Facebook Lawsuit

@jas The issue here is copyright and who owns the copyright.   The term "Intellectual Property" is a loaded term that expresses certain values just like the corporate media term "union boss" does.   Both terms are bullshit.

jas wrote:

 I haven't come across any for whom copyright is part of their livelihood objecting to the term either.

Whether you have met someone or not, not all people who work with matters of copyright support that. And the fact that someone might support a more mercenary approach in these matters doesn't make it right.

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6818/125/

We don't deflect criticism of military spending by saying that the army likes it.

But I fail to see what this has to do with what we are talking about. FB's terms say thay you still "own" your material, but that's hardly a court ruling; it's really them just pointing out that they DON'T claim ownership.

As far as I know no one has copyrighted anything here, and the only mention of using material commercially is FB saying they have the right to use some of your stuff in exchange for parking your LOL Cats and pictures of what you eat on their service.

Your posted picture might be copyrighted, but your conversation?The notion that all our respective words in this conversation are our property that we have to guard against misuse, and that we (or some offended relative) can rip out of the website at some later date is a libertarian nightmare.

Or maybe we can all start suing each other for quoting without permission.

Social media - insofar as it concerns us users - is a commons, not some litigious, territorial  freemarket. If it were that it would have no purpose.

And again, the Brazilian case wasn't argued on the basis of presumed ownership, but rather damages. Presumably anyone could could make that claim, not just a relative.

Again, k. I'd turn that request back on you.

No I haven't read the ruling, but every report of the case points to it being over the mother's suffering, not ownership:

Quote:

Facebook memorial pages go against “the right of personal dignity and inflicted great suffering on the mother, due to the premature death of her only child”.

Facebook in the meantime is violating its own terms of service. The company’s policy specifically states that memorial pages can be taken down at the request of a “verified family member.”

Again, that last bit is their terms of service, which are an agreement with the client. They aren't the law, they don't mean any more than the statements on ownership, and given that no one has paid for any service, I wonder how FB can be held to them in court.

Was that part of the grounds? You tell me.

http://socialnewsdaily.com/13358/judge-orders-painful-facebook-memorial-page-to-be-taken-down/#0pmTHMZUR0Vve37p.99

And as for the nature of social media, yes I know babble is a private site; I have made the point a few times. Thing is, like any other site, or physical spaces like malls and some parks, they are de facto public spaces despite the letter of the law. I think all of us here expect that to be applied with a bit of temperance. I certainly read enough complaining about it.

In short, k, the difference is I am not arguing in favour of that strict interpretation. I might acknowledge that mall cops have the power to throw people out for vagrancy, but I think it an injustice. Same thing for the interpretation of social media that says some relative of mine (or someone who happens to be offended by my words and has enough money for a lawyer) can come along someday and re-edit everything I have written here.

It is an extremely hard-line and IMO dangerous interpretation of the situation.

Last time I checked, removal of copy was editing. Or redaction, if you prefer, without the honesty of the giant black marker to let you know that someone has fucked with it.

Or maybe Yezhov's magic trick is completely legitimate, since the image is owned by The People.

And I'm more concerned about someone like Stephen Harper or Maurice Mom Boucher having a legal foundation for shutting up others based on what they consider their "personal dignity".

For the umpteenth time, was there any claim of slander, humiliation or false statement here? Is there anything other than someone getting a headache over others' honest expressions of appreciation?

The quote from the Judge is the only direct quote that I can find about this case.I don't know what he means by the right of personal dignity but that is what he was reported as saying.  You can twist it them into anything you want but his words are his words.

Quote:

Judge Arantes said making the girl's profile into a "memorial wall" went against "the right of personal dignity and inflicted great suffering on the mother, due to the premature death of her only child".

@ k

I agree it's hypothetical in that you raised the question of the right to "personal dignity" and others have made similar arguments here, although it has nothing to do with the case as argued.

So I'm just asking what that concern is based on. How is anyone's dignity being undermined? As far as I know this concerns people expressing good feeling toward the deceased. At least I haven't read anything to the contrary.

(edit)

not paying attention.. had my glasses off and read "hypothetical" for "rhetorical" but either applies, as does my point.

I have no idea what their constitution sets out as fundamental legal rights nor do I know which of the 2000 articles in their Civil Code were argued in this case. Without that knowledge it is impossible to say how anyone's personal dignity was injured, in the context of Brazilian law.

Quote:

Brazil is organized as a federative republic and the legal system is codified. Laws are issued by the federal government, the states and municipalities within their respective spheres of authority. The Brazilian legal system is of Roman tradition and all laws destined to regulate and discipline all kinds of situations must have been previously written and made public. The jurisprudence and academic opinions are very important sources in the making and interpretation of the laws, but aren’t of obligatory observance by all.

...

The head of the Brazilian legal system is the Federal Constitution. In its 250 articles one will find the citizens' fundamental rights and guarantees, the political and administrative organization of the Federal Republic of Brazil, the individual spheres of authority of the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches, the outlines of the Brazilian tax system and the fundamental labor rights, among other matters. Constitutional rulings are hierarchically superior to those of any other law.

Besides the Federal Constitution, the main legal documents in Brazil are the Codes. The most important are the Civil Code, the Tax Code, the Penal Code and the Civil Procedure Code. The Civil Code comprises over 2000 articles regulating matters such as Obligations and Contracts, Businesses and Corporations, Real Estate and related property rights, and many others. The Tax Code defines the main Brazilian tax regulations, which are complemented by many Federal, State and Municipal laws. The Penal Code brings the definitions of conducts considered crimes and the  punishments for anyone fitting the respective legal descriptions. Finally, the Civil Procedure Code regulates the due process of law.

http://www.marsiglialaw.com/articles/brazilian-legal-system.html

kropotkin1951 wrote:

If I libeled someone on this site not only will it be removed by the moderators it would give the libeled person the right to sue me if I refused to retract the libelous statement.

Does it give them the right to sue you, or the publisher? In this case, Rabble.ca.

As for the question of rights to dignity, I took it to mean the right of the deceased.

Not sure if this has any relevance whatsoever, but it may be of interest to some: Protecting Your Personality Rights in Canada: A Matter of Property or Privacy?

It includes a Quebec case as well, which may or may not offer insight into the Brazilian ruling:

Quote:

The court was very clear that it viewed the right to one’s image as an element of the right to privacy in Quebec.93 Further, the court stated that the right to privacy has an extrapatrimonial and a patrimonial aspect, consistent with the liberal interpretation that had been given to the right to privacy in the past.94 Thus, the court recognized that there is a proprietary element to the right to privacy, which covers the right to one’s personality. On that basis, it is possible to conclude that in appropriate circumstances, Quebec law would allow an action to be taken by the estate of a deceased person, provided that it could be proved that there was a patrimonial aspect at stake.

Yup.It is a funny game.

Usually all it takes is a retraction, or at most an apology. But of course it is ultimately up to the plaintiff how much s/he wants to gamble, as Pat Martin has learned. On the other hand, if a plaintiff has unlimited resources some accused parties can be broken simply by dragging them in the courtroom door. That's why so many make their real money by extorting settlements.

And of course it ultimately hangs on presumed damages and is up to a judge if it comes to awarding anything.