Legal question about liability

ScottM

ScottM

Taxi to Parking
Joined
Jul 19, 2005
Messages
42,530
Location
Variable, but somewhere on earth
Display Name
Display name:
iBazinga!
In the discusions about Troy Martin (This is not another Troy thread BTW) something got me thinking about websites being held responsible for the content on them. Since we have a few attorneys on this site. I thought I would ask. I will also ask the attorneys I have to spend most of tomorrow with about a couple of press related issues for work.

Chuck mention his concern about liability in regards to statements made that could have been damaging to a company. He invoked Wolk vs AvWeb. Which if you remember is when Arthur Wolk filed suit against AvWeb and a few individuals that had posted, inflametory statements about him. This suit was setttled but the implication was that AvWeb was somehow responsible to the content that was posted on their site.

To follow through with this thought. If a person, a forum user to be exact, where to post a libelous statement about another person on a host's website. Then the agrieved peson files suit against the web site and the poster he may be able to get a judgement form both.

But in the mean time those web site slurpers and robots have picked up the post and stored in places that archive old web sites or make topics available for look up. Could they also be held responsible for the content on their site as the original site the info was posted on? After all what has the slurper site done to ensure that no inflamitory or libeloous speech is on their site? Are they not equalling cupable as the host site?
 
Last edited:
Re: Legal ion about liability

smigaldi said:
In the discusions about Troy Martin (This is not another Troy thread BTW) something got me thinking about websites being held responsible for the content on them. Since we have a few attorneys on this site. I thought I would ask. I will also ask the attorneys I have to spend most of tomorrow with about a couple of press related issues for work.

Chuck mention his concern about liability in regards to statements made that could have been damaging to a company. He invoked Wolk vs AvWeb. Which if you remember is when Arthur Wolk filed suit against AvWeb and a few individuals that had posted, inflametory statements about him. This suit was setttled but the implication was that AvWeb was somehow responsible to the content that was posted on their site.

To follow through with this thought. If a person, a forum user to be exact, where to post a libelous statement about another person on a host's website. Then the agrieved peson files suit against the web site and the poster he may be able to get a judgement form both.

But in the mean time those web site slurpers and robots have picked up the post and stored in places that archive old web sites or make topics available for look up. Could they also be held responsible for the content on their site as the original site the info was posted on? After all what has the slurper site done to ensure that no inflamitory or libeloous speech is on their site? Are they not equalling cupable as the host site?
Click to expand...

SomethingAwful.com faces lawsuit threats all the time. Not a single one has concerned them, even the one from the State of NY. Methinks AvWeb did something beautifully stupid to be held at fault, or they caved too soon. Either way, as I'm not a lawyer, I have to go say that from what I've seen, no, no one will be in fear of liability as long as things are done in either Parody or are truth.
 
I'm 18 and have nothing to lose. Sue me.
 
jangell said:
I'm 18 and have nothing to lose. Sue me.
Click to expand...
Damages may be collected from future earnings. You want to have folks dunning the income you haven't earned yet? Not a fun situation -- plays hob with your credit rating, too, and you can't declare bankruptcy to beat it.
 
jangell said:
I'm 18 and have nothing to lose. Sue me.
Click to expand...

First. I am not an attorney and have not stayed in a Holiday Inn recently.
I am basing my remarks on events that happened to a friend of mine several years ago.

Perhaps at the moment. you are "judgement proof". You are staking your future on that mindset. If someone were to win a jusgement, and 5 years from now you have obtained real property, the past could come back and haunt you.
This could effect your credit rating as well.
edit: looks like ron and I were typing the (basicly) same thing at the same time
 
Last edited:
I am about to become more familiar with the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act (OCILLA), 17 U.S.C. Sec. 512.
 
Re: Legal ion about liability

SkyHog said:
Methinks AvWeb did something beautifully stupid to be held at fault, or they caved too soon.
Click to expand...
AvWeb was never found liable in court, but they spent six figures on lawyers to defend themselves before they gave in and came to a settlement. On the other side, Wolk is a trial lawyer with a whole legal staff on salary. PoA and its management council can't afford a fight like that, so we will learn from AvWeb's experience and keep a rein on negative comments that don't advance the cause of the enjoyment of flying and the e-company of those who fly, which is what we came together for in the first place.
 
Ron Levy said:
Damages may be collected from future earnings. You want to have folks dunning the income you haven't earned yet? Not a fun situation -- plays hob with your credit rating, too, and you can't declare bankruptcy to beat it.
Click to expand...
You'd have to actually have a case to do that.

One thing I cannot STAND are people who run around threatening to sue everyone. I understand some people are not willing to take the risk. There is a point though where someone has to stand up.
 
Re: Legal ion about liability

Ron Levy said:
AvWeb was never found liable in court, but they spent six figures on lawyers to defend themselves before they gave in and came to a settlement. On the other side, Wolk is a trial lawyer with a whole legal staff on salary. PoA and its management council can't afford a fight like that, so we will learn from AvWeb's experience and keep a rein on negative comments that don't advance the cause of the enjoyment of flying and the e-company of those who fly, which is what we came together for in the first place.
Click to expand...

In that case, AvWeb did something stupid. They retained a lawyer. They should have responded with a "Oh yeah, do it" and seen what happened.

There's a reason it didn't go to court, and it has nothing to do with Wolk being right.

What's happening here, is people are giving in to the bully, and this makes the bully stronger.
 
I used to work as a Court administrator for a Municipal court in Ohio for a couple years. I saw my share of frivolous law suits.

One thing most people don't totally understand is that they have to prove damages (monetary) in order to win money in court. You just can't sue becasue someone said something bad about you and you think it hurt you. You must PROVE the actual damage. They would also have to be slanderous damages. This means they have to be UNTRUE statements. In the case of Martin Aviation Group, it will be tough to prove anything, especially when they are not actually an operating business, but merely a hope and dream in Troy's head. Now if he was in business with students and he could prove that because of statements made here (Or anywhere) were untrue and caused him to lose students (i.e. Money) then he could sue and win.

Anyone who has seen Troy's website knows he has a lot of hot air and way to much time in between selling his vacuum cleaners (yes, that’s what he does!) to blow this hot air around. (Hence the Martin Hot air blimp graphic I made awhile back!)
 
cherokeeflyboy said:
First. I am not an attorney and have not stayed in a Holiday Inn recently.
I am basing my remarks on events that happened to a friend of mine several years ago.

Perhaps at the moment. you are "judgement proof". You are staking your future on that mindset. If someone were to win a jusgement, and 5 years from now you have obtained real property, the past could come back and haunt you.
This could effect your credit rating as well.
edit: looks like ron and I were typing the (basicly) same thing at the same time
Click to expand...

So basically - the guy with lots of money and lots of lawyers on staff can blackmail the little guy into shutting up. Pretty much amounts to extortion with menaces...

Ahh...so glad we live in a civilised country.
 
not my specialty, but my gut reaction is "where is the intent". if I understand you correctly, this "slurper" is indiscriminate and picks up everything - it's a machine. it isn't directing anything at that particular person, it's just collecting data. this isn't to say an attorney for someone isn't going to go after everyone he can think of.

my un-formed thought (not sure if this is a good analogy but it does come to mind) is - let's say a cop stops everyone at a certain checkpoint (or random folks) versus targeting only African Americans. He can't be accused of discrimination then can he?
 
ps. I agree re: making folks holler uncle. Sadly that happens - file a suit and it will make someone cave. I think it's disgusting personally.
 
There is settled case law that limits the liability of a website operator in the case of liable or defamation involving a posting by a member. However, there is often substantial cost to defend against allegations. SOme members of the legal community count on those defense costs to derive a settlement.

From another standpoint, I've never quite understood what a poster accomplishes by posting defaming or libelous information on a site like this (other than to make themselves look lik an a**).
 
wsuffa said:
From another standpoint, I've never quite understood what a poster accomplishes by posting defaming or libelous information on a site like this (other than to make themselves look lik an a**).
Click to expand...
Also, keep in mind that you cannot defame or libel a COMPANY, only an individual. So saying "the guy who runs XYZ Co. is an idiot" is libelous unless the guy actually IS an idiot, while "XYZ Co's method is idiotic" is not.
 
jangell said:
You'd have to actually have a case to do that.

One thing I cannot STAND are people who run around threatening to sue everyone. I understand some people are not willing to take the risk. There is a point though where someone has to stand up.
Click to expand...

In some regards, there is a brilliant manuever in the simplicity of this defense. Let's face it, if someone (e.g. MAG) came after Jesse they'd have to either: a) know they have a case which they can win (IMHO not the circumstance with Mr. Martin, who clearly capitalized on his 15 minutes of infamy and therefore falls within the 'fair comment' doctrinal defense); or b) not care if they can win or not, because the defendant can't or won't pay to mount a defense.

By saying, 'I'm judgment proof, so sue me', you attack (b) on two fronts. First, it shows you know that a judgment, IF the plaintiff can get one, is of limited current value (and therefore affects the validity of trying the case), and secondly, it displays a certain willingness to fight the fight and not be cowtowed into settling. The hardest defendents are the ones who show up, but don't care and don't participate. Try pushing a rope sometime, you'll have better luck.

Perhaps MAG will go after a poster, but as my mentor told me long ago, all plaintiffs are brash until the first bill comes to them. I don't believe that group has that much courage in their convictions, so much so that I happily added my thoughts to the anti-MAG thread.
 
Last edited:
jangell said:
You'd have to actually have a case to do that.

One thing I cannot STAND are people who run around threatening to sue everyone. I understand some people are not willing to take the risk. There is a point though where someone has to stand up.
Click to expand...

Jesse, where did you get the photo of Troy on the ground and cuffed? Was there a copyright on this photo? If so, you can be held responsible for using the photo to defame. Is this fight worth fighting?
 
flyifrvfr said:
Jesse, where did you get the photo of Troy on the ground and cuffed? Was there a copyright on this photo? If so, you can be held responsible for using the photo to defame. Is this fight worth fighting?
Click to expand...

Nonsense, one (copyright law) has nothing to do with the other (defamation.) Which, by the way, in this country, not only requires the proving of damages which can be made whole by a monetary judgement, but that the libel or slander involve "reckless disregard" for the truth or malice.

Was he handcuffed after landing? Yes. So much for reckless disregard for the truth.

As for copyright infringement, this site along with many others tramples all over copyright law EVERY DAY. Which is why lawmakers, in a rare moment of lucidity, gave qualified immunity to operators for the transgressions of their members and customers for that very thing.

I think the whole discussion is amusing except that it shows why we have to have lawyers in this world in the first place. No offense Elizabeth! ;)
 
Last edited:
alaskaflyer said:
I think the whole discussion is amusing except that it shows why we have to have lawyers in this world in the first place.
Click to expand...
Ever wonder if we wouldn't BE at this level of paranoia if we hadn't had them to begin with? :rofl:
 
I just don't get the need to create websites to point out the fact you think someone sucks. Jesse, didn't your father do something dumb in his past? Haven't you? Would you like someone to make a website referring to that? just seems childish to me.
 
Michael said:
I just don't get the need to create websites to point out the fact you think someone sucks. Jesse, didn't your father do something dumb in his past? Haven't you? Would you like someone to make a website referring to that? just seems childish to me.
Click to expand...

If and when Troy ever does get this business off the ground, I think a website like Jesse's will be a good place to show prospective students what they are really getting into.
 
LeonardMack said:
If and when Troy ever does get this business off the ground, I think a website like Jesse's will be a good place to show prospective students what they are really getting into.
Click to expand...
How so?

Jesse has created a website based on feedback from the company in question that he didn't like. While it's his opinion, how can the site be "a good place to show prospective students what they are really getting into" when (1) the curriculum is probably still in development, (2) it sounds an awfully lot like FITS, as Ron pointed out, and (3) neither he nor anyone ANYWHERE has any experience with it since it doesn't exist?

Don't make more out of the site than it really is. It's no more an unbiased bastion of truth than www.rnc.org or www.democrats.org.
 
Brian Austin said:
How so?

Jesse has created a website based on feedback from the company in question that he didn't like. While it's his opinion, how can the site be "a good place to show prospective students what they are really getting into" when (1) the curriculum is probably still in development, (2) it sounds an awfully lot like FITS, as Ron pointed out, and (3) neither he nor anyone ANYWHERE has any experience with it since it doesn't exist?

Don't make more out of the site than it really is. It's no more an unbiased bastion of truth than www.rnc.org or www.democrats.org.
Click to expand...

I hate to go into more detail on here, but have you read the business plan for MAG? I have...

All he's proposing is a bunch of 141 schools flying new aircraft and making so much money they will have a skim to pay Martin Aviation. All of this nonsense funded by a market segment that he readily admits doesn't exist yet, grouped only by credit score, education, disposible income, and a need to travel.

Everything in his entire business plan is totally flawed, right down to the number of student pilots. He treats the number of new student pilots as a potential market when it's entirely possible someone has had to apply for a second student pilot license for a variety of reasons, which only inflates his base numbers. It's like his assertion that most pilots are instrument rated, that's simply not true in the GA segment, he's (probably unwittingly) twisted numbers around things he doesn't understand, for example the metrics by which the numbers were generated will largely influence his potential market space as reported by him. Even if his numbers are dead on the money, he's never shown how he's going to do anything, only that he's going to apply this or that methodology to solve a problem, like hangar rash by using robots.

Perhaps he should invent a methodology based around quality assurance, one that employs a spell check and grammar check.

The quantative benefit ($$) will only rise from the result you can achieve; since there is nothing in the business plan about customer development the entire business model is wrapped around the age old concept of, "if you build it they will come" which is foolish, especially in the aviation industry.

The business plan literally eliminates every pilot in the country, and the refusal to franchise eliminates every operating flight school. Taken in summary, you've eliminated 100% of the existing market space and translated into unapproachable territory, not only for the company, but the investors. This is a critical decision point, if you belive you can reach a market that doesn't yet exist you'll likely still need a customer base as you tweak your model and develop the market share.

The business model for equipment, employees, and storage of training aircraft is not in line with the current market. MAG will have to justify paying $500k per unit for training aircraft instead of buying perhaps an aircraft 1/2 the cost which would accomplish the mission. MAG makes reference to the diversification of capital, which can not be accomplished with large capital "investments".

And that is just the facts... from Troy's own website not a "unbiased bastion of truth." I guess we could leave all of that to be read and judged from each person individually rather than putting up a site that points out the flaws in his plan and comical errors on his site, but obviously, he already has people fooled!
 
LeonardMack said:
I hate to go into more detail on here, but have you read the business plan for MAG? I have...
....
And that is just the facts... from Troy's own website not a "unbiased bastion of truth." I guess we could leave all of that to be read and judged from each person individually rather than putting up a site that points out the flaws in his plan and comical errors on his site, but obviously, he already has people fooled!
Click to expand...
Nice writeup but where on Jesse's site do you see that level of analysis? Given what he's doing and the type of message he's sending, would you expect to see that?

I'm not a big fan of sites that seem to be in a grudge match for purely emotional reasons.
 
alaskaflyer said:
Nonsense, one (copyright law) has nothing to do with the other (defamation.) Which, by the way, in this country, not only requires the proving of damages which can be made whole by a monetary judgement, but that the libel or slander involve "reckless disregard" for the truth or malice.

Was he handcuffed after landing? Yes. So much for reckless disregard for the truth.

As for copyright infringement, this site along with many others tramples all over copyright law EVERY DAY. Which is why lawmakers, in a rare moment of lucidity, gave qualified immunity to operators for the transgressions of their members and customers for that very thing.

I think the whole discussion is amusing except that it shows why we have to have lawyers in this world in the first place. No offense Elizabeth! ;)
Click to expand...

I don't think you are understanding what I am saying. By using a photo which belongs to a newspaper to create a banner which is meant to hurt that person is not a smart thing to do. I am certain the owner of the photo does not want Jesse to use that photo in such a manner. In this regard copyright and defamation go together.
 
flyifrvfr said:
I don't think you are understanding what I am saying. By using a photo which belongs to a newspaper to create a banner which is meant to hurt that person is not a smart thing to do. I am certain the owner of the photo does not want Jesse to use that photo in such a manner. In this regard copyright and defamation go together.
Click to expand...

Some people are a bit too paranoid.
 
flyifrvfr said:
I don't think you are understanding what I am saying. By using a photo which belongs to a newspaper to create a banner which is meant to hurt that person is not a smart thing to do. I am certain the owner of the photo does not want Jesse to use that photo in such a manner. In this regard copyright and defamation go together.
Click to expand...

From the Frederick News-Post:

You may not copy, reproduce, distribute, publish, enter into a database, display, perform, modify, create derivative works, transmit, or in any way exploit any part of this Service, except that you may download material from this Service for your own personal, non-commercial use as follows: you may make one machine readable copy and/or one print copy that is limited to occasional articles of personal interest only. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, you may not distribute any part of this Service over any network, including a local area network, nor sell or offer it for sale. In addition, these files may not be used to construct any kind of database.
Click to expand...

I would argue that Jesse's site is a personal, non-commercial site that has occasional articles of personal interest. But that's just me. :)
 
wbarnhill said:
I would argue that Jesse's site is a personal, non-commercial site that has occasional articles of personal interest. But that's just me. :)
Click to expand...
Putting something on a web site is by its nature public, not personal, use. Personal use would be to hang it on the wall of his room, or such.
 
You miss the point Cap Ron makes. The strength of the case doesn't matter. You get killed by legal fees. So the answer is yes, you can get sued for saying something online. And it doesn't matter if you win or lose. You go broke fighting it.
 
jangell said:
Only if you make yourself go broke fighting it.
Click to expand...
What an interesting and fanciful notion...How would one avoid going broke while fighting it?

If you try to fight it w/o properly trained legal representation, you're doomed, and will lose.

If you capitulate, you lose.
 
Greebo said:
If you try to fight it w/o properly trained legal representation, you're doomed, and will lose.
Click to expand...

The judge would take one look at me, and realize how respectable of a guy I am....Done and done.
 
jangell said:
The judge would take one look at me, and realize how respectable of a guy I am....Done and done.
Click to expand...
Ah. And here I thought we were having a serious discussion...

This is only a laughing matter to those who have nothing to lose.
 
Ron Levy said:
Damages may be collected from future earnings. You want to have folks dunning the income you haven't earned yet? Not a fun situation -- plays hob with your credit rating, too, and you can't declare bankruptcy to beat it.
Click to expand...
Or he could move to Florida and live it up w/ OJ where such things are protected under FL law.
 
greebo said:
Ah. And here I thought we were having a serious discussion...
Click to expand...
There is no point in having a serious discussion about an orginization that is as far from serious as you can possibly get.

Maybe he is serious. Maybe he will sue me. Maybe every penny I ever make will go directly into his checking account....But I doubt it.

I don't live in fear I simply do what I beleive in.
 
jangell said:
Maybe he is serious. Maybe he will sue me. Maybe every penny I ever make will go directly into his checking account....But I doubt it.

I don't live in fear I simply do what I beleive in.
Click to expand...
You know, there's a far cry between "living in fear" and exercising some common sense.

You might want to just think about taking certain decisions a little more seriously. Bold declarations that you are "doing what you believe in" in the face of the accumulated wisdom of years that are a near order of magnitude more than yours have a history as long as the tale of man of ending in life long regrets.

And with that, I'll let this lie.
 
Greebo said:
What an interesting and fanciful notion...How would one avoid going broke while fighting it?

If you try to fight it w/o properly trained legal representation, you're doomed, and will lose.

If you capitulate, you lose.
Click to expand...

There is nothing fanciful about it. If someone tried to sue me because I looked at them funny and caused them great stress, you can bet I'm not going to bring a lawyer to court with me, because the case has no merit.

This is exactly the same. There is no merit to any case, therefore, no need to pay high amounts of money to defend onesself. Most expensive part is the gas to get to court.
 
SkyHog said:
There is nothing fanciful about it. If someone tried to sue me because I looked at them funny and caused them great stress, you can bet I'm not going to bring a lawyer to court with me, because the case has no merit.

This is exactly the same. There is no merit to any case, therefore, no need to pay high amounts of money to defend onesself. Most expensive part is the gas to get to court.
Click to expand...
We're not talking about 'looking at someone funny', we're talking about potential public defamation and intellectual property rights violations.

I'm forgetting the details, but I remember reading a particularly nasty case about a Starbucks parody site that became a really nasty legal situation for the site owner. Companies like Starbucks have council on-staff so it costs them only the court costs to file as much junk against you as they can drum up.

You can potentially get killed w/o ever GOING to court.

Now our position here is typically don't worry about it unless someone complains, but once the owner of any intellectual propery shows willing to complain, we're not gonna argue - not a fight worth fighting.
 
Greebo said:
You might want to just think about taking certain decisions a little more seriously. Bold declarations that you are "doing what you believe in" in the face of the accumulated wisdom of years that are a near order of magnitude more than yours have a history as long as the tale of man of ending in life long regrets.
Click to expand...

Just because I made a decision that is not in agreement with your own view does NOT mean that I did not think about it.

You might want to just think before you make such an assumption.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top