Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Io v. Veoh: Important ruling for sites comprised of 'user-generated content'

eff.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–16 of 16 posts

Re: Io v. Veoh: Important ruling for sites comprised of 'user-generated content'

#11

Post by jrockway »

astrec wrote: post #10
ars wrote: post #8

Take a look at page 16, line 28 in the decision :) Also page 6 line 26. I don't know if judges should really be using wikipedia that way - what if it was vandalized on the day they checked it?

Is "Site complies with law, wins law suit" less of a story than "Judge cites Wikipedia definitions in ruling" ? In this city a high school student who cites Wikipedia without a secondary source gets a (provisional) F. If Wikipedia is an authority sufficient for the judiciary the world really has transitioned from the Britannica era.

I don't think that's particularly important. What an IP address is and what a Flash video are weren't really important to the case. It sounds more like the judge was curious.

If Wikipedia was vandalized and the judge based his ruling on incorrect information, that would be grounds for an appeal, I'm sure.

Wikipedia may not be 100% correct, but I think we all use it as a starting point. A lot of times it is correct, and it gives us the background information we need to understand other sources. Not something I'm going to complain about. (Cue the inevitable responeses -- "I hate the Wikipedia admins", or "I'm so smart I never need to look anything up." Yeah, yeah. Tell someone who cares.)

Re: Io v. Veoh: Important ruling for sites comprised of 'user-generated content'

#12

Post by jrockway »

aston wrote: post #7
MicahWedemeyer wrote: post #6

Just remember: Veoh had the deep pockets necessary to fight this in court and take it all the way to a decision. While that may be the case for larger sites, it's totally different for the small sites. If you can't afford the court costs to defend yourself, you lose as soon as the suit is filed.

Not entirely true. The US runs completely on case law, so having a precedent like Veoh helps you out a lot. People will be less willing to even take you to court if they see that it's likely they'll lose under a similar ruling. And if you do get to court, your burden will basically be to live up to whatever Veoh did.

Not to mention that a judge will usually throw out a case that looks exactly like another one. If you are a small site like Veoh and you get sued, this case will decrease the likelyhood that your case ever goes to trial. (And that's where the expense is.)

Re: Io v. Veoh: Important ruling for sites comprised of 'user-generated content'

#15

Post by SirWart »

JesseAldridge wrote: post #9
ars wrote: post #8

Take a look at page 16, line 28 in the decision :) Also page 6 line 26. I don't know if judges should really be using wikipedia that way - what if it was vandalized on the day they checked it?

The lines in question: "Neither side explained precisely what a Flash file is, but this court understands it to be the name of a file format used to transmit videos over the Internet. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_format ." "The court takes judicial notice of the Wikipedia definition of “IP address” as to the fact that an IP address may be shared by multiple users. This is not a matter that is subject to rea…

I think I need to resolve more arguments with "This is not a matter that is subject to reasonable dispute."

Re: Io v. Veoh: Important ruling for sites comprised of 'user-generated content'

#16

Post by boredguy8 »

astrec wrote: post #10
ars wrote: post #8

Take a look at page 16, line 28 in the decision :) Also page 6 line 26. I don't know if judges should really be using wikipedia that way - what if it was vandalized on the day they checked it?

Is "Site complies with law, wins law suit" less of a story than "Judge cites Wikipedia definitions in ruling" ? In this city a high school student who cites Wikipedia without a secondary source gets a (provisional) F. If Wikipedia is an authority sufficient for the judiciary the world really has transitioned from the Britannica era.

Print encyclopedias are as flawed as Wikipedia in lots of important ways. From an old post of mine in response to an anti-wiki article (http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=111504A)

The article by Robert McHenry misses the point in a phenominal way. In order to demonstrate the flaws of the system, one would need to show where an earlier edition said something to the effect of, "There is a lack of clarity regarding the birth date of Hamilton. While we know his birth month and day, there is some debate over the exact year. Dates vary between 1755 and 1757, but as Hamilton himself used 1757, that will be the date of reference used in this article." was deleted. Had he submitted such a change himself, the article would have been somewhat better.

As for statements of opinion, shall we reject "The New Encyclopedia Britannica" because it says, "Korean artists were generally inferior to the Chinese and Japanese in technical perfection and precision"? I won't even bother to list the host of other errors in that edition on a single topic: Korea. (http://kennedy.byu.edu/staff/peterson/Multivol/Multibooks.ht...)

Anyway, the point is that until one demonstrates that good information is regularly being destroyed by bad information, one has not built a case for the need for change.

Post reply on HN