- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Same Slime, Different Day - updated 4Xs
|
|
|
Comments (41)
21 earlier comments in the full thread.
>it's not limited to a single article. I don't know if it meets the legal definition of libel, but it is a deliberate attack.
Nothing in the law protects you against a deliberate attack.
Attack does not equal libel.
Lying about the facts in a way that will ruin somebody's reputation is libel.
Characterizations (She's a windbag, she's a troll, etc) are not facts.
Saying that she took money from somebody for the purpose of espousing a particular view would be a "fact" -- that is, something specific that can be proven right or wrong.
i didn't see any libel in the article, just a bunch of mean-spirited sliming. Frankly, I think it makes the author look a whole lot worse than Pamela.
Nothing in the law protects you against a deliberate attack.
Attack does not equal libel.
Lying about the facts in a way that will ruin somebody's reputation is libel.
Characterizations (She's a windbag, she's a troll, etc) are not facts.
Saying that she took money from somebody for the purpose of espousing a particular view would be a "fact" -- that is, something specific that can be proven right or wrong.
i didn't see any libel in the article, just a bunch of mean-spirited sliming. Frankly, I think it makes the author look a whole lot worse than Pamela.
I'm not a paralegal. I'm not a lawyer. I don't have any degrees that would qualify me in either profession.
When I know something about the law, it is only reasonable to expect that any lawyer or any paralegal would also know the same thing, because they are more qualified than I.
So when I see a lawyer obviously doesn't understand that the circle-C symbol does NOT necessarily mean a copyright is registered, I question the qualifications of that lawyer. The same with paralegals. And that is exactly what has happened with PJ. http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20060926030112100#c...
For that reason, until a publicly recognised body assesses her qualifications and publishes their findings (where she went to school, what degree she received and what experience she has), I find Groklaw analysis to be no more trustworthy than analysis on Slashdot. Look at what happened with Wikipedia because they didn't bother with any kind of vetting process: http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20...
And it's happened too often with "anonymous experts" for my taste, even years ago with "Spencer F. Katt".
But then again, even possessing the right qualifications is no guarantee of information quality: http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/06/11/2142223
And if you believe that the popularity of Groklaw isn't just because of PJ's analysis and input, then you're not looking at the feedback numbers on articles posted by Mathfox during PJ's absence, compared to the articles she posts.
When I know something about the law, it is only reasonable to expect that any lawyer or any paralegal would also know the same thing, because they are more qualified than I.
So when I see a lawyer obviously doesn't understand that the circle-C symbol does NOT necessarily mean a copyright is registered, I question the qualifications of that lawyer. The same with paralegals. And that is exactly what has happened with PJ. http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20060926030112100#c...
For that reason, until a publicly recognised body assesses her qualifications and publishes their findings (where she went to school, what degree she received and what experience she has), I find Groklaw analysis to be no more trustworthy than analysis on Slashdot. Look at what happened with Wikipedia because they didn't bother with any kind of vetting process: http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20...
And it's happened too often with "anonymous experts" for my taste, even years ago with "Spencer F. Katt".
But then again, even possessing the right qualifications is no guarantee of information quality: http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/06/11/2142223
And if you believe that the popularity of Groklaw isn't just because of PJ's analysis and input, then you're not looking at the feedback numbers on articles posted by Mathfox during PJ's absence, compared to the articles she posts.
Quoting:And if you believe that the popularity of Groklaw isn't just because of PJ's analysis and input, then you're not looking at the feedback numbers on articles posted by Mathfox during PJ's absence, compared to the articles she posts.
That's easily explained. PJ posts analysises of the documents. MathFox posted just the summaries and put the legal docs up for reading. More legalise means more time needed to read and less people understanding it, thus less comments.
@sander -
Exactly my take - without PJ's input and analysis, Groklaw wouldn't be near as popular as it is. It'd be more along the lines of http://lamlaw.com .
My feeling is that the vast majority of people take things found on the internet much too seriously (something that I've taken advantage of when I want to stir things up.) But hey, I've many eclectic and unusual interests such as knotting. Remember folks, when it comes right down to it, most people have never heard of Linux and could really not care less, so making calls to boycott Novell or the FSF is about as effective and pleasant as spitting into the wind.
My feeling is that the vast majority of people take things found on the internet much too seriously (something that I've taken advantage of when I want to stir things up.) But hey, I've many eclectic and unusual interests such as knotting. Remember folks, when it comes right down to it, most people have never heard of Linux and could really not care less, so making calls to boycott Novell or the FSF is about as effective and pleasant as spitting into the wind.
eh darren, I think you're picking nits. I think that you just plain don't care for PJ and Groklaw, and no kind of verification will change your mind on that. I don't quite understand your circle-C reference- is that supposed to be another proof that PJ is not a paralegal? While it's not necessary to formally register copyrighted material, you can, so her use of the word 'register' is correct. It has nothing to do with trademarks, as the post you link to says. And I'm sure you'll understand my chuckling at your citing an anonymous post as proof of anything.
http://www.copyright.gov/register/
If PJ is wrong that a body of attack articles with the same slant and similar wording constitute libel, that doesn't invalidate everything she writes, which is what you're implying. She is right that they are trying to damage her credibility, because they have no factual refutations. That should tell you something right there- that none of the interested parties she writes about, such as SCO, have been able to factually dispute anything she has written. That speaks more loudly to me than anything else could. That, and she always supplies her source materials.
Ibiblio isn't quite comparable to Wikipedia, because it hosts discrete sites under the control of their maintainers. PJ can't go into other Ibiblio sites and alter their content. Ryan Jordan was functioning as a Wikipedia staffer and was editing content from many contributors. And even in that case it says "... no questions have been raised about the accuracy of his work."
If PJ is wrong that a body of attack articles with the same slant and similar wording constitute libel, that doesn't invalidate everything she writes, which is what you're implying. She is right that they are trying to damage her credibility, because they have no factual refutations. That should tell you something right there- that none of the interested parties she writes about, such as SCO, have been able to factually dispute anything she has written. That speaks more loudly to me than anything else could. That, and she always supplies her source materials.
Ibiblio isn't quite comparable to Wikipedia, because it hosts discrete sites under the control of their maintainers. PJ can't go into other Ibiblio sites and alter their content. Ryan Jordan was functioning as a Wikipedia staffer and was editing content from many contributors. And even in that case it says "... no questions have been raised about the accuracy of his work."
Tuxchick -
you obviously read the reply post that I linked to, but did you find the paragraph of PJ's that it refers to?
The copyright symbol does *NOT* indicate any such thing. In other words, she is wrong - and wrong about something very basic to the law.
As I stated, when I know something about the law, that a paralegal or lawyer does not, it makes me suspect of their qualifications. Specifically:
The copyright symbol is simply one of three elements of a "notice of copyright". It does not signify registration of copyright.
I also refer to the federalist papers from time to time: quoting anonymous sources is quite appropriate at times, and not so smart at others.
you obviously read the reply post that I linked to, but did you find the paragraph of PJ's that it refers to?
Quoting: ... and I believe that by putting the copyright symbol, Caldera indicated that it had registered with the Copyright Office, which makes me think it might be interesting to see what exactly they told the Copyright Office they registered:
The copyright symbol does *NOT* indicate any such thing. In other words, she is wrong - and wrong about something very basic to the law.
As I stated, when I know something about the law, that a paralegal or lawyer does not, it makes me suspect of their qualifications. Specifically:
Quoting: How to Secure a Copyright Copyright Secured Automatically upon Creationhttp://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#hsc
The way in which copyright protection is secured is frequently misunderstood. No publication or registration or other action in the Copyright Office is required to secure copyright. (See following note.) There are, however, certain definite advantages to registration. See “Copyright Registration.”
Copyright is secured automatically when the work is created, and a work is “created” when it is fixed in a copy or phonorecord for the first time. “Copies” are material objects from which a work can be read or visually perceived either directly or with the aid of a machine or device, such as books, manuscripts, sheet music, film, videotape, or microfilm. “Phonorecords” are material objects embodying fixations of sounds (excluding, by statutory definition, motion picture soundtracks), such as cassette tapes, CDs, or LPs. Thus, for example, a song (the “work”) can be fixed in sheet music (“copies”) or in phonograph disks (“phonorecords”), or both. If a work is prepared over a period of time, the part of the work that is fixed on a particular date constitutes the created work as of that date.
Quoting: The “C in a circle” notice is used only on “visually perceptible copies.” Certain kinds of works—for example, musical, dramatic, and literary works—may be fixed not in “copies” but by means of sound in an audio recording. Since audio recordings such as audio tapes and phonograph disks are “phonorecords” and not “copies,” the “C in a circle” notice is not used to indicate protection of the underlying musical, dramatic, or literary work that is recorded.http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#noc
The copyright symbol is simply one of three elements of a "notice of copyright". It does not signify registration of copyright.
I also refer to the federalist papers from time to time: quoting anonymous sources is quite appropriate at times, and not so smart at others.
> The copyright symbol is simply one of three elements of a "notice of copyright". It does not signify registration of copyright.
No, it doesn't, nor is registration necessary to hold copyright. However, registration makes copyright much easier to prove, and a company which did not register its copyrights would probably be considered negligent by its shareholders and possibly by the SEC.
No, it doesn't, nor is registration necessary to hold copyright. However, registration makes copyright much easier to prove, and a company which did not register its copyrights would probably be considered negligent by its shareholders and possibly by the SEC.
>company which did not register its copyrights would probably be considered negligent by its shareholders and possibly by the SEC.
That would be an interesting case should SEC or shareholders get in a snit about it. They should lose.
Registering a copyright does not guarantee that you own it. It is simply a piece of evidence. It is very different from patents or trademarks in that regard, both of which have a rather involved process to complete before registration is granted.
With a copyright, you basically send in a copy and a form.
That would be an interesting case should SEC or shareholders get in a snit about it. They should lose.
Registering a copyright does not guarantee that you own it. It is simply a piece of evidence. It is very different from patents or trademarks in that regard, both of which have a rather involved process to complete before registration is granted.
With a copyright, you basically send in a copy and a form.
@jdixon,
Most definitely that is true - actually, in order to actually bring suit over copyright, I believe you *are* required to register the copyright. Dino would be better qualified to answer that.
I tried saving the company I work for a bunch of money, but they insisted on registering copyrights on some code we developed instead of just using copyright notices. I didn't agree with the necessity of it, but it was a call made over my head.
Most definitely that is true - actually, in order to actually bring suit over copyright, I believe you *are* required to register the copyright. Dino would be better qualified to answer that.
I tried saving the company I work for a bunch of money, but they insisted on registering copyrights on some code we developed instead of just using copyright notices. I didn't agree with the necessity of it, but it was a call made over my head.
Darren, I don't think its necessary to register copyright in order to bring suit over it, but it does make the court process easier. In order to win a suit you need to prove that you own the copyright to the work. A registration makes this easier, but it's by far not the only way to prove it.
IIRC, IANAL, etcetera. I just read Groklaw a lot :-)
IIRC, IANAL, etcetera. I just read Groklaw a lot :-)
> That would be an interesting case should SEC or shareholders get in a snit about it. They should lose.
Dino, the requirements for fiduciary responsibility and the legal requirements for copyright are two different things. If I knew a company I owned shares in had not registered their copyrights, I'd consider them negligent. Registering their copyrights shows a good faith effort to protect the company's assets, and as such is a reasonable expectation. Not required, perhaps, but reasonable.
Dino, the requirements for fiduciary responsibility and the legal requirements for copyright are two different things. If I knew a company I owned shares in had not registered their copyrights, I'd consider them negligent. Registering their copyrights shows a good faith effort to protect the company's assets, and as such is a reasonable expectation. Not required, perhaps, but reasonable.
>I'd consider them negligent.
You might consider them negligent, but that doesn't make them negligent.
Others might consider them negligent for spending the money (And for a corporation, which must pay people to do things, it is a whole lot more than the filing fees) to register everything that is copyrighted.
Where, for example, would you draw the line?
Consider the case of computer code (I'm talking in-house, non-commercial code).
Every single time you change it, you have created a derivative work.
So...Do you go to the expense and trouble of registering the derivative work each and every day?
re: lawsuits...
I haven't checked the law lately, but it certainly used to be true that you had to register your copyright in order to file suit. However, you don't have to register it prior to the infringement, only prior to the suit.
That may have changed. I don't know.
You might consider them negligent, but that doesn't make them negligent.
Others might consider them negligent for spending the money (And for a corporation, which must pay people to do things, it is a whole lot more than the filing fees) to register everything that is copyrighted.
Where, for example, would you draw the line?
Consider the case of computer code (I'm talking in-house, non-commercial code).
Every single time you change it, you have created a derivative work.
So...Do you go to the expense and trouble of registering the derivative work each and every day?
re: lawsuits...
I haven't checked the law lately, but it certainly used to be true that you had to register your copyright in order to file suit. However, you don't have to register it prior to the infringement, only prior to the suit.
That may have changed. I don't know.
darren, when you show substantial errors on Groklaw regarding SCO, which was the subject of the MacDougall's slime piece in the first place, then I'll seriously consider the notion that PJ is an untrustworthy source. I haven't seen anything that indicates she's incompetent, writing over her head, or telling fibs. SCO certainly hasn't been able to find any errors of fact in Groklaw, nor have any of the alleged "journalists" who like to attack Groklaw. What's pissing them off is she is publishing the truth, and there is no counter to the truth.
This business with 'is this libel' is arguable and something I'll leave up to real legal professionals, and I'll cut PJ some slack for being the target of this garbage, and perhaps not entirely objective. I know I'd be mightily cheesed. What if she is right? Does that change your thinking?
You're going to great lengths over 'what does does the circle R mean' issue as blanket indictment of PJ without coming up with anything substantive, and missing the point of the article, which is both testimony and a paper trail showing that SCO's copyright violation claims are bogus. It's all there in the opening paragraphs. http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20060926030112100
As far as the notorious circle R goes, maybe formal copyright registration is a standard business practice, or was a standard Caldera practice, or maybe PJ made a mistake. She did say "I believe" and not present it as fact. PJ's point is wondering what the officially registered document looks like, if there is one. Given SCO's history of non-stop shenanigans it would have been an interesting thing to look into. Any way you look at it it's a very minor thing.
If it is proven that PJ really is a paralegal would that put your doubts to rest? I rather doubt it.
This business with 'is this libel' is arguable and something I'll leave up to real legal professionals, and I'll cut PJ some slack for being the target of this garbage, and perhaps not entirely objective. I know I'd be mightily cheesed. What if she is right? Does that change your thinking?
You're going to great lengths over 'what does does the circle R mean' issue as blanket indictment of PJ without coming up with anything substantive, and missing the point of the article, which is both testimony and a paper trail showing that SCO's copyright violation claims are bogus. It's all there in the opening paragraphs. http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20060926030112100
As far as the notorious circle R goes, maybe formal copyright registration is a standard business practice, or was a standard Caldera practice, or maybe PJ made a mistake. She did say "I believe" and not present it as fact. PJ's point is wondering what the officially registered document looks like, if there is one. Given SCO's history of non-stop shenanigans it would have been an interesting thing to look into. Any way you look at it it's a very minor thing.
If it is proven that PJ really is a paralegal would that put your doubts to rest? I rather doubt it.
Besides, guys --
A. A paralegal is not a lawyer B. There's a whole lot of law. No lawyer knows it all. That's why you have specialists. C. The law changes.
Cut some slack.
A. A paralegal is not a lawyer B. There's a whole lot of law. No lawyer knows it all. That's why you have specialists. C. The law changes.
Cut some slack.
> Where, for example, would you draw the line?
If the documents have commercial value, they should probably be registered.
> Consider the case of computer code (I'm talking in-house, non-commercial code).
See above. I think my comment about a good faith effort to protect the company's assets should be the governing principle. That's what I'd expect from a company's management.
> Cut some slack.
Agreed. We're arguing minor details.
If the documents have commercial value, they should probably be registered.
> Consider the case of computer code (I'm talking in-house, non-commercial code).
See above. I think my comment about a good faith effort to protect the company's assets should be the governing principle. That's what I'd expect from a company's management.
> Cut some slack.
Agreed. We're arguing minor details.
"C. The law changes."
No kidding! It takes a government to create chaos. Who knows what will be legal/illegal tomorrow that is illegal/legal today? How can anyone make long term plans in an environment like that?
Anarchy provides _stability_.
No kidding! It takes a government to create chaos. Who knows what will be legal/illegal tomorrow that is illegal/legal today? How can anyone make long term plans in an environment like that?
Anarchy provides _stability_.
TC -
You do raise valid points. And you're right, there probably isn't anything that would change my mind about Groklaw - but it isn't just that one instance. There are a number of "dirty little secrets" including "disappearing" and "masked" posts, and I'm not the only one so disillusioned. For me it started with the so-called grokdoc project - which to me takes away much needed contributions to The Linux Documentation Project.
If I see an article written up in a journal of neuroscience (which I've been reading up on to follow any new theories on learning language and how humans think), I expect to be presented with the qualifications of the author. If I see an analysis written up in a law review publication (which I've been doing with the purpose of creating Statistical Language Models for the legal profession), I expect to see the qualifications of the authors of the various articles. I expect nothing less for Groklaw since it is being presented by ibiblio as one of many collections in a sort of online "library". There are many laypeople (including apparently yourself) who seem to take the word of PJ as gospel when it comes to legal analysis, and that is a bit too much like relying on wikipedia as an authoritative source when doing thesis work, or taking programming advice from Robin "Roblimo" Miller.
If I see an article written up in a journal of neuroscience (which I've been reading up on to follow any new theories on learning language and how humans think), I expect to be presented with the qualifications of the author. If I see an analysis written up in a law review publication (which I've been doing with the purpose of creating Statistical Language Models for the legal profession), I expect to see the qualifications of the authors of the various articles. I expect nothing less for Groklaw since it is being presented by ibiblio as one of many collections in a sort of online "library". There are many laypeople (including apparently yourself) who seem to take the word of PJ as gospel when it comes to legal analysis, and that is a bit too much like relying on wikipedia as an authoritative source when doing thesis work, or taking programming advice from Robin "Roblimo" Miller.
Qualifications are an interesting thing. I'm not qualified to run a 10-PC LAN, and couldn't get an IT job if my life depended on it. Nor am I qualified to serve as Editor-in-Chief of an increasingly popular news site. I have no journalism background - education or experience - to stand on. Trying not to be smug or boastful, it seems I have been qualifying myself over the course of the past (nearly a full) year. And I'm no anomaly either. Helios got *the* job having little more qualification than myself.
That said, Darren is not the only person to question PJ's background. I can't find it off-hand, but there was a thread some time ago on suse-ot as to whether PJ shared some connection to agents Mulder and Scully. That thread brought up some assertions of disappearing posts, people being banned unnecessarily/unfairly, etc, as well as the notion that she tends to take some things too personally. I have seen for myself that she guards her privacy pretty jealously as compared to many in the community. She reacted badly when I wrote that she attacked Kevin Carmony (I wasn't defending him or attacking her, but pointing out that she had certainly spoken out against him). I haven't had much or really any cooperation from her since - none that I recall, anyway.
I find some of her behavior disappointing to say the least. Yet she does seem to offer fairly solid analysis of the SCO case and others. I generally continue to be fairly supportive of her but find myself also rather guarded in how I view her. I also understand that not everyone gets it right every time. So, I consider her analysis to be akin to George Stephanopoulis when he reports on White House matters. It's an analysis. Say, aren't those a lot like excuses, which are a lot like something else everyone has?
That said, Darren is not the only person to question PJ's background. I can't find it off-hand, but there was a thread some time ago on suse-ot as to whether PJ shared some connection to agents Mulder and Scully. That thread brought up some assertions of disappearing posts, people being banned unnecessarily/unfairly, etc, as well as the notion that she tends to take some things too personally. I have seen for myself that she guards her privacy pretty jealously as compared to many in the community. She reacted badly when I wrote that she attacked Kevin Carmony (I wasn't defending him or attacking her, but pointing out that she had certainly spoken out against him). I haven't had much or really any cooperation from her since - none that I recall, anyway.
I find some of her behavior disappointing to say the least. Yet she does seem to offer fairly solid analysis of the SCO case and others. I generally continue to be fairly supportive of her but find myself also rather guarded in how I view her. I also understand that not everyone gets it right every time. So, I consider her analysis to be akin to George Stephanopoulis when he reports on White House matters. It's an analysis. Say, aren't those a lot like excuses, which are a lot like something else everyone has?
Hmm, ok darren, point taken. It makes sense as long as I don't think of slimy news articles, or the long parade of retard MSCEs I used to be afflicted with. They had all the paper qualifications in the world, but they sure were helpless when faced with an actual computer. I like the idea of someone stubbornly refusing to answer questions about identity or background, and just letting their work speak for itself. But you're right, it's not unreasonable to expect someone presenting herself as an authority to back it up.
hee don, I'm in the same boat. I barely graduated from high school. Thanks goodness for drugs and alcohol, or I never would have made it. But somehow I manage.
hee don, I'm in the same boat. I barely graduated from high school. Thanks goodness for drugs and alcohol, or I never would have made it. But somehow I manage.
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
Ibiblio has a set of criteria for inclusion, and Groklaw met those. Ibiblio is providing an incredibly valuable public service, and I wish there were more sites like it. I can't think of a better use of public money than funding public speech. Perhaps they should verify that the people running the sites that they host should pass a minimal "I am who I say I am" test. For all we know they do. Do you know that they don't? Mostly I don't care, because their work speaks for itself.
The whole concept of "free press" is interesting. Some folks think it means "freedom of the press belongs to those who own one." Yeah, our for-profit media and all them professional journalists sure do a bangup job, don't they! I don't despise Enderle, O'Gara, Lyons, or DiDio because of their qualifications, appearance, where they live, where they went to school, what they get paid, or where they go to church- I despise them based on what they write. I don't look down on McDougall because of whatever his qualifications might be- I don't even know what they are. But I can read, and this particular article is a plain old hatchet job, and it's practically a carbon copy of dozens of similar attacks. All the qualifications in the world can't remove that stench.
If it turns out that PJ is not a paralegal, that will damage her credibility severely. However, it won't change the quality or truthfulness of her work. I don't see any particular value in questioning her qualifications, or anyone's, until they give a reason to do so. Given her facility with using all the usual paralegal tools, navigating courts and clerks, that she has access to expensive online legal databases and other resources, and patience with reading and dissecting reams of dull-as-dirt filings, I see no reason to doubt that she's a paralegal. No faker could keep it up for as long as Groklaw has been going.
I know this is going all long-winded, so sorry. :) The short story for me is "by their fruits you shall know them."