Huffin & Puffin, then reality

Libel

Libel is the "publication" of a false statement of fact that harms another person’s reputation – for example, saying that "John beat up his roommate" or "Joe doctored a post" if it isn’t true. If a statement doesn’t harm the other person’s reputation – for example, "Joe got an ‘A’ on the test" – it’s not libel even if it’s false. In addition, a statement of pure opinion cannot be libelous – for example, "I don’t like John" – but you can’t turn a statement of fact into an opinion simply by adding "I think" or "in my opinion" to it. "IMHO, Joe infringed my copyright and doctored my post " is still libelous if Joe didn't doctor a post". If you honestly believed that what you said was true, however, you would not be liable if it later turns out that you were wrong.

A libel is "published" whenever it is communicated to a third person. In other words, if you say "Mary doctored, and stole my post and thus is a thief" to anyone other than Mary, you have "published" that libel. That means that almost anything you post or send on the Internet, except an e-mail that you send only to the person about whom you are talking, is "published" for purposes of libel law.

Exactly how copyright law applies to the Internet is still not entirely clear, but there are some rules of thumb:

• You may look at another person’s web page, even though your computer makes a temporary copy when you do so, but you may not redistribute it or incorporate it into your own web page without permission, except as fair use may allow.
• You may quote all or part of another person’s Usenet or listserv message, unless the original message says that copying is prohibited.
• You probably may not copy and redistribute a private e-mail message you have received without the author’s permission, except as fair use may allow.
• You probably may print out a single copy of a web page or of a Usenet, listserv, or private e-mail message for your own, personal, noncommercial use.
• You may not download materials from Lexis-Nexis, the Clarinet news service, or other such services and copy or redistribute them without permission, unless the applicable license agreement expressly permits you to do so or unless your particular use would constitute fair use.
• You may not copy or redistribute software without permission, unless the applicable license agreement expressly permits you to do so.

In summary; if one to infer that a certain post was changed or manipulated in some degree, for the effect of vanity or to save great embarrassment, one would be claiming that certain posts were changed or doctored. The problem with this is that the person who the post was directed to and others received copies of the original post via email sent from the options button before it was deleted and replaced. This makes any inferance that the post was doctored very moot. By suggesting that someone had doctored or manipulated posts is libelous. To claim there is a copyright infringement is also moot as there was no indication that the post or anything in the post was copyrighted.To claim that someone is being defamed is a fool’s argument as all that was posted is fact.

First rule of holes is quit digging, and again some people are very adept at throwing, but seem to have huge problems with catching. Bottom line is there was no attempt to “doctor” or manipulate any post. They were posted then deleted, and can be used anywhere under fair use jurisprudence or current internet case law unless specifically indicated on the post, which of course was not done. You might consider stopping throwing, then you would never have to learn too catch, as it apparent that you can't teach an old dog new tricks....Anything else is just noise my dear.

Copyright ©All Rights Reserved.