Friday, May 18, 2007

How to protect bloggers via "terms of use"

I have been thinking about how to protect bloggers from the bad people who might want to hurt them, and have come up with this as a "terms of use". The idea is that if you post this on the blog, that anyone by reading the blog accepts the "terms of use", and one of the terms of use is that the user is responsible for any damages that their discovery and disclosure of the identity of the author might cause. Along the lines of:

Terms of use: This creative content is offered for the use of user under a creative commons share and share alike non-commercial with attribution license, provided that the user does not use the content to identify the author or individuals mentioned in the creative work. If the user does use the content to identify the author, and/or individuals mentioned in the creative work, and discloses that identity to a third party, the user accepts that user is solely responsible for any and all consequential damages to the user, the author, individuals mentioned, the third party, and any other party who may be damaged as a consequence of disclosure by the user of the identity of author or mentioned individual to a third party. Damages may include (but are not limited to) lawyers fees, lost work, pain and suffering. User further agrees that compensatory damages will be tripled and added as punitive damages.

By continued use of the content, user accepts and acknowledges that user is solely responsible for any and all consequential damages to the user, the author, individuals mentioned, the third party, and any other party who may be damaged as a consequence of the disclosure by the user of the identity of author to a third party. Damages may include (but are not limited to) lawyers fees, lost work, pain and suffering. User further agrees that compensatory damages will be tripled and added as punitive damages.

For the purposes of this agreement, the identity of author and individuals mentioned are considered a derivative work.

All derivative works must contain these same terms of use and any user of the derivative works must accept and acknowledge that user is solely responsible for any and all consequential damages to the user, the author, individuals mentioned, the third party, and any other party who may be damaged as a consequence of the disclosure by the user of the identity of author or individual mentioned to a third party. Damages may include (but are not limited to) lawyers fees, lost work, pain and suffering. User further agrees that compensatory damages will be tripled and added as punitive damages.

A verbal derivative work, that is, a verbal description of the creative work must also contain these same terms of use and any user of the oral derivative work must accept and acknowledge that user is solely responsible for any and all consequential damages to the user, the author, individuals mentioned, the third party, and any other party who may be damaged as a consequence of the disclosure by the user of the identity of author or individual mentioned to a third party. Damages may include (but are not limited to) lawyers fees, lost work, pain and suffering. User further agrees that compensatory damages will be tripled and added as punitive damages.


How much "protection" does this actually supply? If people are honorable and follow these terms of use, the identity of the bloggers or people blogged about should never become known. If it does become known from someone reading the blog, then who ever discloses it becomes liable for any damages. In any case, using these terms of use, does demonstrate a good faith effort to keep the content of the blog from being associated with any particular patient.

Could an anonymous user disclose the identity? Maybe, but to verify that the blog says what the anonymous user says it does, one has to become a user and then becomes bound by the non-identity disclosure provisions. If the blog is not checked, then the claim of identity is simply unverified hearsay by an anonymous source. Not enough evidence to base any damages on.

Can a user even testify about it? Perhaps, but then the oral version is a derivative work, and so people who hear the testimony about it are bound by the terms of use too.

When would it not hold? If the creative work were somehow illegal, threatening, or something that did need to be brought to the attention of authorities, perhaps the terms of use would not be enforceable.

11 comments:

Moof said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Fore Sam said...

Do you have any idea how stupid you make yourself look by claiming that chelation is dangerous? I expect this nonsense out of Autism Diva and some other simple minded people. I thought you were a little more intelligent than that.

daedalus2u said...

John, before you show us just how stupid you are, you should read something besides the drivel the quacks you follow make up. Chelating with DMSA causes learning disabilities, in the absence of heavy metal poisoning. Don't believe me, read the paper. DSMA by itself causes learning disabilities. It is very sad, that your child now has the burden of DMSA chelation damage too. I find it very sad. I don't have the heart to gloat over your misfortune. I see that the chief quack has now abandoned the "autism equals mercury poisoning" line, and is quickly adding other bells and whistles while he hides what he has been saying with smoke and mirrors.

In a few days there will be another hearing in the autism omnibus trial. Looks like they are having a hard time proving that mercury has anything to do with mercury, but that idea was disproven a long time ago it isn't a surprise that they can't "prove" something that isn't true.

Fore Sam said...

DMSA chelation in rats is not the same as in humans. When chelating humans, anyone who knows what they're doing also uses ALA. I think you'll have a tough time convincing the parents of kids who've already been cured that this idiotic paper is worth anything.

daedalus2u said...

No John, anyone who knows what they are doing doesn't do chelation without finding toxic levels of heavy metals before starting treatment.

It is suspected that the effects on learning of DMSA are due to depletion of essential metals such as Cu, Zn, Fe, Mn, Se, or perhaps something else. By what mechanism is ALA supposed to prevent depletion of essential metals?

If you son has been "cured", why are you wasting your time hanging out reading blogs about autism? Your son was "cured", wasn't he? Your son has "no symptoms" of autism now, right?

Fore Sam said...

Braindead, We know that chelation also removes other "good" metals. That's why we use supplements.
My son's a lot better off than he was which is more than I can say for nitwits who think it's a good idea to leave the mercury in the kids' brain.

daedalus2u said...

Oh, so he is not "cured".

By what method was the mercury in his brain measured?

Matt said...

It won't hold up, and really, why should it? If it's your statement and you believe it, why would you run from it when confronted? If you don't believe it, why not say so?

kristina said...

Hi daedalus2u---I have tagged you:

http://www.autismvox.com/8-random-things/

Regards

mcewen said...

Come along now, time for an update - stop all this Summer holiday business! [down time]
Best wishes

daedalus2u said...

Actually, I haven't taken a single day off in months. I even worked July 4th.

I have been working on a blog on infanticide, to explain the physiology behind the tragic murder of Katie McCarron by her mother Dr. Karen McCarron.