Posted by Chris Hurd on 08/14/07 19:11

Howdy from Texas,

On Aug 14, 1:56 am, "Mark & Mary Ann Weiss" <mweissX...@earthlink.net>
wrote:

> But I have been the target of false
> accusations by DSE on DVinfo.

Once again... nowhere does your name appear on
DV Info Net. You have *not* been libeled there.


> You do realize how serious that matter was,
> don't you? Sorry if I offended you by stating
> that I reserved the right to sue if the material
> wasn't removed.

What offended me was your gross ignorance of the
law (specifically Section 230 of the CDA, which you
waved in my face in the initial nastygram you sent to
me back on May 24th). You can bring suit against
anyone and everyone you wish, but whether you'll be
successful or not is another matter entirely: see the
legal briefing "Neither Notice Nor Delay in Removing
Content Are Bars to CDA Web Site Third-Party Content
Immunity Defense," http://www.winston.com/index.Cfm?contentid=34&itemid=2246

The immunity defense of S230 is exactly what grants
protection to message board operators like myself from
the liability you're claiming. Are you still willing to take
on the considerable expense of trying the precedence
of that law in court?


> at the same time DVinfo shouldn't be a platform
> for smearing my reputation or my scientific and
> carefully-executed tests on cameras.

The record of DV Info Net clearly shows that it has
never been a platform for smearing anyone's reputation;
your name doesn't even appear there so your particular
reputation isn't even a relevant issue. However, whether
or not your "tests" are scientific or carefully executed is
wide open for public debate... not just on my forum, but
anywhere.


> When you post content to the public internet, you
> have no reasonable expectation of privacy or that
> your content won't be played or displayed somewhere
> else.

You are sadly mistaken. The protection of copyright
does in fact extend to the internet... and there's
plenty of case law to prove that there is indeed a
reasonable expectation that online content will not
be redistributed without permission. And that's a
fundamental understanding which I sincerely hope
you will not have to learn the hard way.


> But also consider that by disallowing me to represent
> myself in your forum when someone is spewing false
> information about me or my testing methodology, you
> are making yourself a party to the offending action
> and as such, subject to possible legal action on my
> part.

And there's that threat of legal action again. You know
what, Mark, honestly I don't think you're going to sue
anybody. As far as I'm concerned, all of this "legal
action" chest beating of yours serves only to
undermine your arguments.

Again: your name appears nowhere on my forum,
therefore nothing is there for you to rush in and
defend, and I don't see how you can possibly
expect to successfully sue your way into a
privately owned message board.


>> ... you can kiss my Bill of Rights.
>
> Isn't that what you said to the FCC openly
> and publicly in November of 1997?

No. It's what the founder of the American LPFM movement,
Stephen Dunifer of Free Radio Berkeley, said to the FCC
and NAB openly and publicly in October of 1995. Mark,
your ignorance of the history of American micropower
radio is right on par with your ignorance of copyright, U.S.
Code and digital video technology... four subjects about
which you do not seem to know all that much.


> I don't give a damn, as long as your people don't
> keep falsifying my test data and hurling false
> accusations about me.

For that last time, while dissenting opinions have been
expressed about your findings, the fact remains that nobody
has "falsified your test data," and no one has hurled a false
accusation about you by name. Hope this helps,

Chris Hurd
DV Info Net
San Marcos, TX

[Back to original message]