![]() |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
John Limey |
![]()
Post
#1
|
Senior Member ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 387 Joined: Member No.: 12,473 ![]() |
See the letter issued by solicitors for the UK National Portrait Gallery. Looks like the WMF and User:Dcoetzee might be headed for some serious trouble.
Naturally some idiot of an admin came along to block the account used to send the email immediately per WP:NLT. Yea... |
![]() ![]() |
Supine |
![]()
Post
#2
|
Neophyte Group: Contributors Posts: 15 Joined: Member No.: 12,460 ![]() |
QUOTE Originally posted by Kato post Yesterday, 9:14am: It's probable the letter partly or entirely was a speculative threat; it may have been a procedural prelude to intended action, in the line of courts requiring claimants show they have made efforts to resolve a matter without proceedings, like having sent a letter.I suspect that the letter from the NPG's lawyers is a speculative threat, and they don't really have a case. The demand in the letter to "c) permanently delete from the hard drive of your computer (or any computer upon which you or anyone from the Wikiemedia Foundation have stored them) all images that you have derived from our client’s website;" is ... lets say...impractical. Even assuming the Wikiemedia Foundation (sic) refers to salaried employees, it would require the letter recipient to exercise access over their computer hard drives. The last requirement is perhaps the most bizarre "(g) refrain in the future from breaching any of the terms of use on our client’s website." Unenforceable. No organization can enforce terms they make up and publish on their website in law. The website creator is not a law-making body. As well as saying the Wikimedia Foundation (which they managed to spell correctly after a few tries!) has not caved in to the demand to do what the demander wants, they go on to make a specific accusation of obstructiveness beyond what one would expect of <quote>"a corporate entity"</quote>. Wikimedia Foundation Inc., under the laws of Florida, USA, is a tax exempt "non-profit charitable" organization. The slightly sinister "request [to] respond to this request by email ...provid[ing your] valid email and postal addresses" is supplied with the statement that they are able to "communicat[e] with you [using] the Wikipedia mail service", but, for some unknown reason, somehow "[i]t would be far more efficient" by "email". This post has been edited by Supine: |
GlassBeadGame |
![]()
Post
#3
|
Dharma Bum ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Contributors Posts: 7,919 Joined: From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West. Member No.: 981 ![]() |
The last requirement is perhaps the most bizarre "(g) refrain in the future from breaching any of the terms of use on our client’s website." Unenforceable. No organization can enforce terms they make up and publish on their website in law. The website creator is not a law-making body. Your tour of duty in the land of no responsibility has clouded your understanding of enforceable. It does not mean "there is nothing you can to to stop me before I do it." It means "if you do so there will be consequences." In this case it means "if you do we will not refrain from bringing the suit described in this correspondence." It is certainly and readily enforceable. If yours is the kind of advice "Dcoetzee" is receiving he is in for a bad time. Has anyone other than myself (and me only here) even suggested to "Dcoetzee" that he ought to seek independent legal counsel? |
Supine |
![]()
Post
#4
|
Neophyte Group: Contributors Posts: 15 Joined: Member No.: 12,460 ![]() |
The last requirement is perhaps the most bizarre "(g) refrain in the future from breaching any of the terms of use on our client’s website." Unenforceable. No organization can enforce terms they make up and publish on their website in law. The website creator is not a law-making body. Your tour of duty in the land of no responsibility has clouded your understanding of enforceable. It does not mean "there is nothing you can to to stop me before I do it." It means "if you do so there will be consequences." In this case it means "if you do we will not refrain from bringing the suit described in this correspondence." It is certainly and readily enforceable. If yours is the kind of advice "Dcoetzee" is receiving he is in for a bad time. Has anyone other than myself (and me only here) even suggested to "Dcoetzee" that he ought to seek independent legal counsel? Nothing I said was intended as legal "advice". Of course anybody who receives a lawyer's letter advising they cease and desist something or face legal action should seek advice, be it a lawyer they seek out, a free legal advice centre, or what have you; in this case keeping the foundation legal heads apprised being a sensible action in any event. All I was doing was identifying and pointing out some questionable content in the letter. A far cry from suggesting "if you have no formal legal training, but 'think' something looks like it has little sign of succeeding then hey just go on and ignore it, and don't ask anyone suitably qualified for advice". The page from which I quoted the letter stated at the top that he had consulted legal representation, a statement I did see when I first looked at it. This post has been edited by Supine: |
GlassBeadGame |
![]()
Post
#5
|
Dharma Bum ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Contributors Posts: 7,919 Joined: From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West. Member No.: 981 ![]() |
The last requirement is perhaps the most bizarre "(g) refrain in the future from breaching any of the terms of use on our client’s website." Unenforceable. No organization can enforce terms they make up and publish on their website in law. The website creator is not a law-making body. Your tour of duty in the land of no responsibility has clouded your understanding of enforceable. It does not mean "there is nothing you can to to stop me before I do it." It means "if you do so there will be consequences." In this case it means "if you do we will not refrain from bringing the suit described in this correspondence." It is certainly and readily enforceable. If yours is the kind of advice "Dcoetzee" is receiving he is in for a bad time. Has anyone other than myself (and me only here) even suggested to "Dcoetzee" that he ought to seek independent legal counsel? Nothing I said was intended as legal "advice". Of course anybody who receives a lawyer's letter advising they cease and desist something or face legal action should seek advice, be it a lawyer they seek out, a free legal advice centre, or what have you; in this case keeping the foundation legal heads apprised being a sensible action in any event. All I was doing was identifying and pointing out some questionable content in the letter. A far cry from suggesting "if you have no formal legal training, but 'think' something looks like it has little sign of succeeding then hey just go on and ignore it, and don't ask anyone suitably qualified for advice". The page from which I quoted the letter stated at the top that he had consulted legal representation, a statement I did see when I first looked at it. No, you still misunderstand. If he accepts the offer from NPG they will be bound to forgo action. They (NPG) will forgo the action whether any wider agreement wth WMF is reached or not. The settlement agreement changes the legal position of both "Dcoetzee" and NPG. It is not bowing to pressure. He would be receiving significant and valuable consideration. You can't possibly think that crowd sourcing the letter will result in prudent advice. In fact if he had sought independent legal counsel the first thing he would be told would be to not post the letter on WP. Of course to you the lawyers at Farrer & Co are fools who send "questionable" letters and the crowdsourcing results in prudent advice. "Dcoetzee" needs independent legal counsel, like yesterday. |
MZMcBride |
![]()
Post
#6
|
Ãœber Member ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 671 Joined: Member No.: 10,962 ![]() |
Of course to you the lawyers at Farrer & Co are fools who send "questionable" letters and the crowdsourcing results in prudent advice. "Dcoetzee" needs independent legal counsel, like yesterday. Perhaps I'm simply thick, but I'm still not getting it. Dcoetzee is a U.S.-based contributor (I confirmed this myself by asking him directly). The National Portrait Gallery is UK-based. I don't see why on Earth Dcoetzee has anything to worry about. Can someone clarify for me? Is there any precedent for a U.S. court enforcing the ruling of a UK court? |
Giano |
![]()
Post
#7
|
Member ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Contributors Posts: 209 Joined: Member No.: 4,610 ![]() |
Of course to you the lawyers at Farrer & Co are fools who send "questionable" letters and the crowdsourcing results in prudent advice. "Dcoetzee" needs independent legal counsel, like yesterday. Perhaps I'm simply thick, but I'm still not getting it. Dcoetzee is a U.S.-based contributor (I confirmed this myself by asking him directly). The National Portrait Gallery is UK-based. I don't see why on Earth Dcoetzee has anything to worry about. Can someone clarify for me? Is there any precedent for a U.S. court enforcing the ruling of a UK court? Britain and the USA have an agreement to hand over each others' citizens to answer legal proceeedings. This is under the 1995 "Treaty between the Government of the USA the Government of the UK on mutual legal assistance on Criminal Matters" in practice, while Britain surrenders it citizens without fuss, the USA makes it more complicated, but in answer to your question theoretically and legally, yes there is a precedent for a U.S. court enforcing the ruling of a UK court. One could argue that this is a civil matter and not criminal, however, others would argue it was a theft of copyright, so was criminal. Whatever, this matter has serious implications, especially for those in the UK, and needs to be clarified. Giano |
GlassBeadGame |
![]()
Post
#8
|
Dharma Bum ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Contributors Posts: 7,919 Joined: From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West. Member No.: 981 ![]() |
Of course to you the lawyers at Farrer & Co are fools who send "questionable" letters and the crowdsourcing results in prudent advice. "Dcoetzee" needs independent legal counsel, like yesterday. Perhaps I'm simply thick, but I'm still not getting it. Dcoetzee is a U.S.-based contributor (I confirmed this myself by asking him directly). The National Portrait Gallery is UK-based. I don't see why on Earth Dcoetzee has anything to worry about. Can someone clarify for me? Is there any precedent for a U.S. court enforcing the ruling of a UK court? Britain and the USA have an agreement to hand over each others' citizens to answer legal proceeedings. This is under the 1995 "Treaty between the Government of the USA the Government of the UK on mutual legal assistance on Criminal Matters" in practice, while Britain surrenders it citizens without fuss, the USA makes it more complicated, but in answer to your question theoretically and legally, yes there is a precedent for a U.S. court enforcing the ruling of a UK court. One could argue that this is a civil matter and not criminal, however, others would argue it was a theft of copyright, so was criminal. Whatever, this matter has serious implications, especially for those in the UK, and needs to be clarified. Giano Jeez, this is a civil matter. US law does have some provision for criminal sanctions (pop in movie CD and they will tell you all about it right before the show starts) along with civil penalties. I don't know if UK does also, very likely so, but you know this is civil because Farrer & Co is indicating they, rather than prosecuting authorities, would bring suit. Also negotiating a "settlement" of a criminal case outside the court system is ill advised as it raises questions of extortion. So this is a civil matter, at least at this point. No one is going to be "handed over." He will be served and may choose to answer or not. If he answers he may defend. If he fails to answer or does not prevail a judgment (for money and perhaps injunctive relief) will be awarded in the UK. That judgment may then be enforced pursuant to the Uniform Enforcement of Money Judgment Act as I described above. He doesn't to need to hide in his basement wating for The Man. He does need his own lawyer. I hope he doesn't listen to any of the things posted (including my own) and gets a lawyer to represent his own interests. Not WMF's interests. Not "the community's" interests. Not free culture's interests. His own interests. |
dogbiscuit |
![]()
Post
#9
|
Could you run through Verifiability not Truth once more? ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 2,972 Joined: From: The Midlands Member No.: 4,015 ![]() |
Jeez, this is a civil matter. No one is going to be "handed over." He will be served and may choose to answer or not. If he answers he may defend. If he fails to answer or does not prevail a judgment (for money and perhaps injunctive relief) will be awarded in the UK. That judgment may then be enforced pursuant to the Uniform Enforcement of Money Judgment Act as I described above. He doesn't to need to hide in his basement wating for The Man. He does need his own lawyer. I hope he doesn't listen to any of the things posted (including my own) and gets a lawyer to represent his own interests. Not WMF's interests. Not "the community's" interests. Not free culture's interests. His own interests. If it was determined that it was a case of hacking copy protection, then it is criminal. However, generally speaking,the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) would need to be involved - you cannot, as a private individual, start criminal proceedings, typically you start off going to the police, they then investigate and then pass on their findings to the CPS, who will consider whether it is worth pursuing - the involvement of a foreign citizen would be a factor and I somehow doubt that they would be interested in pursuing it unless there was a serious consideration that there were national interests to defend. I also seriously doubt that a reputable organisation such as the NPG would be interested in such a path, especially against a naive individual. However, I can imagine that in the larger scheme of things, there is a test case in the offing here that many public institutions in the UK would be interested in pursuing due to the ramifications for the abuse of these organisations' money raising sidelines. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: |