Star Wars Kid Involving the Dark Side...lawyers.. :-(

[Jason Dunn]

Talk about using the Force in an evil way! The Star Wars Kid is now suing the kids (http://www.waxy.org/archive/2003/05/29/ghyslain.shtml) who digitized and uploaded the tape. This totally sucks. Everyone sues everyone else know.... :evil:

I would have thought that the kid getting almost $4000 US would have been the sweetest revenge possible anyway...

[Jacob]

That is sad news. I really wonder whose idea this was initially..

[Reinaldo]

Not surprised, this is America. (I feel the flames coming)

Probably wanted money for an iPAQ 5455 too. :lol: :twisted:

Seriously, what did you all expect? We are talking about video of a kid published "illegally", then altered. All of this without his permission. Now, how much money will he get? Since he's suing kids, this seems a bit out of hand.

Update #2: In light of the recent events, several people have inquired about refunds. We will be e-mailing everyone that donated shortly to inform them about the recent events and give them the opportunity to request a refund. Any refund request made by midnight PST on Monday, June 2, 2003 will be honored. The remainder of the funds will be used as detailed in the update above.


:| That's sad but not unexpexted since I am thinking of doing the same. Legal action makes me sick. That and the PC Police. :evil:

[Duncan]

Talk about using the Force in an evil way! The Star Wars Kid is now suing the kids who digitized and uploaded the tape. This totally sucks. Everyone sues everyone else know....

I'm not normally one to condone the whole 'who can we sue today' culture BUT... this kid had a private video uploaded without his knowledge, by people who wished to embarass him, and has been subjected to an avalanche of unpleasant, nasty, spiteful comments (most revolving around his weight and how 'sad' he is - which, bearing in mind how many of these comments come from US sources (where a majority of people are overweight according to official statistics) or the 'geek' community (and we should know better), is more than a bit hypocritical...

So... I think the kid and his family are doing right and I wish them well in their action.

Remember if it seemed like harmless fun to you - how would you have felt if half the world had had a chance to see what you do in private and mock you for it?

[Janak Parekh]

Duncan makes some valid points - we don't know the whole story. That said, I agree with Jason to some extent - I have to say I really don't like a lawsuit as a vehicle to "solve" the pain he suffered.

--janak

[Jacob]

Duncan - you make a good point and I think that you're right that he has cause to sue.

I'm just thinking of the previous interview that they posted in which he didn't seem to be pissed, hurt or angry by any means at the modifications or that it was posted. He in fact complimented the job done with the visual enhancements.

[Duncan]

I don't believe that suing will make things better for the kid - but it may just make people think twice before they do something like this to someone else. This stuff happens too often these days.

As for the interview - it seemed fairly clear that he wasn't very aware of what had been happening at that point...

[davidspalding]

Reminds me of the McDonald's coffee burning suit. Now please don't think I'm inviting a mudslinging fest on that -- there's plenty of vitriol about it on pocketpcpassion.com. (Summary. Most people who have an opinion about the case have based their opinion on hearsay rumors about it, not the facts. The facts were not publicized by the mass media very well.)

Why does this remind me of that? We don't know all the facts ... the circumstances ... and @#*), none of us who don't know the "star wars kid" can claim to have any insight into his heart, his mind, his psyche. That's a matter for him, his family, his lawyers. It's hard to have an opinion about this suit without being in on it.

I used to think the Internet was a great community hall. Then AOL joined, and it stank. E-j-mail (spam, UCE) started appearing more and more, and the end of days for e-mail was at hand. (I'm now on my fourth "personal" address in 5 years on my domain.) Then USENET was abused and pillaged and turned into a mosh pit. And it really stank. Then every dot-com con artist with half a brain created an endless array of strip mall web sites selling nothing unique in ways copied from others. And it reeked. Then big media interests woke up, sent cease and desist letters to home grown fan webmasters, decided that "cool sites" would be HTML versions of cable TV, and billboarded the web, and it started to die. Now we have such a dearth of new ideas, that something like the "star wars kid" video is considered "news."

Blech. Can we all go back to bashing Steve Case and Hilary Rosen...?

Curmudgeon

[lurch]

none of us who don't know the "star wars kid" can claim to have any insight into his heart, his mind, his psyche. That's a matter for him, his family, his lawyers.
Since when do lawyers have insight into someone's heart, mind, and psyche? ;)

[andrewlwood]

DavidSpalding, you should publish that post - A potted History of the Web. And all of it spot on. I'm just hoping that over time, the whole thing beds down, becomes less of a novelty and more of a genuine part of peoples' lives, and we can all concentrate on using it constructively.

FWIW, I did think that it was sad that the kid sued - but now I can see his point. How would you feel? This is going to be the most publicity he ever gets - the event that defines him in the public eye - and it's pretty negative. Imagine if it was your kid - you'd be up in arms, I suspect.

The video WAS funny though.

[Jason Dunn]

So... I think the kid and his family are doing right and I wish them well in their action.

Courts of law never make things "all right" in cases like this where no clear law was broken (being mean isn't fair, but it's not a crime), they just make lawyers rich. Winning a settlement against a few teenagers who did something mean won't make the kid feel any better, it will just line the pockets of the legal system. Lawsuits solve nothing.

[andrewlwood]

Hopefully, if a law hasn't been broken, then we'll get a 'not guilty' verdict. But is the distribution without consent of other people's personal videos not against the law? I'd have thought it was (it's illegal to distribute your OWN recordings of telephone conversations without prior consent in many countries).I agree that the States in particular is liturgy-mad - thank god that 'Macdonalds made me fat' case got thrown out - but at the same time, I'd be surprised if it were permissible to distribute other people's media on the net or otherwise

[Crystal Eitle]

I agree that the States in particular is liturgy-mad
Well, we may be litigation-mad, but whether we're liturgy-mad is highly open for debate :D.

(Sorry to pick on you - I just couldn't resist. I do the same kinds of things when I post - then stay up at night worrying about it 8O )

[aroma]

I wonder how the laws will play out since he was using "public" or school owned video equiment and/or recording media. I wonder if he had permission to use the equipment in the first place? If I worked at a TV station, and I snuck onto a set and used the TV stations equipment and record myself, and then left that tape laying around, would I have a valid complaint if the TV station aired what was recorded on their equipment? I agree that we don't know all the facts, but I wonder how some of these issues will play out. It wasn't like he recorded this tape with his own equipment in the privacy of his own home.

[davidspalding]

Very good point. "invasion of privacy?" Nope, done at the school. "Theft of personal property?" Not if it was abandoned in a public place. "Theft of intellectual property?" <stop laughing!> Well, maybe, except that was not protected, not copyrighted, and created with school property.

I suspect that the details of the civil court case will be more laughable than the video. Just my 2¢.

[JackTheTripper]

Not surprised, this is America. (I feel the flames coming)Actually, doesn't he live in Canada? He's French-Canadian I believe.

[Jason Dunn]

Not surprised, this is America. (I feel the flames coming)Actually, doesn't he live in Canada? He's French-Canadian I believe.

Correct. So this isn't an "American" thing, although anecdotal evidence would suggest it happens more often in America than Canada. This would be a sad exception. :|

[trachy]

But is the distribution without consent of other people's personal videos not against the law?

It sure is - just ask Pamela Anderson and Tommy Lee. It took months of litigation, but the defendants were finally order to pay up.

[JackTheTripper]

Here's a question.... Was it his personal video? Or was the video school property?

[Jacob]

But is the distribution without consent of other people's personal videos not against the law?

It sure is - just ask Pamela Anderson and Tommy Lee. It took months of litigation, but the defendants were finally order to pay up.

There are differences in the cases...

In Pam and Tommy Lee's case the tape was stolen from their home (if I remember correctly) and in this case the tape was left at the school.

If the actual tape is the school's tape, then do they own the content?

I know businesses own the contents of any hard drive that an employee stores on it. Does that apply here?

[andrewlwood]

I agree that the States in particular is liturgy-mad
Well, we may be litigation-mad, but whether we're liturgy-mad is highly open for debate :D.

(Sorry to pick on you - I just couldn't resist. I do the same kinds of things when I post - then stay up at night worrying about it 8O )

waaah. crystal, that's the first time I've seen anything approaching a controversial post from you. do you have a case of moderator-rot? :mrgreen:

Actually I was in the states last week - and there are quite a few liturgy-mad people there too :wink:

I've been thinking about it - teh difference would have to be in whether or not the video belonged to the boy himself. If you can take long-lens shots of celebs and post them without permission, then you can video people and do the same. So the question is whether or not it's illegal to use someone else's video, and if so, did the video belong to the boy?

THe more I think about it, the more I suspect not - but I do sort of feel sorry for the kid (because I was a bit of a knob at his age too).

[rhmorrison]

If you can take long-lens shots of celebs and post them without permission, then you can video people and do the same.
I am NOT a lawyer but this is NOT TRUE. People that are in the public eye such as politicians and entertainers lose some of their right to privacy that a normal person normally has a right to have. This is why the photographers can legally take pictures of famous people and for the most part they can do nothing about it. You, howver, as a private person can sue their pants off for invasion of privacy. Only when they overstep the bounds of legality to they get in trouble (such as physically trespassing on their private property) although flying overhead in a helicpoter while breaking the intent of the law "apparrently" does not break the letter of the law.

Who ever said life was fair... You make your choice and have to live with it.

[Kati Compton]

I am NOT a lawyer but this is NOT TRUE. People that are in the public eye such as politicians and entertainers lose some of their right to privacy that a normal person normally has a right to have.
Along this line - if newspapers feature someone in a picture (other than a public figure), don't they have to ask for permission? I seem to remember this being the case, but my memory is starting to develop faults.

BTW - Note that on "Cops" and such, they always blank out the faces of people...

[JackTheTripper]

As far as I know, this is correct. My wife puts on public events for a living and we can take pics of the entertainers and post them on their web site since they were hired to perform therefore giving us permission to market them, but we alway have to make sure any shots of the croud are from the back or we can't use them. If we do take a shot of someone we have to have them sign a form saying we can use the picture.

[hollis_f]

As far as I know, this is correct. My wife puts on public events for a living and we can take pics of the entertainers and post them on their web site since they were hired to perform therefore giving us permission to market them, but we alway have to make sure any shots of the croud are from the back or we can't use them. If we do take a shot of someone we have to have them sign a form saying we can use the picture.And I presume that all the crowds one sees on TV news and sports programmes have signed release papers?

[Kati Compton]

And I presume that all the crowds one sees on TV news and sports programmes have signed release papers?
I think crowds are one thing, but focusing on an individual is another.

[JackTheTripper]

And I presume that all the crowds one sees on TV news and sports programmes have signed release papers?

If you are speaking of crouds in public places, I believe kati may be right. As far as sporting events I believe it's included in the disclosure you find on the back of the ticket along with all the other disclaimers like if you get hit in the head with a ball/puck/250 lbs player, you can't sue. That's why they can zoom in on you and put your face on the JumboTron or whatever you want to call it. Our events are pay at the door, no ticket, just a hand stamp so we can't do that.