Lomax v. WikiMedia Foundation, Inc. et al

[Abd]

So how did this guy fund his lawsuit?

It literally just cost $400 because he did all the work himself.

Yes, but I did have some help. I decided to crowd-source commentary, and asked for public comment on the Amended Complaint and then on my Memorandum in Opposition to the WMF Motion to Dismiss. I did get some useful review on the latter, much more on the former. There were a few lawyers who commented, and I paid close attention. I am responsible for whatever I came up with, not anyone who helped. Mendaliv did make some useful comments. His latest shows, however, that he has not understood the case, it's that simple. The WMF does not have Section 130 protection for their own original content, and a public ban notice is that. And there is case law on this "truth is an absolute defense against defamation" trope that the WMF is relying on that Mendaliv does not seem to know. I'm not surprised, most lawyers would not know. and he's not being paid to consider it.

(I.e., the WMF is saying that "it's true he was banned so the announcement was imply telling the truth." But that ignores that a statement includes what the statement will imply to a reasonable reader -- i.e, a WMF ban requires a Very Serious Hazard, and they have carefully investigated --, plus if made with malice, a statement in Massachusetts can be true and still be defamation. Noonan v. Staples, two cases.)

This, for me, is fun, doing something new, having to learn a great deal, and maybe I'll eff it up. So what? The comparison useful for me is not between what I do and what a lawyer might do, but between doing what I'm doing, and doing nothing and whining forever about how unfair it all was. I prefer to stand up for what I believe, but what will actually happen is up to Reality to decide.

I trust Reality. Completely.

[CrowsNest]

As a complete aside, it's worth noting the 'best' Wikipedian, as measured by number of edits, must be pretty darn rich - 35 years old, good government job, lives in his mother's basement, no dependents, and does very little in his spare time except grind the Wikipedia handle.

Wikipedia turned the American dream on its head - you can be rich and a loser.

[Graaf Statler]

[
Graaf has some very extreme ideas about copyright (nobody is agreeing with him), and applies what might be valid about them out of context, over-generalizing and insisting on his interpretations vehemently and with utter and complete certainty.
And almost every other word is "fuck."

Well, the truth is except you no one disagreed me there, but it is not about me.

The truth is that nobody agreed with Graaf on the points Graaf kept repeating over and over when he wasn't just writing "Fuck you!" And when people disagreed, he repeated "fuck you" to them. This is very much about Graaf and his very erratic behavior. And so on, and so on.
.

The interesting fact of Abd is, he lives complete in his only reality, and the vision of Abd is the only right one. No matter if he is overloaded with evidences he is complete wrong. Becaue of course Anbd does NOT respect the Dutch copyright law, he gives his own twist on it. And of course no one has disagreed with me, but Abd thinks if he keeps on repeating something it becomes itself true. Sides of experts, opinions of experts what proof I am complete right, case law, Abd simple doesn't recognise it. The eveidence is never, never good enough in his opnion, his opinion prefers. Always.Abd see his own wrong vision as the only right one.
And of course THAT has been the reason of his SanFanBan, but because he simple doesn't see himself how wrong he is he doesn't understand this. Even loads and lloads of evidences doesn't help. It evaporates, it disappears,

But still he doesn't deserve his name is put on that name and shame list...

[Graaf Statler]

So how did this guy fund his lawsuit? I read somewhere that he's completely broke. Almost penniless.

As I've said elsewhere, a lot of these Wiki obsessives are seriously strapped for cash.

And you believe whatever you read "somewhere"? And repeat it?

I certainly would never write that I am "broke," nor that I am "almost penniless," nor that I am "strapped for cash." None of these are true about me. And so you read garbage written by trolls, as if fact. Good luck with your life, you will need it with habits like that.

I'm also not a "wiki obsessive." I gave up on Wikipedia in 2011, was active on Wikiversity for a time and gave up on that as well, but merely, in 2017, dealt with a case of impersonation-to-defame, because I knew how to handle it, and that stirred up a hornet's nest.

I do have a lot of opinions about Wikipedia, having studied intentional communities for decades and having attempted to support empowerment of the actual community on Wikipedia, but I have up because it was way too far gone, probably not recoverable. And nothing since then has changed that impression.

Indeed, I think Abd doesn't have much money but is doing finet. And it would be real fun if he won and I think he has a good change. He is doing very well with his law case till now I have to say..

[Anyone]

Indeed, I think Abd doesn't have much money.

Yes, you're right. I think he may be down to his last few coppers. But we mustn't mock him.

As you said yourself, there but for the grace of God go I.

[Graaf Statler]

Of course we must not mock Abd. It is a extreem intelligent and friendly man and absolute integer and with many things he claims I complete agree.

And where we disagree I think I can hardly blame Abd for. Because that is about the extreme tricky and complex European copyright what American peeps and other users enter without noticing that themself because of the global CC license. A not official recognised licence what gives not any protection. With content checked by wikiidiots and free loaders.
And it is the same with Euro users, I have noticed often they don't realise themself Wikipedia is based on American Common Law, but they are physical under the European jurisdiction with all it's risks and without any protection.

But can this be a reason to give us a Office Ban and publish our names on a name and shame list under a CC licence? What contains the names of people who did really ugly things and without even giving the reason why we are banned?. And that is where this law case is about. We are amateurs, two old grumbling man who have become behind the wiki curtain best friend. We only disagree about European copyright, that is all, but for the rest not. Yes, about the trinity but in a extreem mild way and has nothing to do with this matter.

And about Greece I will open a other topic in the coming day's and special how I have seen with my own eyes how the country is complete destroyed by money and special by the euro.
Because I have often mentioned I haven't been in Greece for years and my Greece, my realety is a memory most times out of the the eighties and early nineties of the last century.
It was a crazy coincident I came via the blog of Varoufakis in the epic centre of the Euro crisis. I was general writing about long forgotten Dutch professors I remembered out of my youth, Dutch windmills, Greek villages on Apokoronas, real stupide things.

And than, and than. The TV screens included CNN showed us that same Varoufakis on a bike as minister with Athens in flames on the background. Our own blogger Varoufakis.
When he left broke Australia because of his deforce there is a rumour his colleagues have given a party because professor Varoufakis had left. Danae Stratou heeft hem uit de sloot gevist, has saved him and is one of the richest woman of Greece. He was complete unknown and a unimportant prof on the university of Athens. And the blog of Varoufakis what was really noting more than this site before it became hot word news.

So basically I am SanFanBanned for being on the right time on the right place and European copyright. I have to say WMF has weird reasons to sanFanBan peeps. but I absolute have not the energy or the drive Abd has for law causes en ander ongerief.
And also because of there but for the grace of God go I reason, something my mother always said about Germany and World War two.
Because posible/properly we would end up in European criminal law, something we are not looking for. And I use on purpose we, without calling names.

I do have a lot of opinions about Wikipedia, having studied intentional communities for decades and having attempted to support empowerment of the actual community on Wikipedia, but I have up because it was way too far gone, probably not recoverable. And nothing since then has changed that impression.

Here for instance we agree 100%. Nothing can fix WP-Nl anymore, it must start over from the scratch with new peeps and the rest must send to Coventry.

[Abd]

Indeed, I think Abd doesn't have much money.

Yes, you're right. I think he may be down to his last few coppers. But we mustn't mock him.

As you said yourself, there but for the grace of God go I.

I am not down to my "last few coppers." Ten years ago, I went through a divorce, and took on debt to protect my ex-wife, the mother of my two adopted children (out of seven, total). That left me with debts well beyond the actual value of assets, including (and especially) tax debts. But I am not "down to my last few coppers." I was never that broke, but close in 2012 or so, but I gradually set things up to work better. I organized a nonprofit to handle such activities and it was funded and it covers my routine related expenses, such as my internet and hosting expenses. My social security income is adequate for routine expenses. And even though major credit vanished abruptly when things got tight, much of it has come back. If I need to spend a few thousand dollars on something, I can do it. But . . . could I pay that back? I have no intention of ripping credit card companies off. It better be a necessity! And then I'll need to figure out how to raise it. The public supports some activities. So far, support on the lawsuit has paid my expenses, and a little more, but I will have more expenses.

I did take a risk with the filing fee, with the usual suspects claiming I was sooooo foolish to waste that money. They are idiots, not to make too fine a point of it. Their specialty is being a Big Mouth on a Small Web Site, a stagnant corner of the internet.

And thanks for the suggestion that mockery be avoided. Some kinds of mockery are, my view, within rights. But not contempt, which is hatred, the actual enemy of humanity. In person, one would be able to tell the difference. The internet has created an environment where words are divorced from actual human presence, which explains the massive and common deterioration of civility.

[Graaf Statler]

Shit happens. When I met Varoufakis digital on his blog he had not long before met his new wife and had started a new life. His main concern was his daugther he had left with her mother. He came almost broke to Greece and the University of Athens was not exact a promotion.... Although there are a few interesting professors where I wrote articles about in that time . Unfortunately he and his old blog mates like Yannis Glinavos and me lost contact with him, we both wished him a lot of succes and that was that.

If you live on the wild side shit happens, but it is no big deal. At least you have lived, and not spend your live with your head in your ass and a computer like most wikipedians do.

[Abd]

Of course we must not mock Abd. It is a extreem intelligent and friendly man and absolute integer and with many things he claims I complete agree.

And where we disagree I think I can hardly blame Abd for. Because that is about the extreme tricky and complex European copyright what American peeps and other users enter without noticing that themself because of the global CC license. A not official recognised licence what gives not any protection. With content checked by wikiidiots and free loaders.
And it is the same with Euro users, I have noticed often they don't realise themself Wikipedia is based on American Common Law, but they are physical under the European jurisdiction with all it's risks and without any protection.

Graaf, in case people have not noticed, is reactive. It appears to be common that he does not understand what I've written, but imagines that he does, and he disagrees strongly with what he imagines. He is not the only person to do that!

So then he provides reams of arguments and evidence to "prove" that "Abd is wrong." I read the evidence (almost always I read evidence, especially from people who disagree with me) and I agree with everything, or I make comments, such as commentary on that kid who got whacked with a Euro 10,000 compensation, that something was off about that case, but that we didn't have enough information to know, and somehow Graaf interpreted this to mean "You can violate copyright and you are completely safe. Go ahead! La la la!" Which I have never said and don't think.

And I've explicitly written about American law and Graaf seems to think that I am contradicting Dutch law. The rules are different, they vary with jurisdiction, and jurisdiction in a case of internet violations can be complicated. I have pointed out that someone re-using content from Commons, relying on the Commons claim that it's free for commercial use, might be naive and might suffer losses. As Graaf knows, EU law may be moving more toward U.S. practice, which is more balanced, reflecting current internet realities. The actual situation may vary with jurisdiction. I'm in the U.S. and as a nonprofit user, am pretty safe. If I violate, my domain host will get a takendown notice and their normal practice is to pass it on to me, and I'll take it down. If I don't, they will and also risk loss of hosting. They don't like to have to take stuff down, it takes staff time, and I have cheap hosting!

But can this be a reason to give us a Office Ban and publish our names on a name and shame list under a CC licence? What contains the names of people who did really ugly things and without even giving the reason why we are banned?.

And that is where this law case is about. We are amateurs, two old grumbling man who have become behind the wiki curtain best friend. We only disagree about European copyright, that is all, but for the rest not. Yes, about the trinity but in a extreem mild way and has nothing to do with this matter.

If Graaf argued on the wikis as he argued on the Discord server and perhaps here, his ban might indeed have something to do with copyright. However, while the ban list is published under a CC license, that is irrelevant. It is content provided by the Foundation. It is not exempt under Section 130 of the Communications Decency Act. The license under which a libel is released is not relevant to "libel." My ban has absolutely nothing to do with copyright. Copyright will not be mentioned in any court proceedings, I expect. Some of the proceedings, if this goes into discovery, will be confidential, I expect, not to be published. I already have one piece of information that if I published it could lead to a contempt citation. So I won't!!!

If the court wants to keep a fact private -- and they do about some things -- do not fuck with the court! Bad Idea!

As to the trinity, Graaf is assuming, again, that he knows my position and understands it. He does not. I'll just leave it there. This is a theological argument and it is fourteen hundred years old. It has nothing to do with the price of eggs in China.

(by the way, I do not hold back from using Americanisms, or what might be such. As in this case, I will often check to see that one can find an interpretation with Google. In the US, it is "eggs." In the U.K., it is "tea" and that was probably the original expression.)

[Graaf Statler]

This is a theological argument and it is fourteen hundred years old. It has nothing to do with the price of eggs in China.

That is what he thinks.

And for the rest is the best proof of the pudding to eat it, Abd. We will see what the judge has to say, it'ts just a matter of having .......patience.
And not even fourteen hundred years, a few mounts will do.

I think you win on my arguments, but how cares, winning is winning!