3 ms·

Don't take this the wrong way, because I really want this to be constructive criticism. But I actually laughed when I started reading the first sentence. You s

Don't take this the wrong way, because I really want this to be constructive criticism. But I actually laughed when I started reading the first sentence. You sound like a law firm fishing for an asbestos-related class action suit. Are you advertising this to everyone or the hacker community? And are you going to try to monetize it? If I could narrow this down - I like the idea, but perhaps improve the "bedside manner" - while it is a serious subject, add some more passion at the least. You sound somber and unengaged about this topic on the website. I really hope that helps. It looks like a good idea. Let's hope you don't run into the same obstacles the Medical Retraction team did recently.

macchina 14y ago
I guess it's a work in progress, but I agree. The sole purpose of the site appears to be: >We may be able to help by putting you in touch with a lawyer who can help prosecute your case. People can generally do this themselves, but if you get enough related claims together, I imagine you could potentially file a class action.
- dylangs1030 14y ago
  Yes, what I'm wondering is whether this is designed as part of larger market research, a call for action, or a standalone startup concept.
joelrunyon 14y ago
That's what it sounds like.
dweekly 14y ago
[nod] To be fair, I am fishing for folks who have been injured by fake DMCA takedowns, and injured monetarily at that. Recent 512(f) cases focus (unduly) on direct economic injury (Rossi v MPAA, Lenz v UMC) so finding claimants who were financially significantly harmed by shitty takedowns are going to be the ones for whom a lawsuit is going to be most likely to succeed. Personally, I'm not trying to monetize it (IANAL), but I'd love to make some lawyers rich suing lame companies who deliberately issue fake takedowns. I was a plaintiff in OPG v Diebold (the first 512f case!) but didn't personally financially benefit even with a six figure judgement. Would love your thoughts on how to reword the copy.
- dylangs1030 14y ago
  I have a few suggestions: 1. Make it more personal. Who are you? Why do you care? Why are you NOT just a suit looking to represent someone and earn an income? 2. Don't ask questions to make your point per se; e.g. instead of "Are you..." & "Have you...", begin with a short description of what your website is. In fact, the last two sentences are the most compelling, not the first two. 3. Show passion. You just described experience with victimization. Translate that into passion and sympathy for other people. You're not a lawyer. But I could have confused you for one. Lawyers are not generally trusted as a identity group - individual lawyers have to prove themselves competent and trustworthy. But before that, they are very often treated with suspicion by the public. That's too much work for you or a startup. You don't have much to go on right this second - secure user trust by playing to emotion with your experience. That's front page worthy. I hope that helps, David.

macchina 14y ago

I guess it's a work in progress, but I agree. The sole purpose of the site appears to be: >We may be able to help by putting you in touch with a lawyer who can help prosecute your case. People can generally do this themselves, but if you get enough related claims together, I imagine you could potentially file a class action.

dylangs1030 14y ago
Yes, what I'm wondering is whether this is designed as part of larger market research, a call for action, or a standalone startup concept.

joelrunyon 14y ago

That's what it sounds like.

dweekly 14y ago

[nod] To be fair, I am fishing for folks who have been injured by fake DMCA takedowns, and injured monetarily at that. Recent 512(f) cases focus (unduly) on direct economic injury (Rossi v MPAA, Lenz v UMC) so finding claimants who were financially significantly harmed by shitty takedowns are going to be the ones for whom a lawsuit is going to be most likely to succeed. Personally, I'm not trying to monetize it (IANAL), but I'd love to make some lawyers rich suing lame companies who deliberately issue fake takedowns. I was a plaintiff in OPG v Diebold (the first 512f case!) but didn't personally financially benefit even with a six figure judgement. Would love your thoughts on how to reword the copy.

dylangs1030 14y ago
I have a few suggestions: 1. Make it more personal. Who are you? Why do you care? Why are you NOT just a suit looking to represent someone and earn an income? 2. Don't ask questions to make your point per se; e.g. instead of "Are you..." & "Have you...", begin with a short description of what your website is. In fact, the last two sentences are the most compelling, not the first two. 3. Show passion. You just described experience with victimization. Translate that into passion and sympathy for other people. You're not a lawyer. But I could have confused you for one. Lawyers are not generally trusted as a identity group - individual lawyers have to prove themselves competent and trustworthy. But before that, they are very often treated with suspicion by the public. That's too much work for you or a startup. You don't have much to go on right this second - secure user trust by playing to emotion with your experience. That's front page worthy. I hope that helps, David.