QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 9th December 2009, 5:15am)
I just published a brief summary of this fiasco
on Akahele.org.
Just a couple of cents' worth (probably should be posted at Akahele rather than here, I guess, but there you go) - you say that Livingston's agency is
"taking legal action to protect his biography on Wikipedia", but I don't think that's strictly accurate - the only redress Coupleguys is seeking is damages, although admittedly of a level punitive enough to deter future repetitions, and not any remedy that would require Wikipedia to do anything to prevent future repetition...unsurprisingly, given that it isn't a party to the suit.
I find it strange that Coupleguys isn't seeking an injunction to prevent future recurrence of the same behaviour, or undertakings that such behaviour won't be repeated. Perhaps these aren't remedies available under Californian law - IANAL, but surely there must be some remedy available which would restrain John Doe's future behaviour and wouldn't turn out to be as much of a pyrrhic victory as getting a large award of punitive damages against someone with no financial means would do?