No, I wasn't aware of that new business model, but it sure made for a lot of interesting reading. And added a name to my list of people on whom I wouldn't tinkle if they were on fire and would opt, if need be, to relieve myself in my jeans.
I would guess that they're treading carefully lest they sue a publisher (as opposed to a blog author) and find themselves quite hosed. Sideways.
I saw lots of comments thrown back and forth on this issue, but I, along with a commenter who was taken to task for having this same understanding, thought that prior to suing anyone you had to give them a chance to fix the situation and make you whole.
I'd have thought at least a takedown notice would've been required and if it got no results, then you might have a suit, but if it's a publisher type of website and you want to extort about a dozen thousand of their users, good luck on THAT subpoena.
I'll play the "unduly burdensome" card in a heartbeat, usually because something truly is and even if it's the SEC, but sometimes a subpoena ends up next to the Sears catalog in the outhouse because it's a vexatious litigant who's been in my grill way too much so I have to re-read it and... oops! There's a "t" that wasn't crossed. Or the "i" in Gibson has a heart over it rather than a dot.
Bottom-feeders like that don't typically prevail in the end. When it's become apparent that a law is being corrupted for the sake of lining someone's pockets rather than ensuring that the blindfolded chick holding the scales is appeased, a judge somewhere is likely to rule counter to this clown's wishes, and along with it, give an opinion that the law needs some modification again to put people like this out of work.
Note that the above opinions are not necessarily the opinions of Silicon Investor or any of its employees, users, readers, addicts, but are, instead, the opinions of its majority owner and he'll defend these opinions vigorously if need be.
John Doe |
