I just saw the pop-up this morning, signing in.....
I'm very aware of "frivolous lawsuits" and the costs that can be racked up, however I have to say something
about what is being proposed here.
It makes, little to no sense, for Bleeping Computer (BC) to put up a fight over something like this and wasting
the funds there, when it would be far easier and better to create a new entity (BCII) , sell and absorb the "content" of BC to BCII, and
then make the new site, under BCII and tell Enigma to have a nice day.....
Not that I don't, or we shouldn't donate, but let's not just starting throwing good money after bad....
I would have thought that the operators of BC would have planned for such events, and carried necessary insurance(s) to protect
against such actions.
Did an owner/operator/officer/authorized representative, directly make any comments about Enigma?
This is a "forum" correct? Allows for Discussion and Opinions, right?
Did BC make an concerted effort and/or campaign, against Engima and make unfounded statements, slander, etc..etc..?
I am certain that there are more than likely, more people here, with access to legal resources, who'd be willing to help BC and/or BCII
overcome this for so many reasons, regardless of whether or not they've been "helped by BC".
Of course, from my perspective, I have no idea of the business model/operations of BC, and I could be entirely wrong about this
approach, but it just makes no sense to make a battle over this, and waste those funds when they could be put to better use.
I'm happy to donate to BC, and I have had referrals make donations over the years as well, but I can't really say I'd like to see
my money go into a battle chest for these purposes, i'd rather see what I could do to help get through it or make a better plan.
Let me know if I am completely off base or get me some more information please.
Thank you BC!
(i've since read through (quickly) the lawsuit summary) (editing @ 8:04AM Pacific)
I'm not an attorney, although I've been accused of it many times, and it just seems to me there are some relatively straight
forward conditions here that shouldn't allow this to be a steam roller case for BC.
Again i'm assuming that BC has structured the operations and positions of anyone "representing" BC in such a way which
largely shields BC from liability.
If it hasn't, then in my proposal of BCII, that needs to be addressed.
Newspapers and magazines and I don't know how many other 'editorial outlets' must go through this all the time, and must
have a typical defense, and pre-existing case law, that largely defends against these kinds of actions.
ESG is trying to say that Quietman7 (Q7) is an authorized representative of BC, and that Q7 made those remarks, against
ESG, causing damages, based on mis-information (whether or not that is true is really irrelevant) and is holding BC liable
due to BCs business model/practice of affiliate links, and gaining commissions from the products that BC does "promote".
Again, I have to believe that BC has setup the SITE, with all the necessary statements & waivers where the information contained within
the site to protect BC against this type of action.
If Q7 made statements, beyond his qualifications and/or authority, then there might be some actions to be take against Q7 internally to
BC but not from ESG.
This largely depends on what BC's existence is legally classified as, and to that I can't speak at all.
As I was saying earlier, contributing to a legal battle chest, doesn't seem like the best use of funds.
We should be able to get more legal help, possibly have some well known talent, consider pro bono work, (or at least reduced costs)
and I am sure there are many qualified attorneys and/or firms, which would like to get behind something like this.
I don't know how much of this is "freedom of speech", but there are other angles at play here.
I for now, must get back to work!
Edited by helping hands, 16 February 2016 - 11:17 AM.