I told you in October that there's a law firm that has some totally bizarre ideas about copyrights. The firm represented businesses that were exposed by a website that dealt with infomercial scams. The pro-spam law firm claimed its own cease-and-desist letter to the website was copyrighted and that the website wasn't allowed to republish it.
Except they're wrong. Nobody who knows shit about the law would buy that convoluted legal theory.
But now - according to the law firm's own arrogant and boastful press release - the U.S. District Court for Idaho has ruled that copyright law does indeed prohibit recipients of cease-and-desist letters from posting the letters. Well, I say it doesn't. If I got a cease-and-desist letter about anything, I'd be no less inclined to post it now than before. And if some right-wing activist court tells me I can't do it, they can gag on shit.
Nothing in copyright law supports a law firm's "right" to place a copyright on cease-and-desist letters. Not one fucking thing. Copyright is supposed to protect art and science - not law firms' stupid harangues. Even if you can copyright the letter, reprinting it is clearly protected under the fair use concept.
The president of the law firm called the notion that the letter wasn't protected a "new age" argument and cried that "publication of cease and desist letters is an easy way for scofflaws to generate online 'mobosphere' support for illegal activity." Regarding the court's ruling, he went on to gloat, "It's a great day for businesses and a bad day for those conducting illegal activity online." What illegal activity was the website committing by exposing infomercial rip-offs? The only illegal activity in this story might be the law firm's apparent filing of SLAPP lawsuits to silence the website.
So make us cease and desist this:
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment