PING: All Lawyerly Types... Boycott Hollywood Under Attack

CamEdwards · 05-01-2003, 11:00 AM

Boycott Hollywood has received a cease and desist letter from the William Morris Agency.

Actually, their registar has received the letter, and as a result, it's pulling their account.

Would someone with a legal background visit the site, read the letter and tell me if this is as screwy as it sounds.

mrskippy · 05-01-2003, 11:10 AM

Just wait until The Rutherford Institute hears about this one, as well as just about any other conservative First Amendment group.

digamma · 05-01-2003, 11:48 AM

I briefly perused the site and read the letter, and I must add that this is nowhere near my legal specialty (we transactional types stay away from first amendment issues as much as possible), but depending on the accuracy of what is on the site, I am not sure if it is that screwy. (So, John Galt, Ksyrup, hawglaw or someone else should correct me if I botch anything.)

One thing to keep in mind is that internet speech issues are rapidly developing and expanding on the legal front, so I won't speculate what a court would do if WM sought an injunction to stop the mass e-mailing.

That said, one analogy here is a picketer who demonstrates on the front steps of a company's offices every day, yelling some things that are true and some that aren't true. I seem to remember from some cases I read in law school that companies can get injunctions to stop the behavior in such situations.
Also, I wouldn't be surprised if some of the letters WM gets are not protected speech.

Boycott-Hollywood's real beef seems to be with its hosting service, who is shutting it down maybe before fully discussing the matter with Boycott-Hollywood. WM's letter only asked that it remove WM contact information and names/addresses of its employees, not that the site be taken down. I believe most hosting agreements have clauses that the host can take the site down for inappropriate use, etc. While it is debatable whether this qualifies as such, the host is just covering its arse.

John Galt · 05-01-2003, 06:41 PM

It doesn't sound screwy to me, but maybe it is because I'm used to reading stuff like that. It seems that it is a just basic talk of libel. If the site was publishing stuff that wasn't true about celebrity war stances, then that could be libel. The website could have defenses if it ever came to trial and it would probably be hard to prove damages (though not impossible as the Sean Penn lawsuit shows that at least some believe allegations of being anti-War hurt them economically), but the letter doesn't seem to stretch the law in any real way.

CamEdwards · 05-01-2003, 07:05 PM

John,

I guess I should have explained more earlier, but I was in a hurry. The William Morris thing is annoying, but it's what the domain registar is doing that I question. They've basically suspended the account, and are giving the owner 24-48 hours notice of shutdown. The company has also suspended the owners ability to change any of their admin information, so it's not possible for them to change hosts.

John Galt · 05-01-2003, 07:44 PM

I don't know as much about Internet type property law, but I would imagine this case is like the Frontofficefootball.com switch to FOFcentral.com (which I notice doesn't actually work anymore). Often the host "owns" the content even if they didn't make any of it. I think the issue would revolve around what the hosting contract looked like.

digamma · 05-01-2003, 07:56 PM

I've done a tiny bit of IP transactional work, and some involving web host transferring. As I said above, most of the contracts I've seen have termination clauses for inappropriate use. Often the inapproprate use is defined in an attached "Terms and Conditions of Use" or "Acceptable Use" policy. You can do a quick google search and pull up tons of examples of these. They will bar things like spamming from the site, nudity on the site, running a pyramid scheme on the site etc.
Go to this host's home page and you might even be able to look at their standard contract or terms and conditions of use.
I know a web host has to grant permission for a transfer of hosting services, but I don't know, in what circumstances, the host is able to deny the transfer. This is likely covered in the contract as well.

Samdari · 05-02-2003, 08:15 AM

Isn't what really happened here is that its far cheaper and less hassle for the hosting company to simply drop one customer than to fight this. That company has far more to lose if they fight and lose than they would gain if they fight and won.

05-01-2003, 06:41 PM	#4
John Galt Pro Starter Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: The Internets	It doesn't sound screwy to me, but maybe it is because I'm used to reading stuff like that. It seems that it is a just basic talk of libel. If the site was publishing stuff that wasn't true about celebrity war stances, then that could be libel. The website could have defenses if it ever came to trial and it would probably be hard to prove damages (though not impossible as the Sean Penn lawsuit shows that at least some believe allegations of being anti-War hurt them economically), but the letter doesn't seem to stretch the law in any real way. __________________ I do mind, the Dude minds. This will not stand, ya know, this aggression will not stand, man. - The Dude

05-01-2003, 07:05 PM	#5
CamEdwards Stadium Announcer Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Burke, VA	John, I guess I should have explained more earlier, but I was in a hurry. The William Morris thing is annoying, but it's what the domain registar is doing that I question. They've basically suspended the account, and are giving the owner 24-48 hours notice of shutdown. The company has also suspended the owners ability to change any of their admin information, so it's not possible for them to change hosts. __________________ I don't want the world. I just want your half.

05-01-2003, 07:44 PM	#6
John Galt Pro Starter Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: The Internets	I don't know as much about Internet type property law, but I would imagine this case is like the Frontofficefootball.com switch to FOFcentral.com (which I notice doesn't actually work anymore). Often the host "owns" the content even if they didn't make any of it. I think the issue would revolve around what the hosting contract looked like. __________________ I do mind, the Dude minds. This will not stand, ya know, this aggression will not stand, man. - The Dude

05-02-2003, 08:15 AM	#8
Samdari Roster Filler Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Cicero	Isn't what really happened here is that its far cheaper and less hassle for the hosting company to simply drop one customer than to fight this. That company has far more to lose if they fight and lose than they would gain if they fight and won. __________________ http://www.nateandellie.net Now featuring twice the babies for the same low price!

05-01-2003, 11:10 AM	#2
mrskippy Banned Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: California	Just wait until The Rutherford Institute hears about this one, as well as just about any other conservative First Amendment group.

05-01-2003, 11:48 AM	#3
digamma Torchbearer Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: On Lake Harriet	I briefly perused the site and read the letter, and I must add that this is nowhere near my legal specialty (we transactional types stay away from first amendment issues as much as possible), but depending on the accuracy of what is on the site, I am not sure if it is that screwy. (So, John Galt, Ksyrup, hawglaw or someone else should correct me if I botch anything.) One thing to keep in mind is that internet speech issues are rapidly developing and expanding on the legal front, so I won't speculate what a court would do if WM sought an injunction to stop the mass e-mailing. That said, one analogy here is a picketer who demonstrates on the front steps of a company's offices every day, yelling some things that are true and some that aren't true. I seem to remember from some cases I read in law school that companies can get injunctions to stop the behavior in such situations. Also, I wouldn't be surprised if some of the letters WM gets are not protected speech. Boycott-Hollywood's real beef seems to be with its hosting service, who is shutting it down maybe before fully discussing the matter with Boycott-Hollywood. WM's letter only asked that it remove WM contact information and names/addresses of its employees, not that the site be taken down. I believe most hosting agreements have clauses that the host can take the site down for inappropriate use, etc. While it is debatable whether this qualifies as such, the host is just covering its arse.

05-01-2003, 07:56 PM	#7
digamma Torchbearer Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: On Lake Harriet	I've done a tiny bit of IP transactional work, and some involving web host transferring. As I said above, most of the contracts I've seen have termination clauses for inappropriate use. Often the inapproprate use is defined in an attached "Terms and Conditions of Use" or "Acceptable Use" policy. You can do a quick google search and pull up tons of examples of these. They will bar things like spamming from the site, nudity on the site, running a pyramid scheme on the site etc. Go to this host's home page and you might even be able to look at their standard contract or terms and conditions of use. I know a web host has to grant permission for a transfer of hosting services, but I don't know, in what circumstances, the host is able to deny the transfer. This is likely covered in the contract as well.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)