November 28, 2001

10:29 PM

PrintCafe sues idiot.Literally. They are suing several individuals who posted anonymous comments on F---edCompany's message boards. So far, all they have are the aliases the comments were posted under, namely "Ex-DLJ", "sucky-me", and "idiot!". Apparently that's all they're going to get, since Pud says here, "FC servers contain no logs ". Also of note is item number 4 on this page of the letter Pud received.
posted by Potsy (8 comments total)

I don't think Pud has anything to worry about, according to a court ruling today in California.

Online board speech may not be subject to libel or slander rules and may be considered free speech.

Also, I doubt that Pud would run a server that didn't log visitor IPs, especially when you could be subject to hack attempts when you're running something like FC. You've got to log IPs, so you can ban people and track malicious behavior. I think he is claiming it so they don't come after him.
posted by mathowie at 10:44 PM on November 28, 2001

Pud's message board logs IP addresses -- it's how he first attempts to ban trolls of the "kill niggers" variety. Both he and the so-called mods have stated time and again, "Yes, we can see your IP address."

The FC message board is nothing but a trolling free-for-all. Trolls hit it with as many anon IP addys as 'Net-savvy lonely guys hit porn sites from the workplace. It'll be interesting to see what CafePress does (if anything).
posted by KLAX at 11:05 PM on November 28, 2001

Oops! I meant "It'll be interesting to see what PrintCafe does (if anything)."
posted by KLAX at 11:07 PM on November 28, 2001

Yep, Pud's server logs IPs. The question is: what does he do with his logs? There IS a limit on how much storage you can get. If he's paying to store old IP logs, I'd have to start thinking he's a fool.
posted by SpecialK at 11:43 PM on November 28, 2001

Oh yeah... and if this doesn't get laughed out of court...
posted by SpecialK at 11:44 PM on November 28, 2001

KLAX, CafePress can now use your post as evidence of trademark dilution and sue PrintCafe for all they're worth. Their name is obviously causing consumer confusion! (Assuming CafePress was registered first.)

Matt, I don't think that California ruling will do any good. For one thing, the suit was filed in Pennsylvania. And for another, Pud isn't even named as a defendant -- he was subpoenaed. Even if they have no leg to stand on when it comes to suing the people who posted those comments, he can still be found in contempt for refusing to turn over the IP logs (which you are probably right about him keeping). If he erases them at any time after receiving the subpoena, or if he lies about keeping them, he can still get into a lot of trouble.
posted by Potsy at 11:48 PM on November 28, 2001

When I read this a few days ago, I was literally laughing so loud my wife wanted to know if I was all right. I can hardly wait for the episode of Law & Order when one of the defense attorneys hits the DAs with a motion to suppress, citing the case of "PrintCafe v. ex-DLJ, SUCKY-ME, and IDIOT!"

This is comic gold.
posted by MAYORBOB at 4:28 AM on November 29, 2001

When the dot-com I was temporarily working for back in 2000 was shut down by its parent, the release hit FC. It included quotes from the outgoing president and CEO. Before the end of the day there were choice entries on the FC message board alleging gay sex and watersports (you know, the sex kind) in the president's (glass-walled, ha) office.

I concluded the posters weren't disgruntled employees, but FC regulars who made a game of this -- because the postings were so vicious and outrageous, yet failed to reflect knowledge of reality.
posted by dhartung at 7:55 AM on November 29, 2001