Talk:Cease and desist

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 January 2020 and 12 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bs31993.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:01, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

External links NPOV

I have added a {{NPOV-section}} to the External links section of this article, because all the links provided have a negative attitude towards cease and desist letters, or are resources for recipients of cease and desist letters. There are many cases in which cease and desist letters are valid and useful; I think there should be some links to websites explaining, for example, how to write a cease and desist letter, and under which circumstances they are appropriate to send. —Psychonaut 12:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this is what you're thinking of, but [1] from the same site as the 1st link involves people (Site users) sending C&Ds, which I don't think they'd have if they thought them to be seriously evil. However I do understand how the section could need at least one other site giving an on-the-level explanation, instead of just complaining about their misuse. 68.39.174.238 21:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that adding the NPOV notice takes about as much effort as going out and correcting the NPOV by finding that link yourself and adding it. I'm not sure that there is a pro-C&D site; I think that the anti-C&D sites are not against the letters themselves, but against their abuse; and it is very hard to have a "pro-abuse of power" Web site on anything. See my point? I'm adding a link to "how to write a C&D letter" and removing NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.129.167.114 (talk • contribs)

"Legal term in the United States"?

I think it should be made clear where this legal term applies. From the links, it is clearly used in the US, but I have never come across it in the UK (where the closest, in England and Wales at least, would presumably be an injunction or court order?). I don't have sufficient expertise to add anything to the article itself, though - help appreciated? Peeper 22:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

13 years later, but it is certainly not the same as an injunction or court order, a breach of which are usually a criminal offense. A judge telling you to do something is a lot different from someone else telling you to do something. 121.200.5.238 (talk) 13:58, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Global Perspective

As Peeper has suggested, geographical variances in how the idea of "cease and desist" is interpreted are important when trying to correctly explain the concept. In the most general terms, cease and desist is typically issued from a court, an officer of the court, or with judicial oversight. I would describe C&D as a universal legal concept, but with different methods to its invocation. With regard to the usage of "C&D letters", the United States has clearly made some exceptions to the idea that the process requires judicial oversight. The copyright lobby successfully petitioned the United States congress for more effective tools to stop infringement of their intellectual property, arguing that current laws were insufficient to respond to the instant nature of the internet. The resulting legislation is known as the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. As the DMCA is the boilerplate legal justification cited when a copyright holder is seeking a swift takedown of allegedly infringing internet activity, it is perhaps better to address the criticism and issues with DMCA abuse on its own article page, since it really is an exception to the standard cease and desist process where courts or law enforcement act as oversight in mediation between private parties or an individual. As such, I'm not sure DMCA specific links are the relevant citations for this article. I would hope to solicit other opinions on the subject before I make any edits to the article page. Sigterm 22:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pleonasm

Should we use the word "pleonasm" somewhere? i.e. "cease and desist" is an example of pleonasm, a rhetorical technique where the two parts of the phrase are synonymous and therefore redundant. Historians argue the source of this to be the assimilation of Anglo and Saxon cultures, where any hearer, no matter his origin, would be sure to have a cognate (and therefore be reasonably expected to understand) either the word "cease" or the word "desist," as all hearers came from countries with a form of cesare or a form of desistere. --Mrcolj (talk) 15:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is worth talking about this double terms together, but I don't think it's a pleonasm. One thing is stop what you are doing; another is give up on you belief that what you were doing is right. The idea is not only cease bus also desist. I think there's a conection, but the double terms made a unique sense. Prss (talk) 13:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible the original intent or understanding was that cease meant to stop now, and desist meant to refrain from doing it again? Cooker (talk) 02:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copied verbatim from other website without reference?

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Cease_and_desist —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nddaveman (talk • contribs) 17:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This link is a mirror (Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks). --Edcolins (talk) 18:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redundancy

Moved from the article. --Edcolins (talk) 20:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cease and desist may be a redundancy or a tautology as they both mean stop. So why use the two words? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.3.64.20 (talk • contribs)

They are not redundant. To "cease" means to stop doing something, and the pertinent meaning of "desist" is to refrain from starting again.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is better to have no information, than to have information with no sources

Information that is not supported by any reference is useless, because not verifiable. The information can be removed and should only be restored with proper references. Verifiability is a core content policy. See WP:UNSOURCED. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. See also:

Wales, Jimmy. "Insist on sources", WikiEN-l, July 19, 2006: "I really want to encourage a much stronger culture which says: it is better to have no information, than to have information like this, with no sources."

--Edcolins (talk) 21:09, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime, I have expanded the article by adding verifiable content based on two reliable sources. --Edcolins (talk) 23:26, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of famous cease and desist letters?

A separate article for a list of famous cease and desist letters?

Wouldn't that be cool? --Diblidabliduu (talk) 11:22, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would be interesting, provided that these cease and desist letters are notable enough, and mentioned in reliable sources. Thanks for the suggestion! --Edcolins (talk) 21:37, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how notable it is, but a west coast sandwich chain known as Ike's Love & Sandwiches received a cease-and-desist letter from KFC over use of the phrase "finger-licking good," as part of a paragraph written on the walls of each restaurant. Their response was to cross out the phrase (but with enough of the letters remaining that you could still tell what it says), photocopy this letter and proudly post it on a wall at each Ike's restaurant. When a new one opens, they photocopy a new one to attach to the wall of that location. They also write the whole paragraph, complete with a crossed-out "finger-licking good," right above the letter. Ron Stoppable (talk) 01:17, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Emuparadise

I'm showing something this article lacked. On 2018, Nintendo sued Emuparadise, thus causing the site to remove all of its ROMs. --LucianoTheWindowsFan (talk) 16:50, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for expansion

The comprehensive description and summary samples in article Legal threat#Cease and desist is a lot better than what is in this article. This article seems to focus on the intellectual property aspect of C&D while excluding all the others. I'm not sure how one would go about copying from one Wikipedia article to another (while preserving edit history or not violating some internal copyright), but I wanted to express here that this article should be expanded beyond the intellectual property rights angle. Platonk (talk) 18:54, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The section "Legal threat#Cease and desist" currently does not cite any source, however. It might be better to independently expand the present article based on reliable sources. --Edcolins (talk) 19:53, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Defamation of character

Cease and desist letter for defamation of character 2601:188:8200:ACF0:4A:954F:F410:9F60 (talk) 05:29, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]