Funny Response from a Lawyer

Mrs Rita Littlewood
26 Underhill
Worsborough Bridge
Barnsley
S70 5DR
5th of March 2004

Dear Mrs Littlewood,

We have recently received intimation of a claim against us from your solicitors Raleys in connection with your slipping on some pigeon shite and doing yourself an injury.

From my knowledge of the area, I would have thought that anybody walking under a
railway bridge in Barnsley would have been a bit more careful (especially a person of your
age and life experience) but that really isn’t relevant.

This company doesn’t have any interest in any property in Barnsley. Although I did once
have a pint with the late Dr Liam Lannigan who you may remember used to hold his
surgeries (if one could call them that) in a local public house with the car parked on a
yellow line outside. Nice chap - shame he took a header down the stairs in one of his rare
moments of sobriety.

I’m afraid that your numpty bunch of ambulance chasing solicitors have been incompetent:
they’ve written to the wrong company.

They have managed to get Railtrack Limited (a Private Limited Company incorporated in Scotland on 8th of May 2003) confused with Railtrack PLC (a Public Limited Company incorporated in England and Wales on 28th of February 1994 and now, following re-registration as a Private Limited Company on 3rd February 2003, known as Network Rail Infrastructure Limited).

It’s a fairly elementary mistake to make and one that the Law Society would probably snigger at.

So, you aren’t going to get a penny from us.

If you really want some free money from the bridge owners, I suggest you get yourself a
decent firm of solicitors (if such a thing exists in Barnsley).

Yours sincerely,

J White
Secretary

(Source: Railtrack Ltd; image courtesy of lawcartoon)

US Government Cracks Down On Megaupload

The US government seized Megaupload’s domain names, grabbing $50 million in assets, and getting New Zealand police to arrest four of the site's key employees, including e founder Kim Dotcom.

The 72-page indictment states that the site earned more than $175 million since its founding in 2005, most of it based on copyright infringement. The indictment goes after six individuals.

The case is a major one, involving international cooperation between the US, Hong Kong, the Netherlands, the UK, Germany, Canada, and the Philippines. In addition to the arrests, 20 search warrants were executed today in multiple countries.

Megaupload controlled 525 servers in Virginia alone and had another 630 in the Netherlands—and many more around the world.) For years, the site has claimed to take down unauthorized content when notified by IP owners. It has registered a DMCA agent with the US government. It has created an “abuse tool” and given rIP owners access. It has negotiated with companies like Universal Music Group about licensing content.

The US government points to numerous internal e-mails and chat logs from employees showing that they were aware of copyrighted material on the site and even shared it with each other. The government says that the site therefore does not qualify for a “safe harbor” of the kind that protected YouTube from Viacom's $1 billion lawsuit.

Megaupload employees apparently knew how the site was being used. They also knew how important copyrighted content was to their business. Employees also had access to analytics. The government therefore concluded that Megaupload knew what was happening and did little to stop it.

The MPAA stated: "By all estimates, Megaupload.com is the largest and most active criminally operated website targeting creative content in the world. This criminal case, more than two years in development, shows that law enforcement can take strong action to protect American intellectual property stolen through sites housed in the United States."

This is for sure a case to watch!

Federal Judge Dismisses Twitter Stalking Case

Federal judge Rodger W. Titus recently dismissed a case against a man accused of stalking a religious leader on Twitter. In his 27-page ruling he stated that his speech, though "uncomfortable," is protected by the Constitution.

Buddhist leader Alyce Zeoli accused William Lawrence Cassidy of harassing her and inflicting "substantial emotional distress". Cassidy was involved with Zeoli and her sect until they had a falling out. In 2010, Cassidy started posting hundreds of harassing messages directed at Zeoli via Twitter and a blog hosted on Blogspot.

The tweets consisted of statements such as: "Do the world a favor and go kill yourself. P.S. Have a nice day." According to Zeoli, the tweets not only inflicted "substantial emotional distress", but also madder her fear for her safety. She claimed that she hadn't left her house for 18 months, except to visit her psychiatrist.

Judge Rodger W. Titus ruled in Cassidy's favor, opining that Twitter is different from other communication mediums like phone calls or emails because a person can ignore items posted on Twitter. In his 27-page ruling, he compared Twitter to the bulletin boards colonial-era citizens used to erect in their front yards. The difference is that Twitter exists online, he said.

"If one colonist wants to see what is on another's bulletin board, he would need to walk over to his neighbor's yard and look at what is posted… Now one can inspect a neighbor's blog by simply turning on a computer," Titus ruled, stating that one colonist can choose to look at a board or ignore it completely.

He continued: "Twitter and blogs are today's equivalent of a bulletin board that one is free to disregard, in contrast, for example, to e-mails or phone calls directed to a victim." Because Zeoli had this option, Cassidy's speech is protected.

The judge also ruled that because some of Cassidy's messages were critical of Zeoli's religious beliefs, his speech is protected by the First Amendment.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation applauded Titus's decision.

"Speech on social networking sites–as with speech anywhere–has the potential to inform and enlighten as well as to outrage," senior staff attorney Matt Zimmerman said. "It is imperative that courts recognize and uphold First Amendment protections in order to give all manner of expression sufficient breathing space to thrive online."

It's unclear whether Zeoli will appeal.

Good news for bloggers

The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that simply making an online link to defamatory content created by someone else does not constitute publishing that content. This ruling means that bloggers and Twitter users are not breaking the law by merely linking to another site that contains libelous or defamatory material. It thus upheld the rulings of the B.C. Supreme Court and the B.C. Court of Appeal.

“The Internet, in short, cannot provide access to information without hyperlinks,” wrote Justice Rosalie Abella. “Limiting their usefulness by subjecting them to the traditional publication rule would have the effect of seriously restricting the flow of information and as a result, freedom of expression.”

The decision was unanimous. However, two justices warned that framing or endorsing the link as the truth or accurate could still be illegal.

“Combined text and hyperlink may amount to publication of defamatory material,” wrote Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin and Justice Morris Fish. “If the text communicates agreement with the content linked to, then the hyperlinker should be liable for the defamatory content.”

Civil Liberties organizations, Internet advocates and media lawyers all agree that outlawing linking would stem the pace of information online.

(Image courtesy of www.editorsweblog.org)