A VC-funded startup called WhosHere is trying to steal my social network • Hacker News Board

Re: A VC-funded startup called WhosHere is trying to steal my social network

#151

Post by jsprinkles » Fri, Jun 01, 2012, 10:57 PM UTC

guelo wrote: post #137

jsprinkles wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Imagine what HN would be like if only state approved programmers were allowed to have an opinion on technical subjects. Technical subjects do not carry the risk of legal consequences in the general case, now do they?

Sure they do, you can make technical decisions that ruin a company and that causes lawsuits (as many business deaths seem to). You can make technical decisions that get you sued for copyright, patent stuff, privacy violations, indecency laws, on and on. We all make legal decisions every day without having to consult a lawyer all the time.

You skipped right over where I said "in the general case," as I am certainly aware that there are exceptions as you are pointing out. Specific legal advice is almost universally dangerous. Specific technical discussion is almost universally not.

Re: A VC-funded startup called WhosHere is trying to steal my social network

#152

Post by rprasad » Fri, Jun 01, 2012, 10:57 PM UTC

nirvana wrote: post #110

jsprinkles wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are intentionally being disingenuous, now, because you're upset. That's fairly transparent in your reply. Multiple people have told you that you are giving legal advice, and suggested that you stop, and pointed out how I am correct, and yet you're sticking to your guns that I'm a troll. I can't even begin to attack the amount of stupid in this comment, so I'm cutting my losses, adding your name and company mental…

>You are intentionally being disingenuous, now, because you're upset. I think curious is the appropriate word to describe my mental state. HN is populated by people who should be able to think fairly logically-- I would assume more logically than the general population. I understand why you made the false claim originally, and why you have chosen to characterize me in a derogatory fashion at every turn, including thi…

You did give legal advice, dude. Here's some legal advice for you to protect yourself in the future, a disclaimer you can place before you do something similar in the future: "The following [X] is/are not legal advice. It/They is/are intended as background material for use in preparing to knowledgeably discuss the situation with the lawyer who will be representing you in this matter."

I know for a fact that this language is sufficient in the Sixth Circuit. YMMV, but a disclaimer is a very handy way to shield yourself. Jsprinkles may disagree, but I've seen and handled cases in which disclaimers were the only thing saving someone from a ruinous malpractice suit for stuff they posted online (or published).

Re: A VC-funded startup called WhosHere is trying to steal my social network

#153

Post by ColinWright » Fri, Jun 01, 2012, 10:58 PM UTC

jt2190 wrote: post #141

guelo wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you can be regarded by some as taking some of the responsibility for the advice you think you haven't given That sounds bogus to me, has anyone heard of any lawsuits of that type? That is, someone who is not a lawyer and is not presenting themselves as a lawyer being sued for giving bad legal advice?

If I understand correctly, no client-attorney relationship is established just by sharing your opinion of legal matters with someone.[1] (edit: The rules are different if you are an attorney.) (2nd edit: This debate seems to be about whether one can be held legally accountable if someone acts on your naive legal opinions and whether it's a good idea to share your legal opinions when--admit it--you really have no idea…

So if I understand correctly, according to this, nirvana can offer advice without bothering to add any kinds of disclaimers (although he did), and everyone thinks that's completely fine, and can have no possible repercussions.

On the other hand, jsprinkles and I, when we offer comments about our personal experiences, and pass on to nirvana advice that we received from our actual lawyers, we're somehow in the wrong.

Just wanted to be clear. I will now be much more literal about the advice I got from my lawyers and comment no further on these matters.

Re: A VC-funded startup called WhosHere is trying to steal my social network

#154

Post by jsprinkles » Fri, Jun 01, 2012, 11:01 PM UTC

rprasad wrote: post #152

nirvana wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>You are intentionally being disingenuous, now, because you're upset. I think curious is the appropriate word to describe my mental state. HN is populated by people who should be able to think fairly logically-- I would assume more logically than the general population. I understand why you made the false claim originally, and why you have chosen to characterize me in a derogatory fashion at every turn, including thi…

You did give legal advice, dude. Here's some legal advice for you to protect yourself in the future, a disclaimer you can place before you do something similar in the future: "The following [X] is/are not legal advice. It/They is/are intended as background material for use in preparing to knowledgeably discuss the situation with the lawyer who will be representing you in this matter." I know for a fact that this lang…

No, I agree, I just think relying solely upon a disclaimer is dangerous. I certainly respect your take more than my own, though, as you do it for a living, and I'm definitely paying attention.

Re: A VC-funded startup called WhosHere is trying to steal my social network

#155

Post by ColinWright » Fri, Jun 01, 2012, 11:02 PM UTC

rprasad wrote: post #145

ColinWright wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The idea that only lawyers can know anything > about the law, and therefore nobody else can > suggest avenues of investigation is shockingly > elitist. My personal experience is that disclaimers such as you gave have very little legal standing, and that what you said can be regarded as legal advice, regardless of the "if"s, "but"s, "possibly"s, and "maybe"s that you so carefully sprinkled throughout. You certainly…

Disclaimers have legal effect. If you include a disclaimer that you are not providing legal advice, and that your discussion is limited solely to specific issues (and may not include all issues raised by the fact pattern at hand), you will not be liable. That does not mean you cannot be sued; anyone can be sued. But it does mean that you would win any lawsuit against. I am a lawyer. (In my particular field, the magic…

Given that your advice is at odds with advice I have received in the past, I will now make no further attempts to share my experiences in these matters.

Thank you for being clear and specific.

Re: A VC-funded startup called WhosHere is trying to steal my social network

#156

Post by jsprinkles » Fri, Jun 01, 2012, 11:04 PM UTC

ferringham wrote: post #147

cube13 wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>But that's not the issue here. The issue here is whether one can suggest possible legal avenues of investigation that could be used to get a lawyer interested in the case. Here's how you get a lawyer interested in the case: 1. Find the phone number of a lawyer. Contact the EFF, or the local bar association for a lawyer that's listed as knowledgeable with the part of law that you're dealing with(in this case, copyrig…

oh Mr. Very Important and his "this should be the only piece of advice in this thread." A few days ago there was this post #1 on YC News about a guys whose kid had this super-rare genetic disorder. Now, what, this guy should only listen to the Doctors and forget about turning on his own brain? I think that a good lawyer will listen to his Client and appreciate the Client who is interested enough in his case to propos…

That child's doctors personally examined the child, have expertise to deal with the situation, and are aware of any details which are important. A HN commenter has not personally met either party, in most cases is not a lawyer so he does not have expertise to deal with the situation, and most importantly, are only aware of what one party has told them. There is a significant difference.

Re: A VC-funded startup called WhosHere is trying to steal my social network

#157

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Jun 01, 2012, 11:12 PM UTC

ColinWright wrote: post #153

jt2190 wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I understand correctly, no client-attorney relationship is established just by sharing your opinion of legal matters with someone.[1] (edit: The rules are different if you are an attorney.) (2nd edit: This debate seems to be about whether one can be held legally accountable if someone acts on your naive legal opinions and whether it's a good idea to share your legal opinions when--admit it--you really have no idea…

So if I understand correctly, according to this, nirvana can offer advice without bothering to add any kinds of disclaimers (although he did), and everyone thinks that's completely fine, and can have no possible repercussions. On the other hand, jsprinkles and I, when we offer comments about our personal experiences, and pass on to nirvana advice that we received from our actual lawyers, we're somehow in the wrong. J…

[deleted]

Re: A VC-funded startup called WhosHere is trying to steal my social network

#158

Post by jsprinkles » Fri, Jun 01, 2012, 11:18 PM UTC

fijal wrote: post #80

law wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My advise is hire counsel to advise you, educate yourself of self representation and court procedures, and rake these fuckers over the coals. This is terrible advice. Unless you're a duly licensed attorney in OP's jurisdiction, don't offer legal advice. You're practicing law without a license, which is a crime. Moreover, were OP to rely on that advice to his detriment, you may find yourself named as a defendant in…

Can you find some documents under which circumstances this is a crime? I find that you should not do that for money or in court on wikipedia, but I somehow fail to find that "giving advice" or even "drafting legal documents" can be a crime.

Not all legal liabilities arise from crimes.

Re: A VC-funded startup called WhosHere is trying to steal my social network

#159

Post by jsprinkles » Fri, Jun 01, 2012, 11:21 PM UTC

kvnn wrote: post #116

jsprinkles wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You want to completely buy in to one side's story without any context or response from the other side, then start a Kickstarter to fund a legal assault upon that company? Really? Not only are you surprisingly easily manipulated, apparently, don't you have better things to hack on?

Hi. I've decided to completely buy in to the OP's side because there is nothing at stake for me except thinking of a way that this problem could be solved. Having admitted this in the comment you replied to, I thought it'd be obvious enough that I agree I don't know enough about the situation to be an involved party. To the insult: You don't think it would be cool to crowd source a legal case in order to upset the ty…

I apologize for insulting you. That wasn't my intention, and I do see now how it can be interpreted that way.

Re: A VC-funded startup called WhosHere is trying to steal my social network

#160

Post by curiouscats » Fri, Jun 01, 2012, 11:26 PM UTC

I would like to see someone create an plugin that would give a warning if you went to a site that had used obnoxious legal bullying to harras small sites. I realize policing who gets shown on such a list would be a big job.

I would love to have someone reliable do this and then I could chose to just not deal with such sites (or decided well yeah I don't like using lawyers to bullying but I am willing to sell out my principle because this site is so cool I can't live without it).

The way to counter the strategy of paying lawyers lots of money to bully your small competitors is to setup a method that forces those companies to suffer the consequences for their decision. I would be happy to help that process, but I can't keep track of who is doing the bullying.

This type of providing better information so I (and others) can make informed decisions not to use sites with practices I find obnoxious is something I would really love to see. Both for this type of obnoxious behavior but really a platform could support all sorts of notices on whatever people object to (probably using lists from whatever they care about World Wildlife Fund, NRA, EFF or whoever).

I don't think the legal system is going to be reasonable. We need a solution that allows the market to enforce an acceptable code of conduct with consequences for being obnoxious (even if the legal system thinks it is fine).