CNN lawyers back down after material misrepresentations?

Summary

Federal-level regulation of attorneys is warranted. More -- Ref. How many more disasters are required before some credible reforms occur? Ref

Here's a hint American Lawyers: Your peers are making you look stupid. There are other countries one can incorporate and start a business. If you would like to continue to command high fees, get your act together. The US Bar is not the only game in town.

The legal non-sense [Ref: Keep this in mind while you read the following]

Ref: Bundling Fighting in Iraq for the right to be intimidated for engaging in comedy at home. Arrogance! Archived. 2001 case; parody, and sample, look and feel standards for parodies.

Diebold, DCMA, and the the MPAA -- are they still dancing? sanctions for abuse:

Diebold, through its use of the DMCA, sought to and did in fact suppress publication of content that is not subject to copyright protection Ref

sending claims of copyright infringement to ISPs when their users are not infringing violates the DMCA's Section 512(f) prohibition on "knowingly materially misrepresent[ing]" infringement Ref

Did the CNN lawyers make a knowing false statement?

ethicalEsq is eloquently on the record stating the belief that the legal profession needs to attend far more to professional responsibility than to public relations, if it wants to increase the reputation of lawyers.Ref

(f) Misrepresentations. - Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents under this section -
(1) that material or activity is infringing, or
(2) that material or activity was removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification, shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys' fees, incurred by the alleged infringer, by any copyright owner or copyright owner's authorized licensee, or by a service provider, who is injured by such misrepresentation, as the result of the service provider relying upon such misrepresentation in removing or disabling access to the material or activity claimed to be infringing, or in replacing the removed material or ceasing to disable access to it. Ref

Prompting the ISP to repost the information -- [See the post by Robert Cox at October 5, 2004 06:38 PM]. Is the corporation abusing the IP-blogger, or is the real issue that the legal community abusing client-investor-owner?

The following appears to be something the CNN's lawyers ignored:

Because Diebold "actually knew, should have known if it acted with reasonable care or diligence, or would have had no substantial doubt had it been acting in good faith, that it was making misrepresentations," it was liable to the OPG and Swarthmore student plaintiffs under 512(f). Ref Original

4 elements

Is there any other argument other than CNN has been harmed is because of CNN's inability to see that is was a joke?

In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include Ref--

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;	Satire, parody, humor
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and	Transformative
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;	A logo's use successfully satirized the media's stupidity
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted	CNN's diminished value is because CNN-lawyers actually took action [a] that appears to violate the very statute they relied upon; [b] against a protected party [c] exercising protected speech

The comments

Here we have another fine example of worthless, arrogant lawyers who need to be disciplined, fired, and sent packing by the client. Who gave these corporations this worthless legal advice--this is such a waste of time, money, and resources.

Thank you all for once again painting a clear picture as to why America is so arrogant to march around the globe "fighting for freedoms," that are not respected, but for threats. Why do people have to be reminded so many times of what is clearly promulgated in the constitution, caselaw, and the freely chosen professional standards in re rules of evidence, perjury, and procedure.

We pay how much to have so low expectations? Your ethics committees are sure letting you down. But what would we expect when attorneys have to be told the obvious. Don't be dumb -- See David's comments in re Shapiro, April 2004. Ref.

Who needs these idiots--we pay these lawyers how much money to act in such a ridiculous, inefficient, and arrogant manner? All this time and energy spent on frivolous things, but meanwhile we've got major accounting issues that need attention, and lawyers continuing to set up offshore vehicles to hide the financial losses. Clearly a misallocation of legal resources in the American economy. I can smell the shorts drooling over this one.

Why isn't the bar association stepping in to provide some clearly needed leadership on intellectual property? You don't think they're asleep at the helm like the AICPA was in re Enron?

Do we really know who writes the blogs?

Some disputes do not have to be taken to court. Why do lawyers have to be monitored so closely, despite their: Training, professional certification, having passed the bar, and being subjected to "sanctions" for violating their professional oaths?

You lawyers are supposed to go to school to learn this stuff, not have a bunch of bloggers reminding you of what you supposedly demonstrated in passing the bar. Do we need to have some better screening of the lawyers who review those bar exam responses?

Have you idiots lost your mind with your ridiculous-waste of time statements, motions -- these absurd e-mails are merely confirmation that the cost of doing business in America is ridiculous -- clients have to spend unreasonable amounts of money preparing to defeat lawyers in malpractice lawsuits. Who would want to start a business in a country with such ridiculousness going on. And you wonder why third world countries are having a hard time. Give me a break!

Wow, state-level regulation not only fails in the accounting industry, but is reasonably doubtful in re the legal industry. How many more ridiculous reasons we need to have some meaningful federal-level statutes regulating the legal community? Lawyers in one state materially impact the financial well-being of investors, clients, and the public not only in other states, but worldwide.

If the public has to "spend this much time" monitoring the "professionals," its time the professionals admit: The public has to provide the oversight, and the "professionals" are not leading, but should get in the back of the bus.

Don't count on the lawyers and discipline-system. Clients, take action. Fire those lawyers, move them out of the way, and keep blogging!