Steffi Graf Wins Case Vs. Microsoft 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."
Hmmm, next... (Score:2, Funny)
...never mind
(shudder)
The Next Big MS Money Maker (Score:2)
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 (Score:2)
So.... confused... (Score:5, Funny)
*POP*
The Chewbacca Defense (Score:2, Funny)
Ladies and Gentlemen, this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk who carried a gun and ran from the mob. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it. That does not make sense. Why would a Wookiee, an eight-foot-tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor with a bunch of two-foot-tall Ewoks. That does not make sense.
But more important, you have to ask yourself what does this have to do with this case. Nothing. Ladies and Gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case. It does not make sense. Look at me. I'm a lawyer defending a poor, victimized woman and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca. Does that make sense? Ladies and Gentlemen I am not making any sense. None of this makes sense.
And so you have to remember when you're in that jury room deliberating and conjugating the Emancipation Proclamation, does it make sense? No. Ladies and Gentlemen of this supposed jury it does not make sense. If Chewbacca lives on Endor you must award my client lots of money.
I know it seems wrong. But ladies and gentlemen this is Chewbacca. Now think about that for one minute. That does not make sense. Why am I talking about Chewbacca when a woman's dignity is on the line? Why? I'll tell you why. I don't know. It doesn't make sense. If Chewbacca does not make sense you must find in our favor. Here look at the monkey , look at the silly monkey.
The defense rests.
Poop on you (Score:2)
P.S.: Here's a spoiler -- you will die alone!
Someone is missing the point here ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Someone is missing the point here ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Point taken (Score:5, Insightful)
That loud SLAPPing sound in the background is getting closer.
Re:Point taken (Score:5, Funny)
You mean that in the lawsuit sense, right? Not the "nude pictures of Steffi Graf" sense?
-schussat
Set back in Germany... (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Set back in Germany... (Score:2)
Re:Someone is missing the point here ... (Score:2)
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.
Looking at it another way... (Score:2)
So like you wouldn't sue the paper manufacturer for something illegal/libellous/slanderous/defamatory that appeared in a newspaper printed on said paper, even though the paper made it possible in the first place, you shouldn't be able to sue the company providing the web server.
So if a user X puts material on the web via their ISP, X is the publisher, not the ISP. You cannot get the ISP to veto every "sheet of paper made" after their customer has "printed on that sheet" - that would be ... highly illogical and time consuming, making paper (i.e., web hosting) cost about 500 times the amount it does currently.
And yes, Microsoft are free to use this argument if they want to, as are any other ISP who gets into a similar dilemma. Of course, there are probably a load of holes in the argument, but hey, there is always the Chewbacca argument.
Re:Someone is missing the point here ... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Someone is missing the point here ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Why this case? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Why this case? (Score:2, Offtopic)
I am going to flame myself and note that this case demonstrates nothing of the kind. My bad, my bad.
Re:who cares? It's freaking Germany. (Score:2)
If for no other reason, it makes a difference because the internet is more global than any other medium. If an ISP stops hosting some sort of content, or starts clamping down on content in general, because Germany (or France [freedomforum.org]) wants them to, then no one in Wisconsin gets special privelages unless the site wants to make an exception (...but then, the exceptions might be accessed from anywhere, so it's only a matter of time before the foreign obscene content is brought up in court locally for being displayed locally.)
Be worried, give a rats ass, because the internet does not only exist in your country. Because those rulings in other countries will begin to affect the content you have access to and the freedom you have to publish whatever you'd like online.
Re:Fuck'em I don't care. (Score:2)
Re:Fuck'em I don't care. (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately, the rest of the world can't say the same thing. (ie Skylarow & The decss-kid)
But pointless borderline US-bashing aside, this sets a really crappy precendent. I live a lot closer to Germany than you, and since Germany is a major player in the EU this may spill over on me.
And if this becomes standard practice in the EU, there is a posibility it might eventually affect the US too.
And Germany is not the only country to set a crappy example. I regret to inform you that a major newspaper in my country (Sweden btw.) was recently convicted, and sentenced to pay fines for racist statments submitted to their public discussion forum.
In other words: A site like slashdot could concievably be shut down in parts of Europe!
How is that not scary?
Help us fight it now, or some day they'll come for you too... The US may be strong on free speech today, but there are no guarantees for the future.
I bet a lot of US corporations would like the right to SLAPP with impunity.
...and according to the postings on slashdot those are the ones that sets at least parts of the political agenda.
You have been warned.
Re:You're right, but Free Speech isn't the issue (Score:2)
One case MS should have one... (Score:3, Insightful)
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... (Score:2, Funny)
You'd better fix that before the spelling police come out of hiding.
How do you control what someone might post (Score:3, Interesting)
website:don't allow anon posting. isp: screwed (Score:2)
Well for web site operators and not ISPs:
1. Don't allow people to post at all. Almost every ISP provides a personal website, people can post stuff on their own site rather than yours.
2. Require positive identification of posters. As in people you know in the real world, who you trust, etc. Or perhaps people who have given you personal identification that can be verified like name, address, phone, driver's license. The sort of stuff you need to verify a personal check. Removing anonymity and passing along legal accountibility may provide enough cover-your-ass and may encourage posters to behave. This route may not provide complete ass coverage, coverage varies with jurisdiction.
And yes the above sucks and merely passes the problem to someone else, but you only asked how an operator may protect their site. How to stop stupid lawsuits is too difficult a problem for me to solve.
This reminds me of (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:This reminds me of (Score:2)
I could see in the future where posts are simply removed because they might infringe on the DMCA or other laws.
Actually, the DMCA is exactly the reason why this ruling would never hold up in the U.S.
Conflicting Slashdot Views? (Score:3, Insightful)
Well that brings up the interesting case of conflicting
Bottom line: scary precedent.
Hargun
Re:Conflicting Slashdot Views? (Score:3, Insightful)
Being a large group of individuals, it leaves those of us that are issue oriented being ticked off at the German court. It still leaves us with plenty of issues to be ticked off at MS about. Some of us even hate anti-trust so we do not fault MS for those violations, but do draw the line at some of their other business practices.
Now, for those that are not issue oriented, it *should* leave them happy that their big monster M$ was defeated.
This leaves the hypocrites, who can choose whatever side they wish.
See? Plenty of fences to sit around on
Re:Conflicting Slashdot Views? (Score:2)
Yes, exactly! The part where government interfears with business to be specific.
Anti-trust has a place in any non-laissez-faire capitalist system. If you want to create a pure capitalist system, that's one thing. But the US system doesn't even remotely resemble pure capitalism.
Yep, and those of us that disagree with the way things are now are working on correcting that problem.
Pure capitalism is probably unworkable due to national security issues alone.
I seriously doubt that, but a complete lack of regualtion may be unworkable for completely different reasons, i.e., relying on "news" spread through a market to inform buyers of shady characters is just a little too far for me, but not much.
Bad companies last decades, bad laws centuries (Score:2)
I recall when IBM was the great-satan that Microsoft is today. Then one day they become a partner with Apple to make PowerPC chips. Steve's reality distortion field gets a little tweaking, Mac users quickly readjust. Slashdot will readjust as well when Microsoft is no longer it's personification of evil. Or another way to look at it, Slashdot is highly political and political allies can easily change.
Re:Bad companies last decades, bad laws centuries (Score:2)
There is no conflict! (Score:2)
If you are opposed to free speech for your enemies you are not for free speech.
I think Voltaire said it best a few hundred years ago:
"I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
what do you expect? (Score:4, Insightful)
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? (Score:2)
Re:what do you expect? (Score:3, Funny)
If you want to get pedantic about it of course.
Re:what do you expect? (Score:2)
Re:what do you expect? (Score:2)
Mostly because people value life so diligently I consider their definitions of life to be the medical definition of human conciousness which imo is more amazing than the medical definition of life.
Re:what do you expect? (Score:2)
You are incorrect on both counts. I know this because my wife is a cardiologist at Johns Hopkins (just like Dr Hibbert). Brain death == dead. Heart death is usually dead too, but with stuff like LVAD sometimes you get lucky.
Um , you sir are wrong (Score:2, Informative)
And NOOOO, a LVAD will not keep a dead heart alive. As I said, I work in cardiac surgery. A LVAD (left ventricular assist device) or RVAD or BiVAD will only help if the heart is still alive. The key word being ASSIST in "left ventricular assist device".
Now, if you wish to argue the definition of alive, but according the definition that we have used in this discussion, what he said was fairly correct.
Re:what do you expect? (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree that there are parallel's to the Napster case, but I believe that this case is actually slightly worse (and, depending on your perspective, on the opposite side of right vs. wrong).
With Napster, they created a service that was intended, from day 1, for heavy trafficking in copyrighted material. From what I understand, Napster went as far as to advertise the prevalence of popular artists on their service. Such knowledge is a key part of charging them with indirect copyright infringement (either contributory or vicarious -- I'm not up to date on the details).
With Microsoft, on the other hand, they apparently had a service that was no different from your standard message board with image attachments turned on. While there's no mention in the article of the theme of the board, there's nothing to imply an intent to profit off the indirect sharing of libelous material. That makes them (arguably) more innocent.
So even if you disagree with whether or not Napster's intent (or alleged intent if you disagree on the intent itself) pushes them into the guilt zone, it seems that Microsoft was standing in a less ambiguous position when they got nabbed. And that really worries me, simply because it implies that a court decision has crossed the invisible line (at least in my own mind) the stands between "Oh well." and "Uh oh."
just like the war on terrorism.... (Score:2)
the US will beat up the terrorists and the countries that host them.
Re:Its not the criminals fault, its the gun's (Score:5, Insightful)
This is more of a gray area than people realize. Certainly, it's the criminal's *fault*, but there is a logical argument to restrict the enabling technology if the result of its use is particularly destructive.
For instance, if you wanted to carry a nuclear weapon in a backpack around NYC, you could theoretically use the same argument: so long as the radioactive material is properly shielded, there's no harm done to anyone unless you detonate the bomb. However, the consequences of you using it are catastrophic, so it's illegal for you to possess such a device (at least I sure hope it is!).
Now, gun control seems like such a divided issue because people are divided over the severity of what happens when they are used. Many people do actually choose to use weapons in harmful ways, and yes, it is THEIR fault. However, since you can't easily stop someone from shooting you if they already have a gun in their hand, the idea of gun control is to eliminate the risk by not giving you the opportunity.
Certainly, there are lots of arguments on both sides, including one of feasibility... supposedly there are more guns in the U.S. than there are people, and you aren't going to just tell people to turn them in and expect them to do it. That wouldn't work.
Getting back on topic, this article is kind of the same: force the ISP to check all content before it goes online. This prevents a malicious user from posting malicious content, but seems to put blame on the ISP, when we know it should be put on the user him/herself. Again, we need to assess the risk of damage caused by a malicious user, and compare it with the cost to all the non-malicious users.
Personally, I'm pulling for the free speech side here, but I'm just a silly Canadian, so don't mind me.
Re:Try again. (Score:2)
Let's examine the thread so far:
night_flyer said: Its not the criminals fault, its the gun's
and in response you say: GUN: Used for killing things.
[ducks as night_flyer's point zooms over your head]
We are talking about responsibility, but if you want to talk about gun control: fyi, it is often the threat of being killed that prevents others from doing the killing in the first place.
Re:Try again. (Score:2)
Does this mean... (Score:2)
-Sean
Re:Does this mean... (Score:2)
No you can only sue
~Sean
This is misleading... (Score:5, Informative)
This is a case in Germany, under German law, against the German division of Microsoft. From the article:
Re:This is misleading... (Score:3, Interesting)
Sneaky . . . (Score:2)
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.
I don't get it... (Score:2)
Re:I don't get it... (Score:2)
Why this is a good thing (Score:3, Insightful)
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...
In other news... (Score:2, Funny)
Dazed and confused Slashdot readers everywhere were found siding with Microsoft today...
Re:In other news... (Score:4, Insightful)
Anyone who would use a story like this to bash MS, now they are the zealots. It's an interesting experiment. Might make for a good time to make friends/foes.
Microsoft loses == bad (Score:2)
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
Of course she won... (Score:5, Funny)
Okay, who was the wise guy who posted this under "The Courts"? Ha ha.
Re:Of course she won... (Score:3, Funny)
Ask any Sysadmin: the real problem in Microsoft's game is that they're really crappy servers.
Empty promises... (Score:2)
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.
Re:RTFA (Score:2)
How do you protect YOUR house? windows (not microsoft) are trivial to break with a hammer. Locked doors can often be picked. A good saw ($150 or less from home depot) can get through most walls. So are your valuables really prtected?
The best gun safes are rated as 30 minutes protection against an attacker who knows what he is doing. (but several hours against someone who doesn't)
the poster said "someone broke into my house", so you can assume reasonable mesures were taken. What more can you do if the door was locked?
Headline is Misleading, Insufficient (Score:2)
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!
In related news (Score:4, Funny)
microsoft was bitten by own eula (Score:5, Insightful)
it happens that in this eula there was a part that said something along the lines of "all content postet/written goes over into microsofts ownership".
so when the pics were postet microsoft got ownership and so microsoft was sued because hosting said pictures that they claimed ownership for through their eula.
the eula was changed shortly after.
so there.. read it up before coming up with german/nazi like acusations.
MAKE MONEY FAST (Score:5, Funny)
1. Find nudie pics on the internet. If you fail this, kill yourself immediately.
2. Put pictures of your own head on the naked bodies.
3. From an internet cafe, create an account with a fake name on Microsoft Germanies photo sharing/whatever site. Upload the pictures to this site.
4. Sue Microsoft Germany for posting fake nude images of you on the net. Tell them to sign a formal agreement that they will not appear again. If they won't, you get money. If they do sign, post the images again and sue them for breach of contact, and get money.
5. Repeat until rich.
The real reason why Microsoft lost... (Score:2, Informative)
The judge actually said this: "In their EULA for the (German) MSN service they grant themselfes all the rights for the contents of their users. Also the user pages are embedded into frames of MSN and look like geniue MSN content. This is why Microsoft Germany is responible for this content." (my translation).
The original Text can be found here: href="http://www.heise.de/newsticker/result.xhtml
So this means it's still safe for ISPs to host their users content as long as you don't want to have all rights to your users content.
It's simply Microsofts fault and their greediness which dug their own grave.
--
Andre
Re:The real reason why Microsoft lost... (Score:4, Informative)
And here's what MSN.com's current "photos" agreement says:
Not only are they conceding that the poster has the liability, but they are granting everyone else in the world the right to edit and re-publish your photo without your consent!
CYA has become a new art form in the Redmond law offices, I guess.
Re:The real reason why Microsoft lost... (Score:3, Funny)
New ms.com navigation (Score:2)
- Windows 2000/XP
- Bill Gates
- Steffi Graf's nude pics
- MS Office XP
- Developer tools
- Fun & learning (see also #3)
Nothing new here. (Score:3, Informative)
Well, at least with this ruling Microsoft might be able to buy some polititians to get the law changed. But then I would have expected AOL to do that a long time ago. Any Germans care to comment?
Doesn't seem that hard (Score:2)
She didn't win the lawsuit (Score:4, Informative)
At the risk of not fitting in ... (Score:5, Insightful)
We've read several news stories about MSN's TOS that gives them ownership of everything on customers' web sites. We've read the stories about their lifting images from customers' web sites and using them in ads. Microsoft's attitude all along has been that they own everything on their machines.
So it's not at all odd that they should be held legally responsible for images that they claim to own.
Lawyers have been pointing out for some time that the way out of this is for ISPs to simply declare that they are merely "carriers" and aren't responsible for the contents of customers' files or communications. A century of precendent with services like the phone system supports the idea that a common carrier can't be made to police the communications over its lines. The communications are the property of the customers, not the company.
Similarly, the corporations (mostly governmental) that maintain the streets and highways aren't responsible for the legality of cargo carried by users' vehicles.
It's likely that the real outcome of this will be to stop Microsoft's attempts to claim ownership of everything produced by their customers. If they persist in making such claims, they will be held liable for the contents of their files, and will be forced to hire staff to examine each and every file on every customer's web site. This will be so expensive that they'll have to either give up the ISP business or declare that they don't own customers' files.
What we want is a situation where we can all put whatever we want on our web sites, and the ISPs can't interfere. Legality should be strictly between a site's owner and the local governments. We want the ISPs to keep their noses out of our content.
Microsoft has just had its nose slapped.
Why MS is (kinda) responsible (Score:2)
The written reasoning of this judgement will only be released in two days. But when those images were posted, the old version of the MSN EULA was active. It stated that the copyright of any material posted via MSN would be transferred to MS.
If MS has the copyright on the material, they are IMO partly responsible for whether or where it is published. The same is not true for a normal ISP. MS can't have it both ways. (Although I kind of wonder whether an EULA like that is really enforceable in Germany.)
It's not that preposterous. (Score:2)
My point is, just because a lot of things won't work in conjunction with this ruling doesn't mean it's bad. There have been countless /. posts blaming the Music Industry for trying to enforce an obsolete business Model and for being out of touch with the way things are. Sites and ISPs will just have to work with this ruling, not against it.
Somebody tell her not be be ashamed... (Score:2)
Would a picture of her head grafted onto some poor innocent donkey's ass make her happier?
Would some video of her proclaiming violent death to California otters make her any happier?
She's a pubic, uh, public figure. If she doesn't want to be fantasized about, let her shed the little white outfits (in private of course,) and wear a "chador."
That might excuse her fading game but it still wouldn't stop the abuse of her image. Some people fantasize about fucking mud. She a cut above that. (I could make some really crude comments about first and second seed here...)
Get used to it. Bee-atch.
What MS (and all other ISPs) should do (Score:2)
Send a message to these kangaroo courts: enforce ridiculous regulations and we will just leave.
Instead of getting an environment where online services are warm and fuzzy, they'll just get an environment without online services.
Then they will have to decide, as a country, what is more important, keeping the (assinine) regulations or getting back access to the Internet.
Losing access to the Internet WILL hurt them economically and general quality of life.
Yes, it hurts Microsoft economically, but so will them paying (possibly monsterous) fines for activities they can not control (unless they pre-approve every posting - and someone could always embed the forbidden photos using steganography - which could possibly also result in a fine). Pre-approving posting is very time consuming, it costs the ISP a lot, and it means images or posts will not appear until the ISP approves them. That kills any chance of having a smooth running board where people can respond in a timely manner.
They need to be taught in the only language they understand.
read the court's explanation (Score:5, Informative)
Re:The DMCA may actually HELP in this case (Score:2)
The DMCA doesn't exist in Germany, where the court case was held.
Re:The DMCA may actually HELP in this case (Score:2)
Re:Irony (Score:2)
Re:"Scary Precedent"? Um, what? (Score:4, Insightful)
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? (Score:2)
Re:"Scary Precedent"? Um, what? (Score:2)
Re:"Scary Precedent"? Um, what? (Score:2)
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? (Score:5, Informative)
Microsoft was merely acting as ISP in this case.
This has been said many times in this article, so I'm not picking on you specifically. I just picked this post to respond to.
MS was *not* acting as an ISP in this situation. Do you see where you said "on the site operated by Microsoft". In this situation they were a hosting provider. The picture was posted on some MSN community or similar. No one said that whoever posted the picture used them to dial up to the internet.
Further MS claims in their terms that they own all of the content on the site. So they are the host of the material and further they claim to own it as well. This makes them the publisher. In this case MS's draconian license scheme backfired and they *are* liable. If they had some disclaimer like at the top of this page:
then they would *not* have been liable. Since they provide the web space *and* they feel that this entitles them to ownership of anything anyone else makes and posts there, they got screwed in this case.
Re:"Scary Precedent"? Um, what? (Score:4, Insightful)
this precedent, should scare you...
Re:"Scary Precedent"? Um, what? (Score:2)
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? (Score:2)
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.
Re:"Scary Precedent"? Um, what? (Score:2)
"if you're not frightened, you just aren't paying attention."
This is really no different than holding the operators of slashdot responsible for what is posted on the forums. And that they are required to keep it from happening again? Can you say "government enforced moderation"?
This is scary, Chicken shit. I suggest you wake the fuck up.
Re:Libel precedent? (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:Libel precedent? (Score:2)
Nah, I just think companies that are at risk will choose a country other than Germany to operate out of.
This has no affect or precedent in the United States. It happened in Germany and Microsoft lost in Germany.
Remind me not to care...
Re:MS and Slashdot (Score:2)
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:Darn.... (Score:2)
Re:Darn.... (Score:2, Insightful)
if the home owner provides a large wall facing the public, with a sign which says "draw something" and several pieces of chalk. the home owner is then responsible for whatever graffiti is scribbled.
your example seems to be vandalism, itself a crime.
-rp
Re:The burden of 0wnership (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:I'm gonna defend (Score:2)
Re:M$ claiming the rights for the photos (Score:2)
This is an interesting statement. It involves some esoteric ideas of publication rights, ownership, and online communities.
When you have a photo, story, or article published as a freelancer, typically you sell first publication rights or some limited publication rights, and you retain ownership and copyright of the content. There are exceptions such as work for hire. On line, the terms of such a deal become strained because unlike a printed magazine, the publication can live, universally accessible, forever. Thus, first publication rights amount to first-and-always-available publication rights.
Posting to a community web site further strains the idea of publication rights. In many community sites, the notion is that the site operator has no control over the content. But the statement above indicates that Microsoft set itself up as essentially having publication rights... by uploading the photo, the user implicitly entered into an agreement whereby they granted publication rights to Microsoft in return for... nothing, I suppose. Like a vanity press of sorts. Microsoft immediately, upon upload, became the publisher of the photo. Whether they took it down later or not, they published it just as if Time magazine had published it and later issued a recall of all those printed copies.
If this is the case, then Microsoft was officially a publisher of the photo, and they should be held completely liable for the content. Also, if this is the case, then they deserved to get burned--it is another example of Microsoft trying to grab as much as they can until someone bites them.
It's for this reason that anyone setting up a community always puts in acceptable use policies and disclaimers saying they don't own or control the content.
Very big point (Score:2)
There is some legel stuff in the rules for the use of the forum that any content published goes over to M$.
This is a huge point, it sounds like MS lost because of their crazy idea to own the rights to anything posted there. Just like MS to have a policy like this, and if this is the reason they lost, they got what they deserved.
Compare that policy to Slashdot's posted comment policy for instance...
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way
If MS did claim rights to the photos uploaded, then they basically brought this on themselves
Re: (Score:2)