[MilCom] News: RadioReference receives a Cease and DesistDemandfrom the Civil Air Patrol

[Daryll]

While most of us can agree that CAP does not have much of a legal leg to 
stand on (except, perhaps, the inclusion of the copyrighted CAP logo), 
their counsel knows that sending a threatening letter often has the intended 
effect of bullying the other party into doing what they want, under the 
threat of legal action.  Right or wrong, it takes many $$$ to defend oneself 
and their company from such actions.  So, RR has to decide whether it is 
worth it to stand and fight, with the possibility of some judge ruling 
against them and, possibly, costing 6-figures $$$ in lawyer fees, OR folding 
by complying with the demand.

As the author of 19 radio-related frequency guides, including two on 
monitoring the military, I've been in a similar situation twice.  Both times 
I had my lawyers tell them to shove it, politely.  Never heard from them 
again.  However, every situation is different, and has to be evaluated 
accordingly and the proper action taken.

What's interesting, and predictable, is the viral effect this has had on the 
dissemination of the information the complaining party wanted struck from 
the RR site.  Now, many more people are aware of the information, and while 
it has apparently been struck from the RR site, it is now stored and 
disseminated on many other sites.  IOW, CAP won the battle but lost the war.



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jeremy Patrick" <admin2 at yahoo.com>
To: <milcom at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 5:51 PM
Subject: Re: [MilCom] News: RadioReference receives a Cease and 
DesistDemandfrom the Civil Air Patrol


I did a quick search at that document (or what appears to be the same 
general content) came up on a number of google listings. So... if it is 
publicly available then reposting it on RR makes what difference?
Overall I would be curious on what legal stance they are actually claiming. 
Seems more of a power push but with an unclear reason. The one word that did 
catch my eye was 'commercial' use. Correct me if I'm wrong, but RR content 
doesn't fall under a 'commercial' umbrella right?
Section 5 of the RR terms and conditions even specifies that the user not RR 
is responsible for the posting. But that goes back to the whether the 
posting is actually publicly available.

Would be very curious to see what grounds they are standing on, but also 
don't want Blanton to get caught up in tons of red tape.