Most recent articles listed first of media & press coverage of the Chan v. Ellis Appeal.
From 2015
Washington Post: Volokh Conspiracy (August 24, 2015)
‘You are also ordered not to post any further information about the [plaintiff]’
Tom Crawford’s Georgia Report (April 8, 2015)
Ga. Supreme Court hands down ‘poetic’ justice in stalking case
Harvard Journal of Law & Technology Digest (April 6, 2015)
Georgia Supreme Court Holds Message Board Comments Are Not Stalking
Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) Deeplinks (April 2, 2015)
Censorship Order That Threatened Websites and Message Boards Overturned
Courthouse News (April 2, 2015)
Georgia Supremes Deal Defeat to ‘The Dash’ Poet
RestrainingOrderAbuse.com (April 2, 2015)
Commentary on Chan v. Ellis, a Restraining Order Appeal Recently Decided by the Georgia Supreme Court
Techdirt (April 1, 2015)
Georgia Supreme Court: No, Writing Mean Things About Copyright Trolling By Linda Ellis Is Not ‘Stalking’
Washington Post: Volokh Conspiracy (March 31, 2015)
Harsh public speech about a person isn’t ‘stalking,’ says Georgia Supreme Court
RestrainingOrderAbuse.com (March 30, 2015)
A Victory for Free Speech: Matthew Chan Prevails in His First Amendment Appeal of a Lifetime Restraining Order
Eric Goldman’s Technology & Marketing Law Blog (March 29, 2015)
GA Supreme Court Fixes Overbroad Injunction Against Message Board Operator–Chan v. Ellis
Columbus Ledger-Enquirer (March 27, 2015)
Georgia Supreme Court overturns stalking order against website owner
Daily Report (March 27, 2015) [Requires Registration to view]
Georgia Justices Toss Stalking Order Against Critic of ‘Dash’ Poet
WXIA 11 Alive (March 27, 2015)
GA Supreme Court rules online criticisms were ‘free speech,’ not cyberstalking
From 2014
Restraining Order Abuse (November 1, 2014)
Criminalizing Criticism: Restraining Orders, the First Amendment, and Chan v. Ellis
Daily Report (October 8, 2014) [Requires Registration to view]
Justices Explore if Internet Speech Can Be Stalking by Alyson M. Palmer
Washington Post: Volokh Conspiracy (September 9, 2014)
Amicus brief in Chan v. Ellis, where a judge ordered a Web site operator to remove all posts about a particular person by Eugene Volokh
Harvard Journal of Law & Technology Digest (July 30, 2014)
Georgia Supreme Court Takes Chan v. Ellis Appeal to Redefine First Amendment Right on the Internet by Yixuan Long
Restraining Order Abuse (July 23, 2014)
A Case of Restraining Order Excess That’s Headed to the Georgia Supreme Court
Ars Technica (July 21, 2014)
GA Supreme Court will consider sweeping gag order against anti-troll site by Joe Mullin
Fight Copyright Trolls (July 17, 2014)
Court of appeals orders Georgia censorship case transferred to Georgia Supreme Court by SJD
From 2013
Digital Medial Law Project (DMLP)
Chan v. Ellis (Last updated November 5, 2013)
Alex Jones’ InfoWars (March 27, 2013)
Court Ruling Threatens Internet First Amendment Freedom. by Kurt Nimmo
Alex Jones’ Prison Planet (March 27, 2013)Court Ruling Threatens Internet First Amendment Freedom. by Kurt Nimmo
Daily Dot (March 27, 2013)
Court hits anti-copyright-troll website with censorship order by Kevin Collier
Ars Technica (March 27, 2013)
“I made some stupid posts”: Anti-troll site gagged after threats against poet by Timothy B. Lee
Techdirt (March 27, 2013)
Georgia State Court Issues Censorship Order Blocking Free Speech On Anti-Copyright Troll Message Board by Mike Masnick
Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) Deeplinks (March 26, 2013)
Georgia Court Censorship Order Threatens Message Boards Everywhere. by Kurt Opsahl
Fight Copyright Trolls (March 23, 2013)
Copyright troll Linda Ellis succeeds in censoring her outspoken critic, the founder of extortionletterinfo.com by SJD
=====
Follow Defiantly on Twitter at http://twitter.com/defiantlynet or the Defiantly Facebook Fan Page at http://facebook.com/defiantly.net. Subscribe by Email to the Defiantly Blog in the Blue Box in the Upper Right Corner.
=====
Abuse of Copyright Law by Copyright Trolls & Bullies
There are two types of people in this world.
1. Those who want to make money by protecting their work legally via copyrights
2. Those who want to share everything freely, openly and without any type of restrictions
I, myself belong to the latter type who loves to get educated (and educate others) via free research in libraries or web. If there’s any copyright which I’d want to display on anything I produce or work, it will go something like this;
(0) PUBLIC DOMAIN. TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE UNDER LAW, MR.ABC HAS WAIVED ALL COPYRIGHT AND RELATED OR NEIGHBORING RIGHTS TO THIS WORK.
My reasoning is simple; For every free input, there should be a free output. However, not everyone will agree as they will come up with a gazillion reasons and logics to make money off of someone’s FREE and public domain information. These money-hogs actually use (or abuse) the copyright law to extort money out of an innocent and a totally naïve researcher via threats to sue in the court of law for the lack of licensing, a modern term of paying to use their information or media. This reminds me of a James Bond movie slogan “License to Kill”. Sometimes, too much law prohibits free spirit of innovation, research or movement of information across different mediums.
To avoid such copyright trolls, you can always include the following information at the appropriate section of a web-page or a book;
1. Title of the media or publication
2. Author’s or Owner’s name
3. Online Link Where found
If you have modified their work in any way (provided their license allows you to do that or you got their permission via mail), you can add the word “DERIVATIVE” or “BASED UPON”.
For example, you need an image of a squirrel in your website or a book. If you use online research tools, you’d see hundreds of images related to squirrel which are licensed by greedy individuals or organizations ready to sue you in the court of law unless you pay their license fee. To filter out such money-hogs, there’s a very useful online tool;
http://search.creativecommons.org/
Checkmark the “use for commercial purposes” and the “modify, adapt, or build upon” boxes. Select the appropriate website where you want to research (Be ware to avoid the ones mentioned below). And enter your search term “Squirrel”. Select the image to extract the reference information as mentioned above before using it.
In the worst-case scenario, if you mistakenly (or innocently) used someone’s licensed work and they request you to take it down, you can request further information to prove they are the actual owners of that particular item. If they cooperate with you nicely and professionally by providing you with the maximum information possible (which is verifiable), you should honor their request to remove their copyrighted work immediately. Otherwise, there’s almost a quarter million dollars fine for using someone’s copyrighted or licensed work without their consent. However, If that individual or organization starts off by threatening to sue you instead of a nice request, you got a copyright troll on your hands.
Unless they provide you all of the information (they may provide you part of it, but not all), simply ignore such threats. If such a troll happens to be an attorney, research about their respective bar association license number and file the complaint with the bar’s administration. You can also file the complaint in the respective State’s Attorney General’s office and FTC as well. Trollish attorneys are usually relentless and use all kinds of legal jargon to prove you as some sort of a criminal in their letters by assuming you are guilty of a deliberate and a willful violation of their client’s copyright or license.
I used to hate the “IGNORE” word. But today, I love it. It pisses the hell out of copyright trolls who are so desperate for our money and attention. There should be a provision to “criminalize” such an abuse of copyright law by trollish organizations, individuals and attorneys. Let’s rally our own Congressmen and Congresswomen to introduce such “Anti-Bullying” and “Anti-Trollish” provisions to the copyright law.