Software Company Sues Popular Australian Forum 121
Pugzly writes "In a recent announcement on the Whirlpool front page, it appears that accounting software maker 2clix is suing the founder of the forums as the founder "allowed statements 'relating to the Plaintiff and its software product that are both false and malicious' to be published on the Whirlpool forums."
Congress provided a shield for this (Score:1, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
We're talking about AUSTRIA [www.cbc.ca], the OPEC member.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Congress provided a shield for this (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Congress provided a shield for this (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sean Patrick O'Toole, anyone? http://www.smh.com.au/news/breaking/alleged-piracy-kingpin-facing-extradition/2006/02/10/1139465836383.html [smh.com.au]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Congressional law doesn't apply in Australia. Or anywhere else in the USA. Just thought I'd remind you.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Sold Complete, Not Broken into Modules
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
In some Australian States truth is not a defense in a libel case either (so even if what you stated is true you can still lose the case), making it even more fun.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I suggest comment on general principles rather than specifics and let the court discuss the specifics.
Appliances? (Score:4, Funny)
Took me a second to realize my mistake.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Thread Links (Score:5, Informative)
http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies.cfm?t=628356 [whirlpool.net.au]
http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies.cfm?t=479484 [whirlpool.net.au]
flame war == profit? (Score:1)
You'd think they'd at least have a penalty for starting the flame war . . . or, in this case, selling crappy software.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Because it's the job of every forum operator to investigate the truth of every claim posted on their forum.
It happens (Score:5, Interesting)
There was no real reason not to comply - it was a silly comment with nothing to back it up, from memory 'anyone know a good IT trainer? I tried xxx but they were crap and tried to fleece me out of more money'.
Wouldn't have minded but when I looked it up, it had been there 3 years.
Re:It happens (Score:5, Informative)
Re:It happens (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Fwiw I'm one of the many who chipped in a small sum. Just the cost of one lunch, but given the numbers of users, if a few get in on it it will quickly become enough to provide the support that we require.
I believe this case is very important to the Australian online community. Therefore we are taking it quite seriously, as we should.
Now to something completely different; is anyone taking bets on how long 2Clix will stay in
Re: (Score:1)
I would be horrified if they had such laws here in the U.S. I would hate to be afraid of saying anything derogatory about any company for fear of being sued. It's ridiculous. IMHO, unless someone said something that was truly libelous -- that is, a deliberate falsehood designed to do nothing but destroy a company's reputation, they have the right to say anything they want about a company. I've made plenty of dero
Re: (Score:2)
Removing a comment saying "Product X sucks because they have a major bug (here's how to reproduce it) which I reported to them half a year ago and they still haven't fixed" is a slippery slope.
Removing a comment saying "Product X sucks" is not.
The difference is that the company could (try to) defend their product in the first comment by disproving/refuting the reason given.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
a) Neither the forum nor I have the resources for a court fight, and the company does.
and
b) Even if I did have the resources for the fight, the forum doesn't and even if it did, it's easier and cheaper for them to silence me.
Re: (Score:1)
If someone tells me that i suck and provides no reason, i find that easier to defend against than someone pointing out actual flaws anyhow! I could simply state that i don't suck and the OP is a doody-head. BFD. Everyone needs to grow up.
Granted this is in australia...and granted they're sueing the FORUM - not the poster. I doubt a court would allow the
Re:It happens (Score:4, Insightful)
Clearly it would be different if someone is claiming something as a fact but is in fact lying i.e. "CarMaker A is EVIL, they skin kittens to make their upholstery!! - Don't buy from them", but an opinion i.e. "I don't like CarMaker A" or "CarMaker A's Cars are not as nice as CarMaker B's" or even "CarMakerA is crap", is always valid (if it is an honest one, and its not really practicable to distinguish an honest opinion from a dishonest one).
The real problem comes when companies can have negative opinions removed from sites under threat of legal action (whether it has merit or not). It gives corporations far too much control over what the public can and do see or read about them. Of course for a small website owner, a hobbyist or simply an enthusiast of some sort, the threat of legal action is almost always poses too much of a risk and the reaction to remove offending material is clearly understandable.
What is needed is a mechanism whereby any person or organisation who receives a legal threat is able to evaluate its merit, and if it is totally worthless and/or malicious, to take action against the originator.
Re: (Score:2)
As someone else noted, if it was a comment that 'doing x in product y causes z to happen, everytime. That sucks' then I'd say it was fair but then as a web master, is it my job to test the claim, evaluate it and then pull the comment if its false? If not, what are my responsabilities and how do those change from territory to territory?
The we
Re: (Score:2)
is it my job to test the claim, evaluate it and then pull the comment if its false?
No It isn't, if it were an outrageous claim that you, as a reasonable person would see as impossible then by all means take action, you should be able to moderate posts without either stifling genuine negative opinions or allowing flagrant abuse. Remember that that in a case of X in Y causes Z is likely and may or may not be a reflection upon Y, its not your job o deal w
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's a line from an early 80's track called Underpass by John Foxx:
Over all the bridges
Echoes in rows
Talking at the same time
Click click drone
Misty on the glass now
Rusty on the door
Here for years now
Click click drone
Re: (Score:1)
I would have replaced the post with a large "XYZ Company has asked us to remove this post due to a user posting a negative comment about them". It still shows that there is something wrong with XYZ Company but this is potentially worse for them and it doesn't say how bad they are - and since it is completely true they can't do anything about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Except due to precedent, in UK law you are responsible. A few years ago a major ISP lost a case when someone sued them for carrying *usenet* traffic that contained defamatory comments about an individual. Law ain't the same the world over.
Re: (Score:2)
Now I Will Remember 2clix (Score:5, Interesting)
I'll be certain to avoid them in future and recommend against such a dangerous company if ever I get the chance.
Thanks 2clix, you've revealed your true colours.
(I'm an Australian, living in Melbourne)
I'll take bullies for 200, Alex. (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Australian Defamation Laws (Score:5, Informative)
A failed restaurant recently successfully sued a major newspaper for a negative review [smh.com.au] in the Australian High Court.
Re:Australian Defamation Laws (Score:5, Funny)
BUZZZZZZZZZZZT! Defamation alert! Lawsuit!
Re:Australian Defamation Laws-USA still has issues (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm defending myself (and my website) at trial in federal court in two months (November, 2007) against "deceptive trade practices" and "interference with prospective contractual relations" (a defamation claim was dropped).
My webpage criticizes a corporation that published my stock photos without permission and refused to pay the licensing fee. The federal court ruled last month that they were, in fact, guilty of infringement. Yet the court is still allowing their claims against my webpage to proceed, apparently based on comments posted by other victims of the same corporation (which, under the Section 230 of the CDA, I'm not liable for anyway)
Next month is the TWO YEAR anniversary of the claims against me. Nothing on my webpage is specifically cited as factually untrue, no evidence the webpage is false has been produced, yet we are still going to trial -- ?!?. Although I expect to prevail, I'm not sure this is hugely better than the Australian case (which I read about previously and is pretty bad). I'm pro-se, doing this on my own (my webpage with a chronology [cgstock.com]). If I had a lawyer, my costs might be over $100,000 by now.
I've posted about my case here even though it could lead to MORE claims against me as I truly in my heart believe in freedom of speech, and I won't concede to a "chilling effect" because of baseless, SLAPP lawsuits.
Re: (Score:1)
A failed restaurant recently successfully sued a major newspaper for a negative review in the Australian High Court.
Re: (Score:1)
http://www.efa.org.au/Issues/Censor/defamation.html#2006 [efa.org.au]
Damn them! (Score:2)
The Statement of Claim from the company alleges that Simon Wright allowed statements "relating to the Plaintiff and its software product that are both false and malicious" to be published on the Whirlpool forums.
Yes, I can see him sitting there, reading the articles, nodding his head, and going "Yeah, let's burn 'em!" Honestly, I'm pretty sure this is going nowhere. Has it suddenly dawned on companies that people are saying bad things about them? Software companies shouldn't be surprised -- look at the lambasting that Microsoft takes on a daily basis. I suspect the statements are true and 2Clix just doesn't want anyone to know about it.
Re: (Score:2)
At the same time people claiming to be the heads of support and sales for the company were participating in the discussion. This indicates that they've known about this the whole time.
Something similar happened... (Score:2)
Don't worry, it was on el Reg too (Score:2)
The more true it is the more liable you are. (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
My real fear about this issue (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, it's worth pointing out that "forums", despite their growing popularity and usefulness, are neither the only available source of information on the internet, nor the only manner in which information can be made public.
Usenet, for example, is alive and well, and friendly enough for the point
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As a practical matter, it doesn't matter. The content, once accepted, will be distributed worldwide in short order, so if your ISP's news server or your premium server is carrying the group, the content will be there and subject to the control of that news server only. Such mechanisms as cancellation messages, have a tortured history and are typically ignored by all news server admins.
Personally, I think the
Re: (Score:2)
I can see the future (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"I think Vista is maturing - wink wink, nudge nudge"
"OOXML is a marvel of a file format - wink wink, nudge nudge"
"What do you mean the iPhone is still overpriced? - wink wink, nudge nudge"
Smoking US weed? (Score:1)
Courts in AU don't work the same way: harder to get a jury trial, judges still determine awards _and_ allocate costs. They'd better watch "paid into court". Lawyers are also "officers of the court" and IIRC forbidden to take %age contingency fees.
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
You couldnt Pick a Worse Crowd to pick on (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Oh please. Whilst I'm sure there are a lot of IT Managers and sysadmins on Whirlpool (I'm one of them), they're vastly outnumbered by kids and "enthusiast" internet users who's prime purpose on Whirlpool is to shop around for the most speed and monthly download capacity for their (parents) dollar.
Re: (Score:1)
A couple of facts about this situation (Score:3, Interesting)
So just to clarify, every time a potential customer searches for this company, they find a very easily accessible thread indicating user dissatisfaction.
I think most of us can agree that this type of thing will absolutely ruin a software company.
Not saying that they don't perhaps deserve repercussions but one can see how this has escalated when such a clearly damaging thread exists so easily discovered by sales targets.
I post this because a lot of people are getting on the bandwagon about how evil these guys are when infact this is probably the end of their business. Its a regretful situation for all and I'm glad that Simon is protecting free speech on his board but I can't help but be sorry for those people.
Maybe they deserve it.. who knows.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
1) Post a reasonable response with an attempt to fix whatever problems the user was having. (Actual attempt is optional, it just has to LOOK like they are trying.)
2) Lawsuit. A very public and damaging lawsuit that makes you scream 'EVERYONE THINKS WE SUCK BUT WE DON'T REALLY' to even have a chance at winning.
Yeah, smart. Assuming you are correct that this means the end of their business, they handled it exactly the wrong way. Nobody succeeds these days in coverin
Re: (Score:2)
The thread/s in question cited by the lawsuit are actually something like #2 and #3 for a google search of 2clix - under their official site.
So just to clarify, every time a potential customer searches for this company, they find a very easily accessible thread indicating user dissatisfaction.
I think most of us can agree that this type of thing will absolutely ruin a software company.
Not saying that they don't perhaps deserve repercussions but one can see how this has escalated when such a clearly damaging thread exists so easily discovered by sales targets.
I post this because a lot of people are getting on the bandwagon about how evil these guys are when infact this is probably the end of their business. Its a regretful situation for all and I'm glad that Simon is protecting free speech on his board but I can't help but be sorry for those people.
Maybe they deserve it.. who knows.
Pretty much every time I d business with a new company online, I do a search for the company specifically to find negative feedback about a company. I'd much rather do business with a company that does an average job with all their customers than one that does great with some people, but screws the unlucky ones.
Re: (Score:2)
That way anyone that goes to look at that forum link off google can see the company pro-actively fixing any issues. Seems like a good form of advertising to me.
Re: (Score:1)
The thread/s in question cited by the lawsuit are actually something like #2 and #3 for a google search of 2clix - under their official site.
The only reason they are #2 and #3 is because they filed this lawsuit and bought the threads to everyones attention. I love the whirlpool site, every time I have had a problem with my ISP (only when I was on Telstra) I would head over there and find solution to my problems (putting Telstras modem into bridge mode) and updates for anytime service outages (Telstras website never got this info). It also helped me select my new ISP Internode who I am very happy with and have had no problems to date (1 year, 2
Re: (Score:1)
Can of worms (Score:1)
I know 2clix (Score:1, Funny)
Slashdotted... :) (Score:1)
This just in... (Score:1)
This is what probably caused the action... (Score:5, Interesting)
The forum thread had been running for many months, but in late August there was some real action starting to occur on getting information for legal action against 2clix.
My guess is that they would like to shut the thread down and prevent more people from getting involved in suing them.
2clix made me feel dirty. (Score:1, Informative)
My Private Forum (Score:1)
The difference is that my forum is private, and not indexed on the web. Subscribers must join with a valid industry-specific email address, and no vendors or suppliers are allowed to join, read or post to the forum.
We still get occasional requests from vendors to take down content that is negative about them.
I am able to respond that the posts will not b
Tragic, but sensible. (Score:3, Funny)
ROFL would you buy a 2clix franchise (Score:1)
ROFL would you buy a 2clix franchise?
http://secure.businessesforsale.com/F410/business-management-and-accounting-software.aspx [businessesforsale.com]
Quoting the link "We have successfully launched businesses right around Australia, from Sydney to Perth, Brisbane to Melbourne, generating an annual turnover in Australia in excess of £1,800,000.00pa"
1,800,000 GB pounds = 4,353,601.41 AUD 1 AUD = 0.413451 GBP at todays rate at xe.com So they are claiming to earn in excess of A
Re: (Score:2)