Comment Re:DMCA - It doesn't have to be false (Score 1) 254
Following the DMCA - the informaiton does not have to be false, or even proved harmful.
Where in the DMCA does it say that it does not have to be proven false or harmful?
Aside from that, if they sue somebody for libel, there are certain things that must be proven. According to the notes in FindLaw's dictionary (http://dictionary.findlaw.com) "A libel plaintiff must generally establish that the alleged libel refers to him or her specifically, that it was published to others, and that some injury (as to reputation) occurred that gives him or her a right to recover damages (as actual, general, presumed, or special damages)."
I don't know if a company has the same responsibilities in a libel suit as a general celebrity or politician, but since the NY Times v Sullivan case, there would be the added responsibility of proving malice. I would think that a company would be subject to this because it would be of "public concern." And malice is quite difficult to prove. It is very easy for somebody to say they were just venting and didn't actually mean what they were saying. And with bulletin boards and newsgroups,
Basically, if you don't post an outright lie about another company but state what happened to you and how upset you were, I don't think there is anything the company could do and it still allows for bitch sessions.
Where in the DMCA does it say that it does not have to be proven false or harmful?
Aside from that, if they sue somebody for libel, there are certain things that must be proven. According to the notes in FindLaw's dictionary (http://dictionary.findlaw.com) "A libel plaintiff must generally establish that the alleged libel refers to him or her specifically, that it was published to others, and that some injury (as to reputation) occurred that gives him or her a right to recover damages (as actual, general, presumed, or special damages)."
I don't know if a company has the same responsibilities in a libel suit as a general celebrity or politician, but since the NY Times v Sullivan case, there would be the added responsibility of proving malice. I would think that a company would be subject to this because it would be of "public concern." And malice is quite difficult to prove. It is very easy for somebody to say they were just venting and didn't actually mean what they were saying. And with bulletin boards and newsgroups,
Basically, if you don't post an outright lie about another company but state what happened to you and how upset you were, I don't think there is anything the company could do and it still allows for bitch sessions.
