PPRUNE change of Privacy Policy
Moderator
You did not answer my query, is it possible to delete all reference to oneself from PPRuNe?
Has any Pruner been hit with a Libel charge and if so what? No names or details are necessary but just a general idea.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: gold coast QLD australia
Age: 86
Posts: 1,345
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry Air Support, just think if you were Air Supply..............................??!! you would not have to push buckets of bolst around the sky!
Man Bilong Balus long PNG
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Looking forward to returning to Japan soon but in the meantime continuing the never ending search for a bad bottle of Red!
Age: 69
Posts: 2,976
Received 104 Likes
on
59 Posts
carrot 'vodka', no ice?
a little cheeky red!
Re the SLAPP issue; Why does the saying 'Come the revolution, first shoot all the Lawyers' spring to mind?
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sunny side up
Posts: 1,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, everything you are saying is correct, and I for one am happy to agree to these new terms and abide by them from now on, but I still do NOT see how on Earth this can apply to posts made under the old rules before today (this week, whatever), some a decade ago under different rules in a different time.
) my understanding is that it's because they're still 'in print', for want of a better term. If you deleted them (and no-one had copied and reposted them) it would be different. if they're still visible on the net, they can still be read and are therefore still allegedly defamatory. It doesn't matter when you wrote them. Wrt your speeding analogy, you're not doing 60km in the present time, so the action doesn't exist. However, unless you delete it, your post does exist in the present time.
I didn't think the actual rules of defamation had changed, it is just easier to sue. Is that right?
Out of interest, does a statute of limitations apply to defamation actions stemming from published books? From memory it doesn't, though IIRC you can't defame the dead.
Last edited by Worrals in the wilds; 16th Jun 2012 at 07:02.
Moderator
SLAPP legislation is not the issue. Whilst I may consider it anti democratic and anti free speech, it is the law in the US.
It is this I object to:
IB giving itself the right to: "....engage third parties to perform services on our behalf, including ....... email and text message distribution, customer service and conducting surveys."
The right to use, sell, trade or give my personal information for the purposes of SPAM email and text messages.
It is this I object to:
"We may share personal information about you with third parties in the following circumstances:
We may engage third parties to perform services on our behalf, including maintenance services, analytics and data analysis, payment processing, assisting in marketing efforts, email and text message distribution, customer service and conducting surveys.
Your personal information, and the contents of all of your online communications on or through our sites and services may be accessed and monitored as necessary to operate our sites and perform our services, and may be disclosed:"
We may engage third parties to perform services on our behalf, including maintenance services, analytics and data analysis, payment processing, assisting in marketing efforts, email and text message distribution, customer service and conducting surveys.
Your personal information, and the contents of all of your online communications on or through our sites and services may be accessed and monitored as necessary to operate our sites and perform our services, and may be disclosed:"
The right to use, sell, trade or give my personal information for the purposes of SPAM email and text messages.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Brisbane
Age: 77
Posts: 1,406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(H)air spray (sorry, just helping with ideas for your new username ) my understanding is that it's because they're still 'in print', for want of a better term. If you deleted them (and no-one had copied and reposted them) it would be different. if they're still visible on the net, they can still be read and are therefore still allegedly defamatory. It doesn't matter when you wrote them.
Wrt your speeding analogy, you're not doing 60km in the present time, so the action doesn't exist. However, unless you delete it, your post does exist in the present time.
Wrt your speeding analogy, you're not doing 60km in the present time, so the action doesn't exist. However, unless you delete it, your post does exist in the present time.
What I meant, maybe I did not explain it very well, was IF the Police still have a photo of me (my car) doing 60KPH in my street taken 10 years ago but the photo still exists to me this is the same as a post on PPRuNe from 10 years ago under different agreed terms and conditions.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Brisbane
Age: 77
Posts: 1,406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SLAPP legislation is not the issue. Whilst I may consider it anti democratic and anti free speech, it is the law in the US.
It is this I object to:
Quote:
"We may share personal information about you with third parties in the following circumstances:
We may engage third parties to perform services on our behalf, including maintenance services, analytics and data analysis, payment processing, assisting in marketing efforts, email and text message distribution, customer service and conducting surveys.
Your personal information, and the contents of all of your online communications on or through our sites and services may be accessed and monitored as necessary to operate our sites and perform our services, and may be disclosed:"
IB giving itself the right to: "....engage third parties to perform services on our behalf, including ....... email and text message distribution, customer service and conducting surveys."
The right to use, sell, trade or give my personal information for the purposes of SPAM email and text messages.
__________________
It is this I object to:
Quote:
"We may share personal information about you with third parties in the following circumstances:
We may engage third parties to perform services on our behalf, including maintenance services, analytics and data analysis, payment processing, assisting in marketing efforts, email and text message distribution, customer service and conducting surveys.
Your personal information, and the contents of all of your online communications on or through our sites and services may be accessed and monitored as necessary to operate our sites and perform our services, and may be disclosed:"
IB giving itself the right to: "....engage third parties to perform services on our behalf, including ....... email and text message distribution, customer service and conducting surveys."
The right to use, sell, trade or give my personal information for the purposes of SPAM email and text messages.
__________________
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 754
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by teresa green
I just looooove living in a socialist country, where we are manipulated, freedom of speech slowly taken away, seems like nobody can cop a spray anymore...
The UK has a conservative government which is about to introduce the most draconian eavesdropping and surveillance legislation a western country has ever seen. It will allow the UK Government to monitor real-time internet communication (eg chat sessions, etc) between anyone, all without a court order or warrant! This includes compelling your ISP to provide details on who you're talking to, how frequently, and for how long.
Bush introduced the "USA Patriot Act", named so that no-one would dare vote against it, authorising unprecedented surveillance and monitoring of the general public, under the auspices of national security.
Both sides of politics, conservative and liberal, do it. And they seem to be in a competition as to who can do it the most.
Last edited by DutchRoll; 16th Jun 2012 at 23:34.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Brisbane
Age: 77
Posts: 1,406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Although not quite the same thing, and nothing to do with Aviation (apologies in advance Tail Wheel) at least the High Court of Australia does NOT just give in to the Americans no matter what, for a long time now several major American Companies have been trying to prosecute one of our Aussie ISPs because they refuse to block their Customers access to sites the Americans say they should.
In a major victory for commonsense in Australia recently, our High Court has voted against the anti piracy people in favour of one of our ISPs. They ruled that even IF it is illegal to download TV shows and Movies, it is NOT up to the ISP to Police it, and the ISPs can NOT be forced to stop their Customers doing it, not that I would ever do it of course.
Thank goodness for the Australian Legal System..............
at least the High Court of Australia does NOT just give in to the Americans no matter what, for a long time now several major American Companies have been trying to prosecute one of our Aussie ISPs because they refuse to block their Customers access to sites the Americans say they should.In a major victory for commonsense in Australia recently, our High Court has voted against the anti piracy people in favour of one of our ISPs. They ruled that even IF it is illegal to download TV shows and Movies, it is NOT up to the ISP to Police it, and the ISPs can NOT be forced to stop their Customers doing it, not that I would ever do it of course.
Internet service provider iiNet has won a major legal battle over whether it should be held responsible for its customers downloading content illegally.
An appeal by the world's largest film and television companies against iiNet was dismissed today by the High Court.
A group of 34 international and Australian companies, including Warner Bros, Disney and the Seven Network, had alleged that iiNet had authorised the infringement of their copyright when its customers downloaded movies and television programs.
The movie companies had argued that iiNet had the power to prevent its customers from infringing copyright by issuing warnings and suspending or terminating customer accounts.
The Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT) appealed to the High Court after losing its first appeal to the federal court last year.
But today the High Court found that iiNet had no direct technical power to prevent its customers from using the BitTorrent file sharing system to infringe copyright.
"Rather, the extent of iiNet's power to prevent its customers from infringing ... copyright was limited to an indirect power to terminate its contractual relationship with its customers," the court said.
iiNet Chief Executive Officer, Michael Malone, said the judgment supported the company’s position and proved the claims made against it were unfounded.
"Today’s High Court five-nil ruling confirms that iiNet is not liable for ‘authorising’ the conduct of its customers who engaged in online copyright infringement.
"This marks the end of more than three years of legal argument and challenges."
Mr Malone said increasing the availability of lawful, online content in a more timely, affordable and reasonably priced manner, brought the focus back to customers and was the best method to protect content owners’ copyright.
He said there was strong evidence that content partnerships and agreements between ISPs, legal websites and copyright holders had done more to reduce piracy and to showcase copyright holders’ materials than this unproductive legal battle.
The High Court dismissed the appeal with costs. Legal costs of the case to date are approximately $9 million and have already been expensed.
An appeal by the world's largest film and television companies against iiNet was dismissed today by the High Court.
A group of 34 international and Australian companies, including Warner Bros, Disney and the Seven Network, had alleged that iiNet had authorised the infringement of their copyright when its customers downloaded movies and television programs.
The movie companies had argued that iiNet had the power to prevent its customers from infringing copyright by issuing warnings and suspending or terminating customer accounts.
The Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT) appealed to the High Court after losing its first appeal to the federal court last year.
But today the High Court found that iiNet had no direct technical power to prevent its customers from using the BitTorrent file sharing system to infringe copyright.
"Rather, the extent of iiNet's power to prevent its customers from infringing ... copyright was limited to an indirect power to terminate its contractual relationship with its customers," the court said.
iiNet Chief Executive Officer, Michael Malone, said the judgment supported the company’s position and proved the claims made against it were unfounded.
"Today’s High Court five-nil ruling confirms that iiNet is not liable for ‘authorising’ the conduct of its customers who engaged in online copyright infringement.
"This marks the end of more than three years of legal argument and challenges."
Mr Malone said increasing the availability of lawful, online content in a more timely, affordable and reasonably priced manner, brought the focus back to customers and was the best method to protect content owners’ copyright.
He said there was strong evidence that content partnerships and agreements between ISPs, legal websites and copyright holders had done more to reduce piracy and to showcase copyright holders’ materials than this unproductive legal battle.
The High Court dismissed the appeal with costs. Legal costs of the case to date are approximately $9 million and have already been expensed.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: gold coast QLD australia
Age: 86
Posts: 1,345
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps Dutch Roll, but it was the Greens Brown, and Labors Gillard, that set the ball rolling in this country, and doing their best to rein in the Murdoch media, not the ABC, or the Fairfax press, both notoriously left wing Labor supporters.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Brisbane
Age: 77
Posts: 1,406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had never heard of this Internet Brands before, so just did a bit of searching, this is what I found, and I post this with NO personal comment because I do NOT want to be SLAPPed.
(QUOTE)
The company operates two divisions: consumer internet and licensing.
The consumer internet division owns and operates more than 95 websites in seven categories. The company attracts more than 62 million unique visitors per month, with 97% of the audience originating from organic, non-paid sources.[1] [2] The company's strategy is to focus on specific target audiences which tend to be attractive to advertisers.[3] [4][5]
On December 1, 2010, Internet Brands acquired AllLaw.com and AttorneyLocate.com, both originally founded by Arvind A. Raichur.[6]
SEC filings indicate that approximately 70% of the company's revenues are derived from advertising from more than 40,000 accounts—most of them small and medium enterprises.
The company's portfolio of websites include many with social media features: social network services, user generated content, blogs, wikis, and internet forums,[7][8] with over half a million registered users across forums.
Owned websites: Apartment Ratings, CarsDirect, CorvetteForum, Craftster, DoItYourself.com, DVD Talk, EPodunk, FitDay, FlyerTalk, Model Mayhem, Professional Pilots Rumour Network, WAHM (magazine), Wikitravel.
The company was founded in 1998 as CarsDirect.com, launched from the business incubator Idealab. The company invented a consumer-advocacy approach to selling cars "haggle-free" online, an approach it continues to employ.[9] In 2000, Roger Penske invested in the company and joined the Board of Directors. In 2002, Time Magazine voted the site one of the 50 best in the World.[10]
The company changed its name to Internet Brands in 2005.[11] The company's IPO was in November 2007 on the NASDAQ exchange.[12] INET was added to the NASDAQ Internet Index on March 22, 2010. [13]
Internet Brands is headquartered in El Segundo, California; Autodata is headquartered in London, Ontario.
Internet Brands agreed to be acquired for $640 mln by the private equity firm Hellman & Friedman in September 2010.[14] [15]
In October 2009 Internet Brands changed the pricing structure for its vBulletin software, prompting complaints from registered users on the official forums. According to The Register those who complained were then banned from both the forums and from receiving support & updates, despite still having valid licences for the product.[16] Internet Brands defended their position to The Register in a separate article; however a later update to the same article stated that at least some of Internet Brands' claims were false.[17]
In October 2010, Internet Brands announced that it would file a lawsuit against the XenForo team claiming copyright infringement; specifically that code in XenForo was based on vBulletin code, breach of contract, and engaging in unfair business practices.[18]
In November 2010, Internet Brands sued Kier Darby, a lead developer of XenForo, who had previously served as a lead developer for Internet Brands' vBulletin, claiming that Kier had not returned confidential information from Internet Brands regarding the vBulletin software.
The XenForo team has denied the claims.[19]
(ENDQUOTE)
(QUOTE)
The company operates two divisions: consumer internet and licensing.
The consumer internet division owns and operates more than 95 websites in seven categories. The company attracts more than 62 million unique visitors per month, with 97% of the audience originating from organic, non-paid sources.[1] [2] The company's strategy is to focus on specific target audiences which tend to be attractive to advertisers.[3] [4][5]
On December 1, 2010, Internet Brands acquired AllLaw.com and AttorneyLocate.com, both originally founded by Arvind A. Raichur.[6]
SEC filings indicate that approximately 70% of the company's revenues are derived from advertising from more than 40,000 accounts—most of them small and medium enterprises.
The company's portfolio of websites include many with social media features: social network services, user generated content, blogs, wikis, and internet forums,[7][8] with over half a million registered users across forums.
Owned websites: Apartment Ratings, CarsDirect, CorvetteForum, Craftster, DoItYourself.com, DVD Talk, EPodunk, FitDay, FlyerTalk, Model Mayhem, Professional Pilots Rumour Network, WAHM (magazine), Wikitravel.
The company was founded in 1998 as CarsDirect.com, launched from the business incubator Idealab. The company invented a consumer-advocacy approach to selling cars "haggle-free" online, an approach it continues to employ.[9] In 2000, Roger Penske invested in the company and joined the Board of Directors. In 2002, Time Magazine voted the site one of the 50 best in the World.[10]
The company changed its name to Internet Brands in 2005.[11] The company's IPO was in November 2007 on the NASDAQ exchange.[12] INET was added to the NASDAQ Internet Index on March 22, 2010. [13]
Internet Brands is headquartered in El Segundo, California; Autodata is headquartered in London, Ontario.
Internet Brands agreed to be acquired for $640 mln by the private equity firm Hellman & Friedman in September 2010.[14] [15]
In October 2009 Internet Brands changed the pricing structure for its vBulletin software, prompting complaints from registered users on the official forums. According to The Register those who complained were then banned from both the forums and from receiving support & updates, despite still having valid licences for the product.[16] Internet Brands defended their position to The Register in a separate article; however a later update to the same article stated that at least some of Internet Brands' claims were false.[17]
In October 2010, Internet Brands announced that it would file a lawsuit against the XenForo team claiming copyright infringement; specifically that code in XenForo was based on vBulletin code, breach of contract, and engaging in unfair business practices.[18]
In November 2010, Internet Brands sued Kier Darby, a lead developer of XenForo, who had previously served as a lead developer for Internet Brands' vBulletin, claiming that Kier had not returned confidential information from Internet Brands regarding the vBulletin software.
The XenForo team has denied the claims.[19]
(ENDQUOTE)
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: london
Age: 52
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
airsupport,
that was a major victory and as you said 'thank goodness for the Austalian legal system'.
From memory, the company, iinet, was the chosen target for this litigation when it could have been any one (eg telstra, optus etc) because it was a small and relative newcomer to the market. The rationale being that they (iinet) would not have the stomach, nor the resources, for the legal stoush. This would then have let some of the biggest companies known (Disney, Time Warner) throw their weight around by gaining an easy victory and a 'back door' legal route into the Australian market.
that was a major victory and as you said 'thank goodness for the Austalian legal system'.
From memory, the company, iinet, was the chosen target for this litigation when it could have been any one (eg telstra, optus etc) because it was a small and relative newcomer to the market. The rationale being that they (iinet) would not have the stomach, nor the resources, for the legal stoush. This would then have let some of the biggest companies known (Disney, Time Warner) throw their weight around by gaining an easy victory and a 'back door' legal route into the Australian market.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Brisbane
Age: 77
Posts: 1,406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
airsupport,
that was a major victory and as you said 'thank goodness for the Austalian legal system'.
From memory, the company, iinet, was the chosen target for this litigation when it could have been any one (eg telstra, optus etc) because it was a small and relative newcomer to the market. The rationale being that they (iinet) would not have the stomach, nor the resources, for the legal stoush. This would then have let some of the biggest companies known (Disney, Time Warner) throw their weight around by gaining an easy victory and a 'back door' legal route into the Australian market.
that was a major victory and as you said 'thank goodness for the Austalian legal system'.
From memory, the company, iinet, was the chosen target for this litigation when it could have been any one (eg telstra, optus etc) because it was a small and relative newcomer to the market. The rationale being that they (iinet) would not have the stomach, nor the resources, for the legal stoush. This would then have let some of the biggest companies known (Disney, Time Warner) throw their weight around by gaining an easy victory and a 'back door' legal route into the Australian market.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: In the bone yard.
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
teresa, please tell us why Gina Reinhart is intent on controlling the SMH?
I prefer to think that all of our politicians & mining magnates are having the loan of the rest of us and I can put up a contra argument to anything political you might like to post, so to me it's redundant and boring to start discussing politics in a non aviation related sense.
I can agree with you on most of the other more important things you have to say here.
No hard feelings and in the words of Pat Condell... PEACE.
I prefer to think that all of our politicians & mining magnates are having the loan of the rest of us and I can put up a contra argument to anything political you might like to post, so to me it's redundant and boring to start discussing politics in a non aviation related sense.
I can agree with you on most of the other more important things you have to say here.
No hard feelings and in the words of Pat Condell... PEACE.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: gold coast QLD australia
Age: 86
Posts: 1,345
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mcgrath, I have no recollection of Howard ever making the announcement that Brown and Gillard did. Upperlobe, I have no idea why Gina Reinhart wants to have a major interest in the Fairfax press, but I guess she sees a dollar in it. The whole thing is tied up, this stifling of speech. I don't care if its PPrune or the Fairfax press or whoever. We are entering a dangerous space, if a person cannot make a statement of complaint against another person or company without being in fear of some sort of legal action or retribution. To live like that, try China or North Korea, indeed some parts of Russia still. The Australian Media right now is fighting the taking away of the freedom of speech, that has been imposed on us by Brown and Gillard after the British Tabloid was found tapping phones. The only tapping here was done by the Melbourne Age, one of the very papers that support Labor. Both Gillard and Brown saw the Murdoch press to be harming them, it never occurred to them that the electorate, are simply not happy or satisfied with their minority govt. as the polls so eloquently show, and silencing the media is a pointless exercise, and only infuriates the electorate even further. Unless you attack the family, the private life, or accuse any airline staff member of being incompetent, that could cause them to lose their jobs, add to that peoples sexual preferences on this blog, you should have no fear. you live in a democracy, you should be able to exercise your right to free speech, and if you cannot, then we are heading down a path, that leaves little no future for your children or grand children.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 754
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Teresa, the Howard government not only had a widely-renowned obstructionist attitude to FOI laws, but around 2007 demonstrated that it was quite happy to sacrifice freedom of speech and expression using its new security and sedition laws.
And if you don't know why Gina Rinehart is buying up Fairfax shares and demanding a seat on the Board, you haven't been reading The Australian recently (which I'd find very hard to believe).
My point? We all know you have a very meek and mild, almost imperceptible right wing political orientation, but it is clearly not always the "Left" who are attacking free speech or who have attacked it in the past.
And if you don't know why Gina Rinehart is buying up Fairfax shares and demanding a seat on the Board, you haven't been reading The Australian recently (which I'd find very hard to believe).
My point? We all know you have a very meek and mild, almost imperceptible right wing political orientation, but it is clearly not always the "Left" who are attacking free speech or who have attacked it in the past.
Last edited by DutchRoll; 17th Jun 2012 at 23:28.