4 ms·
It is truly worth reading both letters (linked from the article, but: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/us/20100803-wiki-LetterFromLarson.pdf http://gra
by blahedo 16y ago
It is truly worth reading both letters (linked from the article, but: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/us/20100803-wiki-LetterFromLarson.pdf http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/us/20100803-wiki-L... and http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/us/20100803-wiki-LetterToLarson.pdf http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/us/20100803-wiki-L... )---it shows how easily a scary-sounding lawyer letter can be written with... less than strong support from the law it quotes. IANAL and can't say for sure that Wikimedia's argument is sound, but I sure salute them for their, ah, "politely feisty response".
- InclinedPlane 16y agoOne thing that a lot of people don't appreciate about lawyers is that they will almost always try to push people beyond what the law is capable of compelling a person to do. A typical letter from a lawyer will mix in numerous requests (which have no legal basis and are merely things which would be nice for the client) amongst legitimate legal complaints. It is not any lawyer's job (except one you have hired) to precisely define which behaviors of yours they think violate the law. Thus, lawyers use the law as a lever to facilitate much greater benefit to their clients (to the detriment of whomever their client has targetted). This is a major factor why lawyers get paid so much.
- flipbrad 16y agoPeople need to learn to refer the people that write these letters to Arkell v Pressdram http://www.nasw.org/users/nbauman/arkell.htm http://www.nasw.org/users/nbauman/arkell.htm (and I say this, as a trainee lawyer)