Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 32 of 32
  1. #21  
    we have a number of misleading thread titles.
  2. #22  
    Quote Originally Posted by Ebag333 View Post
    Does this mean we can nix the title of the thread then, which is very misleading?
    I think it should not be changed and that information from various sources and viewpoints has been presented. Someone could say that possibly PhoneNews.com received bad information. I think people are capable enough to read the various comments and decide for themselves.

    I mean, there are other threads for which their veracity has been disputed.

    I find it very interesting that this particular thread has been targeted for a suggested title change, when there are so many threads often posted on this message board, that are disputed or even at times found to be false or even misleading.

    And no need stopping at thread titles. Perhaps the moderators should start editing everyone's posts and changing everything they personally feel is untrue?
  3. #23  
    I agree. This one needs to change for now. At least take Sprint out of the title since GSM does have it.
  4. #24  
    And of course what some don't realize, is the moment the moderators start editing threads for how "true" they find the content to be, TC will then become LIABLE for anything they miss.

    At the moment, Dieter can legally claim that Nsxprime spoke for himself and the site takes no action over the statements of others regarding how factual the statements may or may not be. But once this site starts editing comments based on how factual they are, TC assumes legal liability to only have factual information posted. And a every single miss will be lawsuit bait.
  5. #25  
    Quote Originally Posted by darnell View Post
    And of course what some don't realize, is the moment the moderators start editing threads for how "true" they find the content to be, TC will then become LIABLE for anything they miss.

    At the moment, Dieter can legally claim that Nsxprime spoke for himself and the site takes no action over the statements of others regarding how factual the statements may or may not be. But once this site starts editing comments based on how factual they are, TC assumes legal liability to only have factual information posted. And a every single miss will be lawsuit bait.
    What a screwed up world we live in these days!!!!! You are probably 100% accurate with those facts. I wish I was born at least 30 years earlier... but then I'd be knocking on Death's door. LOL.
  6. #26  
    Quote Originally Posted by darnell View Post
    And of course what some don't realize, is the moment the moderators start editing threads for how "true" they find the content to be, TC will then become LIABLE for anything they miss.

    At the moment, Dieter can legally claim that Nsxprime spoke for himself and the site takes no action over the statements of others regarding how factual the statements may or may not be. But once this site starts editing comments based on how factual they are, TC assumes legal liability to only have factual information posted. And a every single miss will be lawsuit bait.
    If that were true the Dieter and Co would be liable for any moderation they do.

    They can leave it up as is and be protected by safe harbor laws written up in the DMCA. The same thing is true if they edit his post but leave something else up.

    Your statements are incorrect, and this is something that has been held up in court many a time.

    You may want to do more research on the DMCA and how it applies not only to ISP's but to all sites (including TC and WMExperts).

    Long story short? They can be held responsible for what they put up. They cannot be held responsible for what you (or anyone else) puts up. That's the core of the safe harbor provisions in the DMCA.
  7. #27  
    I get the feeling Ebag333 is a lawyer or in the field

    Both arguements sound legit to me but Ebag333 seems to have the terminology down.
    Last edited by KJKRAMER; 01/31/2009 at 11:38 PM.
  8. #28  
    Quote Originally Posted by KJKRAMER View Post
    I get the feeling Ebag333 is a lawyer or in the field

    Both arguements sound legit to me but Ebag333 seems to have the terminology down.
    Wish I was a lawyer. Would have a lot more money.

    I read, a lot. And one of the blogs I regularly subscribe to talks about the various cases that get picked up regarding the DMCA and how that all applies.

    There's a lot not to like about the DMCA (such as the Anti-circumvention crap), but the safe harbor provisions aren't one of them.

    One of the more interesting articles on the safe harbor part of the DMCA talks exactly about this. But you can read it for yourself.
  9. #29  
    That didn't take long to read did it? LOL. You just never really know in this crazy world though. There have been too many "too hot coffee" lawsuits. I do know my TP can do simultaneous voice and data!! ...... getting back on topic for the rest of you
  10. #30  
    And what would it prove if you are 100% right Ebag333? It would only prove that there is no compelling reason to change the thread's title. Again, Nsxprime's statement is his own and safe harbor only ensures that legally the liability falls to Nsxprime. Nsxprime only provided statements based on already published reports. So there is no reason to change anything.

    Again, if it's about going and changing statements, there's a whole lot more in these forums that needs to be changed.
  11. #31  
    ..........Still think it could be changed since it is currently not true and we have no difinitive proof it ever will be true............ correct?
  12. #32  
    Or we could just let the Thread Die.. :-/

    Topic was Exausted - <Closed>
    Last edited by berdinkerdickle; 02/01/2009 at 12:12 AM.
    Just call me Berd.
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions