Legal Research Blog
Facebook is making headlines this week as it introduces the latest version of its social networking platform but today we’re focusing on the gavel that has fallen on a libel case just across the pond. Mathew Firsht and Grant Raphael faced off in court just outside London recently on the grounds that Raphael had created a Facebook page in Firsht’s name in order to damage his reputation. Former school mates, and coworkers at one point, Raphael knew enough about Firsht to create the believable profile and add a few fallacies after a business disagreement. Firsht, who depends heavily on his reputation in his work as a production coordinator of tv audiences, claimed such a profile could severely damage his business and sought monetary compensation for the profile he considered libel. The judge in the case sided with Firsht and chose to overlook Raphael’s rather weak plea that the profile was created by visitors to his apartment without his knowledge. Considering the pairs history, the judge quickly ruled in favor of Mr. Firsht determining he was entitled to close to $35,000 in damages.
False profiles have become common on many social networks and with a rising prevalence of identity theft, the public is faced with the scary thought that you can become whoever you want on the internet with relatively no questions asked. The introduction of the new Facebook means that the many critics of social networks are temporarily appeased. Top executives for the company convinced their audiences that new controls will make the service more user friendly and less likely to leak unwanted information throughout the world wide web. Additional features include opt-in programs for connecting your Facebook profile to outside web pages allowing you to share with friends just what you’re getting into, as well as improved applications through increased regulations on who gets to publish them. For a more detailed look at the Facebook upgrades, check out the New York Times article covering the latest F8 conference.
Taking this case into consideration, it seems that the only feature Facebook is leaving out is a new user screening process to ensure you’re really who you say you are. On the other hand, invasive background checks for a social network? That doesn’t sound too appealing. Then again, neither does a court date.
Did the ABA miss any crucial legal films? Let us know what flicks would make your list in the comments below.
Our spotlight on public domain music this week is focused on Tchaikovsky’s 1812 and Romeo and Juliet overtures. These works are hosted by Musopen, a website dedicated to distributing works that are in the public domain.
(To download the mp3s, right click and select save target as)
With Broadway and movie deals, not to mention all the Flat Stanley swag in the works, one would think Hubert would demand some of the profits that the late Brown’s estate is raking in. Think again. Instead, members of Brown’s family are insisting that Hubert surrender his website, www.flatstanley.com, to the estate without the slightest compensation. The Brown estate believes that those wishing to buy the books, movies and memorabilia are accidentally ending up on Hubert’s site which carries the logical domain name for the project. Hubert’s site offers advice on how to start the project at your school and gives examples of past Flat Stanleys who have already completed their journeys around the globe.