Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Saturday, May 03, 2014

Mike Masnick, TechDirt: Last week, we wrote about the unfortunate situation, in which it appeared that a lawyer representing Dina Mackney was claiming copyright on her ex-husband's suicide note (in which he says many unkind things about his ex-wife) and demanding the content be removed. Since then, we've found a lot more of the details of what happened, and discovered a lot of additional content that Mackney's lawyer has been able to remove from the internet with the help of a judge -- who not only gave the ex-wife full control over her ex-husband's "intangible assets" but further directed her to seek to delete all sorts of content from the internet.

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

Tor

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Streisand Effect en.wikipedia.org

#1 | Posted by rearendhat at 2014-05-02 10:36 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

"Last week, we wrote about the unfortunate situation, in which it appeared that a lawyer representing Dina Mackney was claiming copyright on her ex-husband's suicide note...."

Damn, Tor! That is a rats nest legal problem. Good link.
Sully, Moder8? Approach the bench.

#2 | Posted by Diablo at 2014-05-02 10:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

I don't have all the facts but this sounds like a case of losers giving a vengeful x-wife legal power that should never be placed in civilian hands.

Hell I'm not sure if anyone should have that power over another person.

#3 | Posted by Tor at 2014-05-02 11:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

Sully, Moder8? Approach the bench.

Wait, is Sully an attorney/lawyer or is he a jilted ex who created a rat's nest of legal problems?

#4 | Posted by jpw at 2014-05-02 11:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

If he is all three, JPW, we have our expert witness.

#5 | Posted by Diablo at 2014-05-03 02:15 AM | Reply | Flag:

I don't have all the facts but this sounds like a case of losers giving a vengeful x-wife legal power that should never be placed in civilian hands.

If she is his heir, she gets the copyright over anything he wrote online and can remove it. Some sites can fight to keep his contributions, because when you post comments to a site his you're licensing them for reproduction, but most sites would give in to a lawyer's demands. All sites would give in to a court order.

The question I have is why his ex-wife would be his heir. He should have fixed that while he was alive.

#6 | Posted by rcade at 2014-05-03 01:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

The question I have is why his ex-wife would be his heir.

She is acting in the capacity of Administratrix of the Estate. A copy of the order is at the techdirt site. It appears to bear her signature as "mother of minor children and sole beneficiaries." I tried to look further into the court proceedings but apparently VA does not allow access to images of the documents filed in court.

He should have fixed that while he was alive.

Yes, assuming he had a will a divorce may not affect the will depending on state law. Even if state law invalidates a bequest it probably would not invalidate the will appointing her Administratrix. Anyone going through a divorce, or previously divorced, should look into the effect of the divorce on a preexisting will.

In trying to look further into this, I found several nut job sites reporting that the former wife is also a noted jewelry designer. If true, that would provide her motivation to take down disparaging information that may affect her business.

Also, it seems "fair use" should trump any copyright claim but as Rcade noted most would probably not fight it. Question Rcade, would you?

#7 | Posted by et_al at 2014-05-03 03:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

Question Rcade, would you?

Sites like mine rely on the principle that we have an implicit license to reprint all comments posted here. If we rolled over and deleted all of a user's comments, we'd be setting a bad precedent. I'd probably have to fight it.

But if someone died and a family member wanted specific comments removed on personal privacy grounds, I'd evaluate it on a case by case basis.

#8 | Posted by rcade at 2014-05-03 05:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

You guys are missing the forest for the trees:

The second a man stops paying child support is the second society strips him of any appearance of legal or other rights as a citizen.

Don't even need to keep the facade up.

This comes from the Roman Slave Master Guide (translated from the Egyptian one) still used today but the ruling elite.

Men are the outside slaves, women the house ones. Google it.

#9 | Posted by Jeffglobal at 2014-05-04 06:47 AM | Reply | Flag:

The second a man stops paying child support is the second ...

... he's not much of a man any more.

#10 | Posted by rcade at 2014-05-04 08:51 AM | Reply | Flag:

@Rcade

Not so simple, but it's trendy, easy and full of arrogance to think so. Never cloud your mind with facts, gets in the way of policy, right?

Drink you coffee, smoke your legalized weed and watch your country get flushed down the toilet. You didn't notice yet? 20% of ALL families have NO working person in them... How the fk can the unemployment rate be ~6%?

Live the dream, because no matter how long it lasts, you eventually wake up...and what a rude awakening it'll be. Hope I'll be there.

#11 | Posted by Jeffglobal at 2014-05-04 10:23 AM | Reply | Flag:

20% of ALL families have NO working person in them... How the fk can the unemployment rate be ~6%?

It's simple. The unemployment rate most widely relied upon in the U.S. and the world measures people without jobs who have actively looked for one the last four weeks. This is also called the U3 and it is one of six unemployment measurements calculated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Because this has been measured since 1948, we can look at the U3 over time as a metric of how the economy is doing:

portalseven.com

The main reason to look at the U3 or any other unemployment measure is to compare it month-to-month. It doesn't matter that it doesn't count unemployment the way you want it to. Other metrics do.

#12 | Posted by rcade at 2014-05-04 10:42 AM | Reply | Flag:

"History" as we once called it, was based upon actual events of the past. It wasn't up for grabs.

It appears that "History" may mean something different in the future, based upon the actions of corporatist politicians and judges that overly define intellectual property and copyright, and not for the benefit of the general public.

#13 | Posted by Robson at 2014-05-04 11:55 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

#13 | POSTED BY ROBSON - NW

#14 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2014-05-05 10:29 AM | Reply | Flag:

The idea of a court giving complete control of all your intellectual property to another person before you're even dead is chilling.

#15 | Posted by Tor at 2014-05-05 04:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

Advertisement

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2014 World Readable

 

Advertisement

Drudge Retort