Bitcoin Forum

Calling bitcoin 'illegally invented' as in the CBS press release about the "Bitcoin for Dummies" episode of "Good Wife" is a clear defamation and demands a legal action.

Link to the announcement text: http://1.hidemyass.com/ip-4/encoded/Oi8vd3d3LmNic3ByZXNzZXhwcmVzcy5jb20vY2JzLWVudGVydGFpbm1lbnQvcmVsZWFzZXMvdmlldz9pZD0zMDE3Nw%3D%3D&f=norefer

now that's something the EFF might be able to help with.  Creating open source software is not illegal

I understand your position. But looking for accuracy in a TV show is quite a battle. I would not know where to start, and I doubt it would ever end.

Also, I don't think the law recognizes defamation of a computer program.

There are companies that depend on the Bitcoin system - imagine that there was a TV show about someone 'illegally inventing Microsoft Windows'.

I agree, calling "illegal" something that is perfectly legal is defamation. The fact that bitcoin is decentralized doesn't mean they can do whatever they want cause "ahah there is no central organization"

you have a point there.  the script doesn't appear to mention satoshi by name nor bitcoin.  it is only in the title of the episode that the word bitcoin appears.  a reasonable person could confuse the fictional story on tv with the real-world bitcoin currency.  the bitcoin foundation doesn't exist yet -- what to do?

yes - I will join your protest

while secretly being happy since illegal usually implies a certain attraction
for a youth culture to form around it.

it will be great if tv show sparks hot debate ;)

imagine south park doing an episode around bitcoin, how do you think they would portray this community, given their satirical caricature perspective? :)   the bitcoin messiah, the hoard of trolls, darknet gods, alpachas and one dude with big round glasses and squeaky voice shining like a light bulb

Well well, isn't this quite retarded.

Some forum members are butthurt because a fiction TV show called their favorite hobby 'illegal', and their arguement is that businesses who use it should be protected?

There is no one to sue them, and no reason to sue, much less no one to sue in the first place.

Microsoft is a registered company and trademark. Windows is a registered trademark and patent. You want to play with decentralized fire, you should expect to get burned.

If any business owner out there is stupid enough to accept a payment method associated with high amounts of fraud for example, they deserve to reap the rewards of public disapproval. It is very clear to me that very few of the members in this forum, especially in this thread, have ever run a healthy and successful business.

Ha ha - I see you get very ideologicaly frustrated about this idea.  Relax.

Legally it will all depend on many details, and I am not a lawyer - but a protest about it would not do any harm, I can assure you.

LOL ... illegal inventors! That's a new idea, let's make inventions illegal! Better run and hide once you noticed you've had an idea! ::)

On one hand, it's an insult, but on the other media stupidity is increasingly amusing.

+1

Not to mention beware the "Streisand Effect":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

If some yoyo actually filed a lawsuit or went whining to some government agency ( I don't know of one in the U.S. that would actually care or have any jurisdiction in the matter ), half the internet would be competing to see who could most effectively belittle the effort to bloody shreds, cook them until charred black, and then do it again. Wow, I'd like to see that, go for it, somebody, please?  ;)

Remember the movie "Antitrust"?  Of course they never mentioned Microsoft by name, but the "evil" company in the movie is obviously based on Microsoft, and the "evil" founder is obviously supposed to be Bill Gates.

I think he is speaking about fiat money

It's a drama - the show is about legal issues as I understand it. The whole premise of the show is that a lawyer defending Satoshi is required to reveal the details of his client to the Government and has employed another lawyer to defend him. ie the show is about the legality or otherwise of bitcoin. The legality issue is being tested in the narrative.

Even if the show flatout said that Bitcoin was illegal, they would have all the right in the world to do so as an entertainment drama. Can we sue zombie movie producers for saying that you can kill them with shotguns? Can we sue CSI for zooming in infinately on things that have poor quality?

At least it's refreshing to see other people here as apparently bored as I am enough to start a thread like this.

So why do you think they did not use those names?

Big mystery here.

Matthew and Flip Tulipcoin, two of my favorites, in the same thread!  If only they were on opposite sides of the issues - now that would be entertainment gold.

Yeah I agree, but the programme doesn't sound anti-bitcoin - I think these shows always have an anti-government agenda. It's about the little man (Satoshi) fighting the man.

Streisand wanted to hide, not more publicity - that is the difference here.

Point of order: "Windows" is a trademark, not a patent. Microsoft may use software patents to force you to "agree" to the EULA just by using the machine, or force you to pay licensing fees even if you are using a competing OS. However, none of those Patents are called "Windows." They are numbered and have titles like "No. 6,339,780: placing a loading status in the content viewing area of a browser" Source (http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/79179). I would have let it go, but you quoted yourself.

From an "any publicity is good publicity" perspective, percieved defemation may not matter. That bitcoin is so innovative that is must be illegal may be a good thing.

I really have no comment here. I think this TV episode will be great. Not everything illegal is portrayed as bad on TV. And the main character from reading the descriptions, sounds like the good guy while the FBI agent is the bad guy.

@zby go for it, start a petition and post it here.
@matt maybe we should talk soon so I can try to convince you to stop trolling the forums...

You mean commercializing and monetizing code (DOS) that was written and paid for by a client (IBM), without paying them royalties (lost a lawsuit over it), wrapping it in a gui concept that you "borrowed" line for line from somebody else (Apple) without paying for it (lost multiple lawsuits over it), using a name that had already been licensed by another company to describe a gui-interfaced operation system (bought out the company in lieu of losing the lawsuit, changed the name of the operation end to MS-DOS Executive to wait out the legal issues) and then paid off the original copyright holder to avoid yet another lawsuit...

this was NOT "illegally inventing Windows"???

  +1
 I would think this would be your 'average American' tv viewer's sentiment as well. Gov/Fed agencies have gotten a LOT of bad publicity here over recent years.

 Who exactly would you protest? And from a legal standpoint, as Matthew so nicely spelled out. There are no legs for libel or slander, as there is no person or entity to lay claim to Bitcoin. On that idea, I still think there will be an unfortunate need for some sort of International Co-Op in the future to represent Bitcoin's side to the governments. Lest it be left completly up to whatever 'accurate' information would be presented to them by Bitcoins opponents.

Ok, this is getting a tad absurd, really? I mean the average viewer isn't going to care how its worded. If this was some "technology review" then yes of course lets sue them.  This can only help Bitcoin .

On a side note: maybe we should look into "buying out trolls" with bitcoins?  maybe the best ignore button is paying them off ? like set up an "off-site" website where you can register as a troll and agree to some TOS in return you get some bitcents every day/week/month to stay off these boards.

thoughts?

You have little (honest no) chance to win in the US with any suit.

In most states simply stating an incorrect fact isn't sufficient for defamation.
1) You must prove the fact is false.
2) You must prove you suffered a harm (not Bitcoin as some nebulous non-entity but you personally suffered a financial harm recognized by the court).
3) You must prove the entity making the statement had knowledge it was false.

Even in more "normal" situations the deck is stacked against you.  Even if you believe CBS knew the statement was false that doesn't meet the burden required by the law.  You must prove that CBS made an internationally false statement, and that you personally suffered a financial harm as a result. 

The best thing to do is contact the editor (level headed) and indicate your believe the statement is false.  Potentially in some future article/segment they may use alternate language.

That's about it, isn't it? I don't see any more fruitful discussion on the topic, although, I'd wouldn't mind being shown to be wrong here.

Sounds good - professional trolls, properly licensed, annoying people for a living ;D

Reminds me of Discworld's Guild of Thieves who are only allowed to perform a certain number of muggings in a month and must give you a receipt each time.

The one way that could be proved (presented) is showing you lost money in the market, provided Bitcoin loses substantial value directly after the episode first airs, then does it again directly after the first rerun. But if Bitcoin gains value after the airing of the show, sue them anyway using the winfall profits and pay the lawyer in Bitcoin.

Now on to that South Park episode mentioned in this thread.

Cartman = Atlas

FULL STOP: This idea is too good, therefore a new thread is forthcoming in off topic. Stay tuned!

~Bruno~

Correlation isn't causation.  Bitcoin going down and proving that it went down specifically because of the story are two different things.  The rebuttal (well it wouldn't even get in front of a judge/jury) would be a chart of Bitcoin volatility over the last year.  Still proving you suffered a harm is actually the easiest element.  The US has some of the toughest (for the plaintiff) laws when it comes to defamation.  The courts have indicated the burden should be that high to avoid having a chilling effect on free speech. 

I would surprised if a TV show/series not tried to create any drama. :)

There's been a lot of negative stuff about bitcoin in the media, but still
bitcoin is growing. As many would have it; it grows on it's own merit,
and some would say: All PR is good PR.

Bitcoin Southpark
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fErOzTcWixw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TlPo0yCSa4&feature=related

You want to protest that they add the "illegally" word in the introduction? Just wait until you see the show.

I am not a lawyer - maybe a legal action would be really an overkill - but a protest, by a bitcoin relying business, would not cost that much.  The point is that by doing that you do two things

1. you inform the public that bitcoin is not 'invented illegally' - this is the obvious goal

2. you create a great story for journalists to write about - a legal threat or even an 'official' protest gives the story the 'this is important stuff' quality so that it can get into the mainstream press  (some one mentioned the Streisand effect and really - this is what we want - and by the way I am sure that CBS would like it as well - publicity for them is great, legal stuff related even better for that show).

I think it's better with "wouldn't you" as "wooden shoe" :)

I do run a healthy and successful business and I have accepted a payment method associated with high amounts of fraud for years, called EURO, with no public disapproval.

I was smart enough to start accepting BTC a while ago and I have been rewarded with a lot of public approval on the other hand.

Joe

That's great. I was speaking hypothetically.