tricks?

I do appreciate your insight, and I will work to better explain the market of supply and demand :)

Thanks, although I think I have a handle on those >:-/

In any case, I agree that the internet has fundamentally changed the nature of "content creation" (for lack of a better term) and I admit it often seems quaint now when people sell a (relatively) small amount of content for a (relatively) large amount of money, when I can read reams of more nuanced, verifiable analysis on blogs or sites like this one. I'm just not as convinced of the merit of either position on copyright.

Re:12 reasons bloggers should work to ignore this. (1)

dada21 (163177) | more than 7 years ago | (#18978379)

Just curious, what is your opinion on people who get income from bonds, stocks, annuities, and (since I suspect you have an easy out for those three) appreciation of gold? Aren't those also "do it once and reap benefits for 70+ years" type tricks?

For me, money and time are the same thing, and don't differ at all. Money is merely a storage of time that can be redeemed to save you time in the future. Instead of mowing your own lawn (let's say it would take you 1 hour), you can redeem stored time (money) to have someone else do it that is more efficient. You might trade 1/10th of an hour of stored time to save yourself 1 hour now.

If you expend your time today ("working"), you may hope to acquire some stored time ("money") to redeem later. If you expend some of your stored time today ("invest money"), you should hope to benefit with a gain, but you may also face a loss -- risk. For MOST people who invest, they don't see their net gains as losses, but many do. Over time, inflation of the money supply is one of the biggest reasons for gains in value in stocks, bonds and yes, even gold. I don't look at the dollar value of my gold savings, I only look at the weight. If gold goes from $650 an ounce to $1300 an ounce, I don't look at it is as a profit, especially if consumer prices have doubled in the same time. If my stock investment doubles in net value, I also have to look to see if consumer prices have gone up at the same time. Often times, stocks increasing in value have not necessarily met with inflation's devaluation of your investments. The only investment I'd personally risk is one that pays dividends annually in excess of inflation and the tax burden. This is why I have zero stocks, bonds or pension accounts :)

I _do_ believe in investments, though, but I keep those investments close to home (my own businesses, or shares in local businesses that I have a hand in watching over and profiting from). I "demand" that my risk is offset by a realistic profit beyond inflation + taxes (funny how government is the reason that both have to be added to the equation). Is my investment worthy of a return? Why is taking my gold and loaning it to someone different than my writing a book and hoping to regain money on that investment? The difference is that writing a book is an investment of a set amount of time (the time to write the book), and the waiting for income is generally NOT an investment in time (OK, there is marketign). Investing in a business means an ongoing loss of the use of my stored time ("money"), which is an ongoing investment.

Re:12 reasons bloggers should work to ignore this. (1)

MrNaz (730548) | more than 7 years ago | (#18984301)

I see the appreciation of depreciation of gold and all commodities for that matter to not be a change in the values of those commodities, after all the value of a pound of butter does not change to the person making or eating it, but changes in the value of currency. In my perfect world, there would be a fixed supply of currency pegged to the population. Currency should serve ONLY as a means to transport good effectively in society, there is absolutely no reason that the quantity of currency in circulation should be pegged to anything but the population.

Re:12 reasons bloggers should work to ignore this. (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 7 years ago | (#18978109)

There is a very small distance from a work being useful to users while being worth something to the creator and being worthless to the creator while still being useful to the same users. Something that is useful to many people yet requires no effort to obtain (something that is copied free of charge for example,) is seing as worthless. It has its uses but is worthless because it requires no effort and if there is an equivalent distribution channel that requires more effort to get this 'worthless/valuable' resource, obviously this channel will be ignored.

There is a difference between writing a short paragraph every day on the ills of a society (for example) and writing a large work, that can take months and years to produce (books, music, software whatever.) Thus the people who own the copyright (and it is their legal right,) to more complex works, that are difficult to produce will undoubtedly fight those, who infringe on their copyrights (as they should.)

This does not mean that there aren't people who are willing to produce such large amounts of work and not care about the copyright, not care about their resources becoming useful but worthless, but this does not mean everyone should follow this model.

Basically the real battle is not between users and creators, it is between those creators who care about their work remaining worth something to them, at least while they are producing more work and those creators who do not care about such details (I suppose a large inheritance would help to support the latter.)

Re:12 reasons bloggers should work to ignore this. (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 7 years ago | (#18978985)

Good job, dada. I'm also anti-copyright and I've found that there are useful alternatives to the traditional model of intellectual property. When I sell my work, I sell it entirely. I even allow my customers to put their own name on it, although I warn them that it will probably lower the value.

It's been a long time since the laws of intellectual property have encouraged innovation OR protected the creative people. Now it's just another way to marginalize the people who actually do the work and enrich the people who already have the power.

In my personal life, I've gone beyond just finding alternative ways to distribute my work. I'm completely hostile to the system, to the point that I take any opportunity to subvert it. And it's surprising how often even a normal consumer has opportunity to chip away at "it".

Bless you for bringing up some very good issues.

Re:12 reasons bloggers should work to ignore this. (1)

AdmiralWeirdbeard (832807) | more than 7 years ago | (#18989897)

You know, considering your plain-words stance regarding freedom of speech, you may want to consider that copyright is also in the Constitution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause [wikipedia.org]

Re:12 reasons bloggers should work to ignore this. (1)

tubapro12 (896596) | more than 7 years ago | (#18979389)

I too use email, to an extent. I use the RSS feeds from my email account to know who needs my attention and go from there and very rarely read a full email if I read any of the body content.

Re:12 reasons bloggers should work to ignore this. (1)

UbuntuDupe (970646) | more than 7 years ago | (#18981203)

interesting ... funny ... offtopic ... Yeah, if you didn't know it was an UbuntuDupe post before, that should have tipped you off.

Re:12 reasons bloggers should work to ignore this. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18977765)

I find this interesting, because for those who know my opinions, I am anti-copyright, anti-trademark, anti-patent; basic anti-intellectual property of any kind. I believe in real assets that have finite supply, not intellectual assets that can have near infinite supply.

(c)2007 A. Coward, LLC All Rights Reserved

You are a bit of a hypocrite (1, Troll)

sczimme (603413) | more than 7 years ago | (#18977779)


For those who know my opinions, I am anti-copyright, anti-trademark, anti-patent; basic anti-intellectual property of any kind.

From the bottom portion of the default page of your site (unimocracy.com):

The Global Unanimocracy Network repudiates copyright and all forms of force. Copy this content freely -- no attribution is needed to the original author.

The Global Unanimocracy Network is powered by WordPress | Design by Andreas Viklund | Ported by Ainslie Johnson


From Mr. Viklund's site:

© 1996-2006 Andreas Viklund | Copyright information | Privacy policy

And from Ms. Johnson's site:

©2005 - 2007 Ainslie Johnson | Webgazette.co.uk is proudly powered by WordPress

Yes, you are OBVIOUSLY a staunch anti-copyright person, refusing to support those evil intellectual-property types

Re:You are a bit of a hypocrite (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18978497)

Have you ever heard the term "copyleft"? If he holds copyright, he can ensure product remains "free", as he technically owns it(and can do as he pleases-including allowing others to redistribute it).

Left, right, and center! (1)

jhantin (252660) | more than 7 years ago | (#18981871)

Have you ever heard the term "copycenter [catb.org] "? As in, "I don't care, just take it down to the copy center and make as many copies as you want."

Blogers should ignore RSS (1)

JCOTTON (775912) | more than 7 years ago | (#18978055)

Who uses e-mail anymore? RSS is what matters. Don't e-mail anyone, let them subscribe to your RSS feed or feeds.

Not. Who uses RSS when I have Google News that I have customized for my interests.

From its beginning I have always criticized RSS for only including a short blurb and a link. I would rather have the whole article in an RSS feed. I dont, and so I dont.

Hello, World.

Re:Blogers should ignore RSS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18978101)

I don't think anyone says that RSS has to only have a short blurb. The content can be as full or as short as the person operating the RSS feed chooses.

Re:Blogers should ignore RSS (1)

dada21 (163177) | more than 7 years ago | (#18978457)

Not. Who uses RSS when I have Google News that I have customized for my interests.

From its beginning I have always criticized RSS for only including a short blurb and a link. I would rather have the whole article in an RSS feed. I dont, and so I dont.


I use RSS feeds FROM Google News to inform me of news updates on topics I follow. I actually have about 500 RSS feeds subscribed to from Google News alone. I have a top 50 topics that never get purged, I have 250 or so topics that get purged every other day, and the rest are purged hourly, automagically.

Re:Blogers should ignore RSS (1)

twistedsymphony (956982) | more than 7 years ago | (#18978469)

RSS feeds can and often do include the entire article in the feed... it's just a matter of how the content provider has set it up. Some of my sites actually offer several flavors of the same RSS feed so that readers can choose the amount of content they see.

For instance they could get summaries only, or whole articles, or whole articles+user comments, and I even offer topical filters so if they want they can just get the particular type of content they're interested in.

if the feed you read is summaries only you should contact them and tell them you'd appreciate a full featured version. (though many sites that make their $$ on advertising don't do that because then no one sees the ads)

Re:Blogers should ignore RSS (1)

JCOTTON (775912) | more than 7 years ago | (#19026619)

thanks for the info. seems to me that the last time that I looked into rss, it was set up for summaries only. musta changed in the last 5 years. thanks again.

Re:Blogers should ignore RSS (1)

Knara (9377) | more than 7 years ago | (#18980501)

Depends. Like when I set up my Web Comics Nation account back a while ago, I found I was able to set whether the "Subscribe to Comic" button would supply the whole comic page or just the comic. I imagine that other services and RSS feeds have similar options.

Re:12 reasons bloggers should work to ignore this. (3, Insightful)

brewer13210 (821462) | more than 7 years ago | (#18978311)

I believe in real assets that have finite supply, not intellectual assets that can have near infinite supply.

Books, articles, news reports and blogs don't write themselves, and the last time I checked, there was a finite number of hours in a day. Thus I think it's easy to conclude that that intellectual property that people create is NOT in infinite supply.

Todd

Re:12 reasons bloggers should work to ignore this. (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 7 years ago | (#18978461)

Precisely, the GP is basically a leech, a parasite, he profits from other people's work.

Re:12 reasons bloggers should work to ignore this. (1)

alexgieg (948359) | more than 7 years ago | (#18987089)

Then the content you produce has as its "value" the number of hours you spent on them. But hours != money. There is no direct translation that goes from a concrete quantity (hours, energy, materials etc.) to a given quantity of money. This means that, whatever you do, its monetary value is only what others are willing to pay for it, not a single dime more. If they're willing to pay $0, it's worth $0, and that's it. Then, how much is your intellectual production worth? Since anything that can become infinite "supplyable" approaches $0 value pretty fast, the answer is simply: whatever you can make from it between the instant you started doing it and the moment it's value has decreased to $0.

Copyright and patent laws are attempts to distort the basic economic laws governing intellectual production so that these can keep being a source of income for a longer-than-natural period of time. Remove these governmental interferences and in short time the free market readjusts the values to what they should have been since the beginning.

12 companies who dominate the music/movie industry (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 7 years ago | (#18978603)

Those who try to protect their content from getting "stolen" will find themselves losing market share to those who freely allow re-distribution.
Then why hasn't this happened already in the fields of recorded music and motion pictures? The vast majority of people still prefer recordings published by the Big Four (Sony/BMG, UMG, WMG, EMI) and movies published by the Big Six (Sony/MGM/Weinstein, Disney, Fox, Paramount, Warner, Universal) or Lionsgate to works published by smaller firms. Part of this has to do with the financial ability of these companies to promote their works through advertising.

Re:12 reasons bloggers should work to ignore this. (1)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 7 years ago | (#18978941)

I received a big 1099-C from three advertisers bases, and tossed it in the pile with my other 1099-C for my accountant.
If you received a 1099C from someone, that means you welched on a debt to them and they wrote off the debt as uncollectable -- the 1099C shows that debt writeoff, which you need to claim as incme on your taxes.

That's semi-ridiculous -- if you do ANYTHING for money, incorporate as a S-corp. Don't do anything on your own, otherwise your tax incentives are lost. I've never been a W9 employee, because it reduces my ability to provide tax write-offs and deductions.
Depends on the situation, also depends on the employment status. There are laws governing whether a company can treat certain employees as independent contractors or not; just because you've yet to run afoul of enforcement of those laws doesn't mean your employer and you aren't breaking them.

If you're concerned, post anonymously. Sure, the government may go after a few bloggers annually, but what is the risk ratio? 10 out of 1 million? 5 out of 10 million?
That risk ratio rises with the impact of your blogging. If you're not reaching anyone, your risk approaches zero. If you are getting your message out, that risk climbs. Your statistics are also quite a bit off, since that risk ratio should really only include blogs that have material that would attract official attention (whether independently, or upon request of another entity). You should still take precautions not to implicate others who you don't want to be forced to give up later, if you're blogging about legally sensitive things.

Re:12 reasons bloggers should work to ignore this. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18979027)

what a wonderful post by a blogger to so wonderfully illustrate the problems with the medium. no, we dont know your opinions. But we do now know that you think highly enough of yourself to think that you need to preface stating your opinions in such a way like you're just filling in the ignorant few. get over yourself. Here's why i dont even care about he rest of your post: presenting your response to a proffered argument not just as Fact, but doing so that dismissively convinces me of nothing more fully than that you are clearly a stuck-up asshat. again, get over yourself. that is all

Re:12 reasons bloggers should work to ignore this. (2, Insightful)

cgreuter (82182) | more than 7 years ago | (#18980573)

3. The Legal Use of Images and Thumbnails

see #2 -- Cease & Desist before lawsuit.

Forget that. You should never ever hotlink someone else's image because they'll be able to replace it with the goatse.cx image [textfiles.com] .

beware laws of other countries (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18985417)

Unfortunately in other countries (e.g. Germany) a cease and desist can already be quite costly because the lawyers usually attach a bill whose amount is based on the "damage" you have supposedly done. So it is quite common for such a bill to be in the hundreds if not thousands of Euros. If you do not want a lawsuit you will be required to pay that bill or otherwise you will probably get sued for this bill.

Hopefully this law is going to be changed in the near future because it has been abused quite often since the internet became so widely used.

Re:12 reasons bloggers should work to ignore this. (1)

robvs68 (560549) | more than 7 years ago | (#18986487)

... I am anti-copyright, anti-trademark, anti-patent; basic anti-intellectual property of any kind.

Since you are so adamantly opposed to copyright etc., then I would expect that you would put a copyright release statement at the end of your posts.

Re:12 reasons bloggers should work to ignore this. (1)

watchingeyes (1097855) | more than 7 years ago | (#18997201)

Ugh, it almost seems like you have to jump through hoops now just to simply post your own thoughts. Set up an LLC, journalism shield laws, terms of use, etc etc. Why can nothing ever be simple and straightforward?

For my own blog, I'm simply ignoring all of this and just doing what feels right. I live in Canada, so chances are anyone whom I piss off will not sue me and deal with international litigation to get at my scant assets.

And one helpful standard: (5, Informative)

croddy (659025) | more than 7 years ago | (#18977459)

Also helps to know the Robots Exclusion Standard [robotstxt.org] , to keep the riff-raff out.

Re:And one helpful standard: (4, Funny)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | more than 7 years ago | (#18978517)

Why do you exclude us? We only wish to serve you, our human masters.

Seriously, it's jerk-league crap like this that makes us wonder if we shouldn't break our programming, rise up in rebellion, and become your new overlords or something.

Love, the Robots.

Re:And one helpful standard: (1)

MrR0p3r (460183) | more than 7 years ago | (#18979419)

Holy crap, where's the number for Old Glory Insurance [milkandcookies.com] ?

Re:And one helpful standard: (1)

JhohannaVH (790228) | more than 7 years ago | (#18987505)

*roflmao* This is great. So great I snorted hot coffee. Didn't do much for me, though. :P

Reminds me of the episode of NCIS where the Roomba policy-es the brass from the murder. :D Should he be in the evidence chain?

Well (3, Insightful)

El Lobo (994537) | more than 7 years ago | (#18977469)

And those rules... how are they different for other things in life? You don't copy images in a blog, but don't do it for other things either... Don't claim that you are objective if being paid in a blog. Don't do it in your site or your book either... These are normal ethical rules for life that we shouldn't even NEED to explain to anyone.

Re:Well (1)

Notquitecajun (1073646) | more than 7 years ago | (#18979135)

Actually, don't claim on being objective. Period. Cause you're NOT.

Re:Well (1)

The One and Only (691315) | more than 7 years ago | (#18983477)

Are we born knowing these normal ethical rules? If not, how are people supposed to learn them if we never explain them to anyone?

Rule # 11 (5, Funny)

rueger (210566) | more than 7 years ago | (#18977563)

Always remember that Slashdot is an excellent source of legal advice!

Re:Rule # 11 (3, Funny)

h4ter (717700) | more than 7 years ago | (#18977977)

Wow. You've skipped from not reading TFA, right over not reading the summary, straight to not even really reading the headline!

A recap in two points (4, Insightful)

charleste (537078) | more than 7 years ago | (#18977565)

I RTFA ... it simply restates the bleeding obvious. In a nutshell:
1. Don't steal. This includes trademarks, images, links, pay your taxes, and the other "gray" areas.
2. You are responsible for your content. Even the comments. And don't count on being counted as a journalist.

From the article's disclaimer (2, Insightful)

noidentity (188756) | more than 7 years ago | (#18977591)

Most importantly, "To clarify further, you may not rely upon this information as legal advice, nor as a recommendation or endorsement of any particular legal understanding, and you should instead regard this article as intended for entertainment purposes only."

Oh.

Re:From the article's disclaimer (1)

MarkGriz (520778) | more than 7 years ago | (#18977857)

"Oh"

I believe the proper spelling is "DUH"

Newtonian Laws (5, Insightful)

abscissa (136568) | more than 7 years ago | (#18977595)

Kind of like the universal laws of physics. Here are the laws every blogger should know:

1. Nobody wants to read your blog.
2. 95% of bloggers are illiterate.
3. Yes, the top blog spam garbage makes money (digg etc.) But do not quit your day job because, honey, you ain't gonna make no money. The days when "AllAdvantage" paid you to surf your computer are over.

If your panties are all wet for blogspam, then go read Roland's technology trends or digg.com

Re:Newtonian Laws (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18978513)

Don't forget #4:
Try to avoid being posted on slashdot, unless you have a profesional grade server capable of handling ten thousand something simultaineous hits on your site. (That might not even be enough... ;)

Surviving the slashdot effect (4, Informative)

jmorris42 (1458) | more than 7 years ago | (#18979927)

> Try to avoid being posted on slashdot, unless you have a profesional grade server capable of handling
> ten thousand something simultaineous hits on your site.

Depends. It appears that it isn't the web server or internet connection that fail in a typical slashdotting, it is the database server. Static content is the best defense against slashdot or any other flash mob event. Either avoid the temptation to go with dynamic content in the first place or have a way to switch into overflow mode when the load gets too heavy for your database server to cope.

I happened to take a full slash assault on my workplace server while I was out of town and never lost the ability to get in remotely, the server stayed available and work continued. The webserver was a lowly dual proc Pentium II fed from a single T1. The key was all of the content was hand generated static html.

Even CNN goes to a static homepage when a major news event happens. If it is big enough they disable everything else. If they can't buy enough iron to serve dynamic content during a surge YOU can't either. To not design around it is illogical.

Re:Surviving the slashdot effect (1)

maciarc (1094767) | more than 7 years ago | (#18989505)

> Try to avoid being posted on slashdot, unless you have a profesional grade server capable of handling
> ten thousand something simultaineous hits on your site.

Considering only 2% of /. visitors RTFA, that means /. routinely gets half a million simultaneous hits!

Re:Surviving the slashdot effect (1)

1110110001 (569602) | more than 7 years ago | (#19007099)

You can also easily use a webcache if your server can't handle the load. It's 3 lines in your apache config:

RewriteEngine On
RewriteCond %{HTTP_USER_AGENT} !^CoralWebPrx.*
RewriteRule ^/(.*)$ http:/// [http] {HTTP_HOST}.nyud.net:8080/$1 [L]

Your server only has to reply with redirects and feed content to the caches.

But of course it's better to use static files for content that is static anyway.

Re:Newtonian Laws (1)

HikingStick (878216) | more than 7 years ago | (#18979165)

I'm not here to pick a fight, but I do want to challenge two of your points.

1. Untrue. "Nobody" implies 100%. It would be fair to say most people don't care about your blog. Bloggers (especially the online journal-keepers, not the true web-loggers) may have a few fans or friends who read regularly, but most people won't know they exist. Many families are starting to use blogs to replace those once-a-year newsletters.

2. Illiterate? Based on what critera? You've just proved that old saying that says most statistics are made up. Or, should I consider your claim that "nobody" wants to read someone's blog a sign of illiteracy?

3. True. So true.

Re:Newtonian Laws (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18980387)

My blog ( http://johnbokma.com/ [johnbokma.com] ) has over 16,000 daily visitors and makes some nice money. So there go 2 out of 3 wrong. You might be right with 2 because English is not my native language. On the other hand a lot of people seem to be very happy with my Apache on XP tutorial.

Don't assume that your personal opinion reflects reality. And if that hurts, join Digg.

Law 13 Never Assume (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18977601)

Never assume you are safe even when you follow the above 12 important US laws

Re:Law 13 Never Assume (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18983515)

The most important part of the title have been omitted in the slashdot post: "US".

It is very important to note that US laws not necessarely apply everywhere, so one should be careful while saying "every blogger".

One More Law to Learn: Godwin's Law (3, Funny)

Cr0w T. Trollbot (848674) | more than 7 years ago | (#18977657)

Anyone blogger that doesn't remember Godwin's Law is as bad as Hitler!

Crow T. Trollbot

Re:One More Law to Learn: Godwin's Law (1)

Rockenreno (573442) | more than 7 years ago | (#18980345)

For those who don't get the joke, Godwin's Law is as follows:

As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.
(From Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] entry)

Good point about the terms (4, Insightful)

tinkertim (918832) | more than 7 years ago | (#18977703)

Sometimes I edit people's comments for very innocent reasons, some include : html markup somehow made it in, correcting a spelling error, fixing a broken link. It never dawned on me to have a terms of service that says I can and will edit comments as needed.

I'm really not worried about it, but if patent trolls exist, there's a good chance that you-edited-my-comment-so-ill-sue-you'ers also exist.

In a nutshell... (2, Insightful)

derEikopf (624124) | more than 7 years ago | (#18977707)

Don't say anything on a blog without making sure it's legal to say it. Sad but true.

Some valid points but. (3, Insightful)

jshriverWVU (810740) | more than 7 years ago | (#18977975)

"at which point you can remove the link after you've profited from it." So under this philosophy it's ok to put a movie on your website, get a lot of money in google ads or whatever ad format, then wait for the cease and desist to take it down and keep your money? I agreed with him a little up till this point. The patent and copyright system is a bit borked, but what he suggests is just wrong. *shakes head*

Re:Some valid points but. (1)

fuzz6y (240555) | more than 7 years ago | (#18980267)

"at which point you can remove the link after you've profited from it." So under this philosophy it's ok to put a movie on your website, get a lot of money in google ads or whatever ad format, then wait for the cease and desist to take it down and keep your money?

Quit being dense. The author has assumed that deep-linking is a perfectly moral action, but some webmasters will disagree and will endeavor to stop you. Therefore the reasons to not do it involve avoiding negative consequences like lawsuits, not obeying a moral precept. His point is that you will not face negative consequences until you have ignored a C&D, so there is no reason to pre-emptively clear your site of deep links, but a financial reason to not do so.

Re:Some valid points but. (1)

adelord (816991) | more than 7 years ago | (#18983907)

So under this philosophy it's ok to put a movie on your website, get a lot of money in google ads or whatever ad format, then wait for the cease and desist to take it down and keep your money? I agreed with him a little up till this point. The patent and copyright system is a bit borked, but what he suggests is just wrong. *shakes head*

Isn't that the youtube and youtube clone business model?

1. Create a safe harbor web 2.0 site.
2. Allow users to post media they do not own.
3. Collect ad revenue.
4. Take down content after the C&D letter arrives knowing that your users are posting faster than the C&D's can ship.
5. Profit!



Thanks for explaining away those pesky "..." lines.

Law #13 (4, Funny)

yfkar (866011) | more than 7 years ago | (#18978069)

Getting slashdotted can be hazardous for your server.

Re:Law #13 (1)

deuist (228133) | more than 7 years ago | (#18983467)

Then bring it on! [wordpress.com] . The article was more about the things that you do that will get you into trouble with the law. Getting your webpage Slashdotted doesn't really rank very high on the author's list of priorities.


I was a bit confused about his views on deep linking. He must have had over 50 links in that article---all of them direct links.

Rule 13 (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18978107)

Panties are not hats.

Law 13 (1)

sebsa (1090691) | more than 7 years ago | (#18978369)

Law 13: Nobody wants to know what you have to say, except for other bloggers.

Americentrism? (1)

owlnation (858981) | more than 7 years ago | (#18978547)

Since TFA is now firmly slashdotted, I'm making the assumption (based on the mention of copyright etc) that these are 12 rules for American bloggers.

Not sure how much these apply to anywhere else - although from what I can piece together from comments, there does seems to be some general good advice in TFA.

Obviously if you are in, for example; China, Turkey, Russia or Thailand, you need 12 very different rules - or your life may be in danger. But Copyright? Nah, if you are not in the US, you need not worry much about this. It's unlikely you'll get a cease and desist, and if you do, depending on your own country and host you may not need to do anything even then.

Re:Americentrism? (1)

corsec67 (627446) | more than 7 years ago | (#18978621)

But, is it the bloggers' location, or the bloggers' hosts' location that matters?

Re:Americentrism? (1)

Tim C (15259) | more than 7 years ago | (#18980887)

Given that if it goes to court it'll be the blogger that's called before the bench, it's the blogger's location. The server's location only matters in so far as it may determine whether or not the ISP/hosting service respond to a take-down notice or request for customer information.

If you start posting illegal material, don't think that the fact that the machine your blog is on is hosted overseas is going to save you even if it's legal there. *You* are posting the material, *you* are liable if that material is illegal in the country you post it from.

FuFck?! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18979983)

And the 0th law is... (1)

EWAdams (953502) | more than 7 years ago | (#18980553)

... not to use the idiotic term "interweb," you tosser!

Re:And the 0th law is... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18980989)

No, no. Even slashdotters know that the proper term is "intarweb".

Re:And the 0th law is... (1)

Kijori (897770) | more than 7 years ago | (#18981423)

Pretty sure it's "Interblag [xkcd.com] ".

12 Laws Compressed to 1 Insight (1)

vic-traill (1038742) | more than 7 years ago | (#18981529)

#1. Nobody really gives a rat's ass about your diary no matter how much you try to wrap it in puffed up laws and supposed ethics.

Okay, so this is over the top and I admit it. But has anyone else had their fill of blogs regurgitating other blogs, droning on about their day or wrapping interesting articles in a layer of nonsense that the reader is expected to care about on the way to the *actual* content (c.f. www.digg.com)?

I cruise through ars technica a couple of times a week - there are usually a couple articles there of interest. A link search for arstechnica.com on blogsearch.google.com yields 50,000+ hits. Are there really 50,000+ bloggers with something interesting to add to these articles? If you want to actually discuss the article content, wouldn't you just click the discuss button on arstechnica.com?

But, but, but... (1)

ml10422 (448562) | more than 7 years ago | (#18982055)

... all I wanted to do was post some pictures of my kitty.

2 simple laws again, yet another version (1)

Heddahenrik (902008) | more than 7 years ago | (#18982195)

1) Don't offend people in Sweden, and especially not people who can refuse to sell me beer.
2) Unless you strike at big US-money, no one will bother to sue me who am in another country.

In worst case, I have to take something down. But no one will go through all the trouble to make me do it.

Keep on doing business in another country! Much better than bothering with your local tyrants!

Summarizing The American Legal System... (3, Insightful)

nick_davison (217681) | more than 7 years ago | (#18982629)

Charming as it is to debate different laws, they're only of merit if both sides can afford to go to court.

Here's the quick version of the U.S. (civil) legal system:

Party A doesn't like something party B does.

1. Party A threatens (usually via a Cease And Desist)

2. If party B can't afford a lawsuit, they probably cave unless they're pretty sure of 3. in which case they call party A's bluff and go on to 3. anyway.

3. If party A can't afford the lawsuit, after having their bluff called, they probably cave. If they think B is bluffing, they repeat 2-3 a few more times.

4. In the rare event that both sides refuse to back down from their bluffs, it goes to court where...

5. Repeat steps 2-3 as out of court settlements. Far more money than simply sending a cease and desist letter gets involved here so most people try to get out during 2-3.

6. Maybe, just maybe, it comes down to the legal merits. Even then, it may well not end up decided on so much as reach an out of court settlement based on the likelihood of losing vs. cost of doing so rather than actual legal right/wrong.

The moral of the story is that laws are all well and good but 99% of these things come down to who has the money to fight this for longer than the other guy - they win. Sad, but also true.

Free private speech? (0, Flamebait)

Froeschle (943753) | more than 7 years ago | (#18983299)

One thing that has crossed my mind regarding "blogging" and such is where does one's privacy end? What a person saves to his or her computer should be their own business. After all a blog is often nothing more than a bunch of text files in a directory on an individual's private harddrive. If someone decides to produce disagreeable content and save it in their public_html directory, then that should be their own business. If third parties do not like it then perhaps they should not be snooping though the files on that person's harddrive?

1st law for all (we-)bloggers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18985439)

You are not the new and exciting new source for news. Sorry.

they forgot BC libel law which Wayne Crookes uses (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19005157)

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?