Fox Stirling

I thought this was a C&D order, particularly about LCO's DMCA policy(s) and the possibly false claims made about that on Prok's blog.

There is another thing bugging me about this though. A bunch of folks here jumped up and down, crying foul and bad business practices when Lala went to bat for herself, which I partially agree may have been a bad idea. But now that Lala and LCO have taken a more business like stance, letting a lawyer handle the issue privately (at least until it was published by Prok), people are still finding fault, most of whom found fault in her original response, and suggested that it would have been handeld better had she and LCO gone the legal/business route.

Ciaran Laval

Unless you follow Walker Moore's advice and bring it to the UK. Seriously, even the UN have took the piss out of the way we apply our libel laws.

Io Zeno

The only thing I said was it was stupid to drag your business dealings onto a blog, and otherwise I had no idea who was "right" in this fight.

If that was stupid, dragging a lawyer in to threaten the blogger is idiotic.

Fox Stirling

I agree that its stupid to drag business dealings on to a blog, or forum, or any kind of public medium for that matter. I guess where we disagree here is how it should be handled when someone else drags your business dealings into the public light.

I will say that I think LCO's first move should have been the C&D, followed by a carefully drafted (possibly by a different lawyer than the one who drafted the C&D) statement that simply outlined their policies and general agreements, without naming any parties involved. This would have been sufficient to demonstrate the company's ability to take responsibility for protecting its image, and could very well have ended the whole mess right there.

I respect your opinion here Io, and I'm not trying to get you to change it, just trying to illustrate my own point of view.

Oh, and BTW, your forum avatar is giving me sugar shock

Briar Bing

I am unfamiliar with "theft" as a subjective term.

Subjective - "I think you are untrustworthy."

Not subjective - "You are swiping something."

Also, I don't (and never have) buy into Prokofy's all-too-obvious ploy when justifying attacking "public figures", and people don't get immunity from slander and libel cases just because the person they are going after is a public figure - and it could possibly be argued that LaLa isn't widely known enough, in the real world, to qualify as such.

By the way, I'd venture a guess that most libel and slander cases are filed by public figures, since damage to their image can mean damage to their pocket book and missed future opportunities. If I claim my non-public figure, next-door neighbor is a thief, it probably won't damage him him as much as it would a public figure. Chip touched on that a bit - this it what these laws are designed for. In a hypothetical world, with no public figures, I don't think there would be as much of a need for slander and libel laws.

And the dickhead thing - how many times have you seen someone "factually" claim that someone really has a glans for a cranium? That's a shaky analogy. (and did you have to say "engorged" lol!)

All that said, I don't think LaLa has a case that would ever even make it to court, but I do appreciate that someone is pushing back against Prokofy's BS, even if it goes nowhere.

__________________
The fact that man knows right from wrong proves his intellectual superiority to other creatures; but the fact that he can do wrong proves his moral inferiority to any creature that cannot.
~Mark Twain

Rebel Television

Subjective could be like "George W Bush committed theft; he stole the presidency". No material goods were actually illicitly taken in that context, it is simply the writer's believe that he did not deserve to win.

In this example, the "theft" is also abstract, with a bait and switch ploy to get Simone onto the grid. No one is claiming LaLa sneaked into Simone's house through the vents and took off with the hard drive containing all the content she's made on it.

Ciaran Laval

Hmm, well sort of, it's not just who they are, it's the context and this is where this gets messy. Calling the Yorkshire Ripper a thief wouldn't damage his reputation, I mean he's a mass murderer so it's hardly going to damage his reputation further.

The issue here is whether calling someone a thief on a blog read by people who are interested in the product the person is selling are influenced by the comments. How wide is that damage? To be honest, without getting into the "Did Prok say that or didn't he", I still don't think it's a big enough publication for such a case to stand up in court.

Smokergirl Lowenha

*Puts wizard hat and robes on Ebay*

__________________
Who needs love when the sandwiches are wicked and they know you at the Mac store?
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=uYSULkXcVYw

Ciaran Laval

I already have three from B@re Rose....any photos though? You never know when you'll need a spare!

Smokergirl Lowenha

Sorry, you just missed out
Buy It Now for £3.12

This is what you missed out on though:

Briar Bing

Yeah, but bait n' switch isn't what the "theft" part is focused upon, as far as I can tell. The implication is that by locking her out, something is being swiped and that she is being cheated of earnings. Also, accusing a business of bait n' switch isn't cool either, unless you have actual proof.

On the Bush/election thing, I've not seen anyone ever phrase it that way. "stole", yes, "committed theft", no.

"Stole" is commonly used subjectively - "They stole the game, in the waning moments of the contest."

People don't say "They committed theft - they stole the game in the waning moments of the contest."

Anyway, semantics is a losing proposition, so suffice it to say that I see this as a symbolic gesture, and I am not in the least perturbed about it, nor do I think it constitutes a witch hunt. This day has been coming for along, long time, and Prokofy initiated the witch hunting in this, and many other situations he has created, in my opinion.

For those trying to minimize this through comments about how things aren't real here - were you behind Stroker when he took the person to court who was selling copies of his virtual beds? Are we picking and choosing when to compartmentalize?

Rema Quandry

It's not an issue as to whether or not a blog is the equivalent of an article in the NY Times.

Blogs used in this fashion have potentially a larger audience than many, many newspapers. As such, if they draw enough attention, they can be used as a bludgeon to destroy a person's reputation . . . and rather effectively too . . . much like the rumor mill in a small town.

That should not be permitted to happen.

When such occurs, it's cyberbullying in its worst sense . . . and as in the real world, sometimes the only solution to bullying is--at least metaphorically--to beat the snot out of "the bully". That we have to do in the legal system . . . there is no other, last resort, effective alternative.

You can try countering on the Internet via various methods, but no one reading anything on the web can accurately judge the veracity of anyone's statements. Reactions become opinions. Opinions evolve into seeming "facts". People take sides. So the situation becomes a "cyber brawl" at best. The original target's rep becomes tarnished to the point that his or her interactions with others are affected because a portion of the "audience" buys into what the cyber bully's pushing.

If the cyber bully is a better writer than the target, the cyber bully will convince a lot of people that his/her lies are truth when they're actually fiction. Not good. Not fair. Not right.

By going to the courts, at least there'd be some sort of resolution--hopefully for the person being wronged . . . and hopefully unmasking the cyber bully . . . through the presentation of "hard" evidence.

SL involves real people with real feelings. The hurt is just as real when it's perpetrated in SL as it is in RL. If you were the target of these allegations, how would you feel? Would you take your current stance while somebody continually lambasts you on the web? Would you ignore them completely and expect the problem to disappear?

I grant you that going head to head with them would be counter-productive.

However, I would act if I thought my reputation would be permanently damaged. If I were someone with a huge RL investment in SL, I would act to protect myself and my assets . . . and if that required legal action, so be it.

[ASIDE TO OTHERS IN THIS THREAD:]For the record, there have been many legal cases over time that used made up names or aliases for one or more of the combatants to protect the real life identities of the people or person involved. So legal action using SL names wouldn't surprise me a bit. I'd insist on it if I didn't want real life harrassment hitting me like the virtual web harrassment.

One further thought: While SL is not necessarily a democracy in the making . . . it is a society evolving into something. The islands are a hodgepodge of benevolent--and otherwise--dictatorships. The mainland is the Wild West, with sometimes roving marshals, sometimes not. ( We even have countries evolving as the different nationalities hang together in various SIMs.)

Over time, SL will probably evolve into something more organized. It already has in some SIMs. On the mainland, we see committtees of land owners setting down standards. We see "legal" groups forming to attempt to bring "law or order" to the chaos. At some point we may see zoning. Runaway advertising has been curtailed somewhat. Where it will all evolve to will be interesting to see.

If I were a sociologist, I would be watching SL very closely. There's grist here for understanding how societies rise, fall, and evolve . . . and how different people from different countries get along when thrown together in one locale. If I were a social psychologist, I'd be watching the people and group dynamics as they unfold. There's a lot to be learned in SL.

I wish I had been here when it first started to see where this all evolved from.

--- Rema

Charlemagne Allen

Hawt! If I pay 4 pounds, will you come by my place wearing only that?

__________________
Charlemagne Allen: YOU'RE A RACIST!
Charlemagne Allen: I HAVE CHATLOGS!
smokergirl Lowenhar: HOMOPHOBE
smokergirl Lowenhar: CONTENT THIEF
Charlemagne Allen: RELIGION SUCKS DONKEY BALLS!
smokergirl Lowenhar: KISS MY ASS YOU CLOSE MINDED HYPOCRIT
Charlemagne Allen: YOU WERE AN ESCORT FOR BARN ANIMALS!
Charlemagne Allen: ZOMG BIG SIG!

Pretty things:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/charlemagneallen/

Ciaran Laval

Wait what is £3.12 worth after 8 cans of Strongbow? About 800 Lindens? Get it back! That hat rocks!

Io Zeno

I see a lot of people eager to take Lala's side simply because Prokofy is the messenger and Simone isn't saying anything publicly.

I don't know what really went on here and frankly I don't give a fuck.

I do think that sending threatening notices to bloggers via some kind of lawyer, if they are in fact a real lawyer, is hardly the way to deal with this, especially after posting private chatlogs and getting into some bitchslap fest with said blogger.

Smokergirl Lowenha

£3.90 and it's a deal!

Smokergirl Lowenha

Call it £3.91 and it's a deal!

Briar Bing

I think you do give a fuck, or you wouldn't be here arguing about it.

People aren't perfect Io. They make bad decisions sometimes, especially when being attacked. That doesn't mean that they lose the right to defend themselves. I am reminded of a RL debate I got into about Fred Goldman. Someone claimed he was a gold digging, immoral person, and that therefore, the Goldmans shouldn't get the civil court settlement money. I agree that Fred's character is badly flawed. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't get the legally ordered settlement though. People have a right to be be stupid dickheads, as long as they don't hurt others.

How many times have we seen this play out - Prokofy makes accusations against a business on his blog, and the business owner shows up to argue about it? This incident doesn't exist in a vacuum - it's a pattern of behavior. Sadly, it's not anywhere near a cut and dried case, and will go nowhere.

Also, there are plenty of SLU participants, who are SL business owners, and who publish logs on here (when they aren't even being attacked on a blog), but don't get jumped on for it. In fact, they are many times encouraged by regulars here. Where's the outrage about the "unprofessionalism" in that?

I am equally perplexed by Simone, by the way, as I am with Prokofy. I think it's incredibly lame, and UNPROFESSIONAL of her to let the gadfly do the talking for her. She's a business owner too, and her business is involved in this mess, why isn't she being dinged? You seem to want to thrash LaLa for her actions, but what about Simone's? This was the worst possible way she could have handled this business dispute.

Charlemagne Allen

YAY!

Smokergirl Lowenha

*Puts on normal hat and shirt*
If people blog, they want a certain amount of attention, if not, why blog?
Now, people read blogs and don't agree with them, and they come out publicly to shout this out loudly.
They do this for a certain amount of attention.
I remember back in 1998 when the internet was full of images like this:



Now it is full of internet law experts, of the same quality.

What we need is to get back to the real purpose of the internet.
Netscape and Yahoo Chat.

jacqueline trudeau

ANYTHING extrapolated from observing years of prok's MO is more than NOTHING.

__________________
Trudeau Classic Sailing Yachts

jacqueline trudeau

Can I sue her for calling me a "minion" of Marktwain White? Please say yes! (lawyers are standing by)

Briar Bing

I am not taking sides here - I just think that Simone handled this horribly, and subsequently so did LaLa. However, we wouldn't even be discussing LaLa's actions had Simone not decided to play this game of using Prokofy as a proxy (Proksy?).

She should have just contacted her own lawyer and left it at that - but she tapped Prokofy to make a public spectacle of it. I can't believe, for one nanosecond, that she didn't know a shit storm would ensue, so I am left to believe that she did it intentionally, to try and vindictively get at LCO.

I've said enough here, and I don't need a blog entry about ME, so, that is all.

Macphisto Angelus

Briar Lies! - Windows Live

EDIT:

In the interest of making sure nobody takes the blog post seriously (yes.. I am sure there are those out there) I am copy/pasting the whole thing here and deleting the page. I never use Windows Live to blog on but do not want people to come across it sometime and think badly of Briar. No matter how obviously it is a joke.

__________________
If life is just a joke, why aren't we laughing?

Briar Bing

Classic!



He once accused me of having "temporal fugues".

Hahahah.

And of having access to super sekret land scanners of Rathe Underthorn's.