| 3:32 am on Oct 11, 2001 (gmt 0)|
It's actually not a bad idea. Esp if anyone here is really up on the actual laws. There is alot of misconceptions floating around and lately being posted in question and answers.
| 7:32 pm on Oct 11, 2001 (gmt 0)|
well a friend of mine got hit with a threatening letter about "deep linking" - it seems to be a gray area. I just thought it would help some of the webmasters - and SEO people when content gets stolen,etc.
| 7:40 pm on Oct 11, 2001 (gmt 0)|
| 10:11 pm on Oct 23, 2001 (gmt 0)|
I like the idea of an Internet Law forum. I for one would like to discuss copyright issues there.
| 10:18 pm on Oct 23, 2001 (gmt 0)|
Main problem there: potential liability to WmW, and the individual legal forum participants if someone takes someone else's advice and ends up in deep doodoo because of it...
It would be a great resource, but probably wouldn't be feasible for one of the *exact* same reasons it would be so useful... people sue eachother for very strange and petty-seeming reasons. Ironic, no?
| 4:27 am on Oct 24, 2001 (gmt 0)|
Mivox, you are right about dispensing (and taking) legal advice in a forum - it shouldn't be done. However, someone with expertise in the area could speak generally about the law without giving specific advice. Perhaps it could be an exclusive forum that requires participants to acknowlege that they understand the limitations of the forum (e.g. it is general information and not advice for any specific situation etc.).
If someone wants or needs legal advice, that person should retain (that means "pay") an expert for the advice.
| 4:56 am on Oct 24, 2001 (gmt 0)|
>person should retain (that means "pay") an expert for the advice.
Yes, and in cases where it really isn't worth the cost for professional advice, it's probably best to just back off and not make waves. It's not always worth a hassle.
I once had someone contact me saying she had trademark rights to a phrase because of use, even though not official. She found me because my site came up under the phrase at search engines. Hers never did, so there was no way to tell. I went to her site and saw that she did use the phrase and checked out what the law said, right at the Government web site. Oh, I could have taken the domain name, made an issue of it and continued to use it (still could), but even though I "loved" the phrase, I just let it go with a very nice email to her. I kept the phrase on the page, in context, and removed what was leading my page to show up at search engines.
Some things aren't worth a fight, not worth hurting someone over, and not worth legal expense or aggravation.
Some issues have come up occasionally in the Business Issues forum here. Generally people share their experiences or give a link to a site with info. There's a line on these things that needs to be watched. Some posts have "disclaimers" on them as a footnote.
Certain things, like copyright, are clear-cut to some degree and not tremendously touchy - i.e. you own the copyright on a graphic as soon as you create it, unless you're an employee or assign it by contract - are pretty commonly known, and covered at the US Gov't site. Of course there are differences in different countries.
But something like legality with deep-linking, for example, isn't so clear-cut and is a recent issue that's coming up more and more.
Then, some things vary so much from city to city. Like in some cities you can't file small claims against someone out of the area; in Los Angeles County, you can if work was done in the county. That was a while back - who knows if it's changed. Telling someone it's a good idea to specify venue in a contract is neutral enough, but it wouldn't even be possible to get specific, or have anything be up to date for sure.
| 7:37 am on Oct 24, 2001 (gmt 0)|
I think that a legal forum would be a good thing, but I can't figur out how to handle the nationality problem.
The laws are different form nation to nation, so advising will be very hard
| 1:05 pm on Oct 24, 2001 (gmt 0)|
I was thinking in a much more simply way - just a forum for posting latest legal news that would affect us and maybe posting links to gov or org sites that have information.
| 3:57 pm on Oct 25, 2001 (gmt 0)|
First, I don't see us doing a legal forum. Fraught with hazards at every turn. It would be a nightmare to moderate. Every post would have to include a disclaimer. Then there would undoubtidly be some promtion in there that would be of a serious nature. The risk to the system would be high.
I could see that. How about this: we move the Breaking Search Engine News forum to the Webmaster category and change the name to Breaking Net News?
| 5:36 pm on Oct 25, 2001 (gmt 0)|
Breaking Net News
<nitpick>How 'bout Breaking Internet News</nitpick> I just like the way that sounds better... ;)
| 10:31 pm on Oct 25, 2001 (gmt 0)|
<sarcasm>I like it Mivox, but if you did that, you'd be violating a trademark, because the word "Internet" is trademarked. I know this because once I trademarked a word and logo and tried to use the word internet to describe some of my services; the USPTO wouldn't allow it.</sarcasm>
| 11:13 am on Oct 26, 2001 (gmt 0)|
Breaking TECH News?
Breaking Webmaster News?
News 2 u?
| 12:50 pm on Oct 26, 2001 (gmt 0)|
How about breaking-news-of-importance-4-webmasters so it can get properly parsed?