Emt city sued!

[frdude1000]

http://www.ems1.com/legislation-funding/articles/865819-NH-EMS-blogger-hit-with-lawsuit/

Wow, our rival emt city is being sued!!!

 

[Shishkabob]

First, not a rival.

Second, even though that says August 12th, it's old news.

 

[JPINFV]

First, not a rival.

Second, even though that says August 12th, it's old news.

 

[emt seeking first job]

I skimmed the article.

Isnt a blog or forum alowed to copy an article if it is source cited and not passed of as original content for sale or to sell advertising space....?

Anyone can sue anyone, however, ability to collect is a different issue.

 

[ffemt8978]

I skimmed the article.

Isnt a blog or forum alowed to copy an article if it is source cited and not passed of as original content for sale or to sell advertising space....?

Anyone can sue anyone, however, ability to collect is a different issue.

You can only if you have permission from the copyright holder. Otherwise, you may be able to use the "Fair Use" doctrine which is what we go by here. Fair Use states it is generally acceptable to quote small, relevant portions of a copyrighted material with attribution to the source for the purpose of discussion or critique.

Linus was correct in that we don't view EMTCity as our rivals. They are different from us in a variety of way, which some people prefer and some don't.

 

[emt seeking first job]

You can only if you have permission from the copyright holder. Otherwise, you may be able to use the "Fair Use" doctrine which is what we go by here. Fair Use states it is generally acceptable to quote small, relevant portions of a copyrighted material with attribution to the source for the purpose of discussion or critique.

Linus was correct in that we don't view EMTCity as our rivals. They are different from us in a variety of way, which some people prefer and some don't.

I do not think any public safety forum should be competing with another.

If anything, the newpaper will get publicity and more readership...?

This is not a competitive field.

Anyway, is that forum's defense that they were using it for discusion only a/k/a fair use, and the plaintiff wil allege they used too large a portion..?

 

[MMiz]

]I had typed out a long response but was rambling on. To sum it up:

EMTCity is not a rival or competitor, they are an equal who provides a similar forum for EMS discussion. There is nothing to win, nor is there a prize for winning it. We both serve the EMS community.

They have been sued by a firm that was created as a means of fleecing money out of forum, blog, and website owners. No, really, the firm runs searches for copyright violations and then transfer the copyright to their law firm so they can sue. It's an all time low for the law profession.

I support EMTCity in their fight, and wish them all the best.

 

[firetender]

]It's an all time low for the law profession.

Please, don't underestimate their creativity!

 

[medic417]

Much like the lawyers that sue for collections on accts you already paid. They know many will ignore because it is no longer valid. When they fail to fight it a judgement is made against you and then you actually have to pay even though had you fought it would have been dismissed. These are just scams that use loopholes in the laws that the lawyers that are law makers make.

 

[medicRob]

You can only if you have permission from the copyright holder. Otherwise, you may be able to use the "Fair Use" doctrine which is what we go by here. Fair Use states it is generally acceptable to quote small, relevant portions of a copyrighted material with attribution to the source for the purpose of discussion or critique.

Linus was correct in that we don't view EMTCity as our rivals. They are different from us in a variety of way, which some people prefer and some don't.

I do believe I understand your decision for changing my webMD article post a few weeks ago now.

 

[dudemanguy]

Stupid lawyers.

(no offense to emslaw)

 

[jjesusfreak01]

Much like the lawyers that sue for collections on accts you already paid. They know many will ignore because it is no longer valid. When they fail to fight it a judgement is made against you and then you actually have to pay even though had you fought it would have been dismissed. These are just scams that use loopholes in the laws that the lawyers that are law makers make.

And then you countersue for fraud and filing of false evidence with the court. Once the account has been paid, the lawyers have no standing (legal right) to file the suit in the first place.

 

[MrBrown]

At least nobody has caught on and sued me for practicing medicine without a license yet

 

[wolfwyndd]

I realize this is certainly NOT the popular opinion, but the article does kinda imply my point. "It's the old media classing with the new." It's not so much the lawyers that are 'the bad guys' but the CLIENT. See, before a lawyer can sue anyone, they have to have a CLIENT to actually pays them money to file a lawsuit. IN the process of that, the LAWYER is the one who is the 'face' behind the lawsuit. Now, mind you, I'm not saying lawyers are all love and smiles, but they're not ALL bad. There are sleazeball lawyers out there who will DIG UP clients like this. There's a reason why they are called 'ambulance chasers.' And it's a case of the bad apple spoiling the pot. The sleazeballs get more press and publicity then the decent lawyers.

Ok, now that I've espoused my opinion, let me explain why I feel the way I do. I'm married to an attorney who does child law. IE, GAL (guardian ad litem), child support, child custody, etc, etc, etc. Approximately 1/2 my household income comes from the practice of law. Over her career she's done just about every kind of law except criminal (and she's now starting to take some minor misdemeanor cases). We've been together for close to 10 years now and I've helped her study for various states bar exams. There are some attorneys out there who are GOOD lawyers and there are some out there that are really BAD. And that can be said about any profession. There are good EMT's and there are bad ones. There's good teachers and then there are the bad ones. The bad attorneys just seem to get all the press.

 

[akflightmedic]

Umm, you need to read the finer details again.

In this particular situation, the lawyer group scours the internet for copyright violations. When they find them, they then BUY the rights to the article which is being infringed.

They then sue the person who violated the rights which again in this case has been small business owners, bloggers, and individuals.

Instead of sending a cease and desist order which most companies do first as a courtesy, these guys just go ahead and sue. The person being sued is now faced with an out of state lawsuit and looks at the total cost.

The law firm then offers a settlement fee, usually just a couple thousand dollars which pales in comparison to the actual costs should the person fight it.

This law firm was NOT hired by a client, they sought the violations, bought the rights to the violations and then sued.

Kind of reminds me of certain types of people who purchase overdue personal loans so they can pursue the collections themselves in not so legal ways.

 

[Chimpie]

You can only if you have permission from the copyright holder. Otherwise, you may be able to use the "Fair Use" doctrine which is what we go by here. Fair Use states it is generally acceptable to quote small, relevant portions of a copyrighted material with attribution to the source for the purpose of discussion or critique.

I want to expand on this and make further point.

We (EMTLife) have decided that even if a member here has permission to post the full length of an article, we will still enforce our guidelines of two to three paragraphs and a link back to the source/article.

We do this for many reasons, two being, if the author changes his/her mind and for the situation stated in akflightmedic's post.