|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Imperator Jora'h
   |
Posted - 2007.05.30 18:58:00 -
[1]
 Originally by: Through Actions
Equal to yours. I studied enough business law in college to know the basics of contract law, international law, and defamation lawsuits. In the United States such lawsuits are notoriously difficult to prosecute and usually end up hurting the company doing the suing.
CCP may have more success in European courts where governments have less of a problem censoring their people, however in America and internationally it is extremely unlikely that CCP would get anything, including an injunction out of a lawsuit.
EDIT: By the way, CCP knows this which is why this is an empty threat. They simply want to scare people away from damaging their brand, and for that I do not blame them.
Go back and check your law books.
Defamation occurs when those committing the act do so:
1) Without a good faith belief in the truth of the statement; or
2) Without reasonable grounds for believing the truth of the statement; or
3) With a motive or willingness to vex, harass, annoy, or injure you; or
4) Is exaggerated or not fully or fairly stated; or
5) The result of a reckless investigation; or
6) Motivated by hatred or ill will towards you.
Looks to me like Goons crossed the line several places. A callous disregard for the truth is enough.
What's more, and here's the real kicker:
- You do not have to prove damages in a defamation case as damages are assumed (so CCP need not figure out how many people left for instance to show a specific damage).
- Each repetition of a defamatory remark is a new injury. This means that you can obtain damages for each time the defamatory statement is repeated.
That last is a rough one...how many times did Goons post? 4,000? That makes 4,000 individual instances of defamation each considered a separate injury to CCP.
As for Goons countersuing? I'd really like to see for what. Even if Devs were sitting in Jita spawning Titans for BOB and insta popping all other alliances' POS there is nothing illegal about that. It's their game. They own it. They can do what they like. It would be stupid of course but not illegal.
|
Imperator Jora'h
|
Posted - 2007.05.30 19:20:00 -
[2]
Originally by: Through Actions
A callous disregard for the truth IS NOT ENOUGH. CCP would have to prove that the complainers knew their complaints were untrue, but even that does not matter. There is a little things called the first amendment which protects even the most outragous speech in the US.
A callous disregard for the truth is enough. Think about it...
If you come to me and say, "CCP XXXX is a thief and a murderer" whether I believe you is beside the point. If I then publish that I would be guilty of defamation because I did not have sufficient basis to accept such a damaging claim and I did nothing further to determine the veracity of that claim.
Free speech is not a blanket defense. The courts have placed many restrictions on it (the famous quote being, "You cannot shout 'fire' in a crowded theater").
And besides, look at my list again. They need only be found guilty of one of the items in the list. I think 3, 4, 5 & 6 would be a good place to start.
|
Imperator Jora'h
|
Posted - 2007.05.30 19:30:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Sekket
Yes, but my point being, companies can and do contractually require their employees not to certain people of certain things. Take for example any NDA agreement. I've not yet seen any legal exemptions for "RL friends" in any NDA I've seen.
Whatever agreements CCP Employees sign in no way gives an outsider legal recourse if an employee breaks that agreement. The agreement is between CCP and its employees...no one else. Generally the agreement spells out conditions that will get the employee sacked in a heartbeat if they break it. In no way does that grant an outsider grounds to sue CCP.
|
Imperator Jora'h
|
Posted - 2007.05.30 19:41:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Sekket
Have you ever heard of a crime called insider trading? Look it up.
Is CCP a publically traded company? I don't see them listed on the NASDAQ, AMEX, NYSE or OTCBB exchanges but I may be searching on the wrong name.
If they are not publically traded then there is no such thing as insider trading.
|
Imperator Jora'h
|
Posted - 2007.05.30 19:57:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Rhaegor Stormborn
I personally love it when people threaten legal action against someone over the internet. It is one of those age old things that has been around forums and BBCs since the net started. Almost as bad as the "My brother did it" line.
as pointed out CCP has only said that they are looking into what legal recourse may be available to them. What Goons did was sufficient that there may indeed be cause for them to worry about that. Of course the decision to persue legal remedies is a complex one. Even if there is a good case to be made there can be many reasons to not bother. That said I'd wager my Abaddon that internally CCP is justifiably miffed about this and prepared to go to some extra lengths with a lawsuit if the law and other considerations are sufficiently in their favor.
|
Imperator Jora'h
|
Posted - 2007.05.30 20:02:00 -
[6]
Originally by: CaosSpinner
Actually no, the scenario described in not the case and does not come close to resembling the case.
Actually the scenario you quoted is much better than yours and closer to the case at hand.
And realize that the butcher is not committing any crime or breach of contract to give someone else steaks for free. Sure it might make other customers unhappy but the butcher is free to do that. When the upset customers come back and make false claims regarding the butcher and his store it is they who are in trouble.
|
Imperator Jora'h
|
Posted - 2007.05.30 20:37:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Loyal Servant
CCP - think that one over a minute.
That does nothing but embolden people, and make more rise up against you.
Take a hint: let it die.
Calling your lawyers then TELLING your customers that your calling your lawyers on them is just going to insight them against you.
Not to mention you have virtually no case.
Eh? I'm ready to start a CCP Legal Aid Fund for them. I hope they do find sufficient reason to go after these people. It is getting tiresome where people are emboldened by internet anonymity and feel their actions have no repercussions or consequence. Not even counting their reputations a lot of people work for CCP. Apparently it does not concern these people that they are messing with other people's livelihoods and doing so in a callous and craven manner.
If they are so convinced of CCP bad intetions and despise company so much then they are free to cancel their accounts.
|
Imperator Jora'h
|
Posted - 2007.05.30 21:01:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Rex Dangerstein
Believe it or not, Iceland is different in the fact that there is no law protecting freedom of religion, ergo, conflicting with US law, so it can be thrown out.
Unless it's one of those activist judges Fox News talks about....
I so do not understand what you are on about here.
If CCP sues someone in the US then the US courts will apply US law. If the defendants are found to have broken the law they will be dealt with accordingly. The US courts couldn't give a hoot about what the laws are in Iceland when it comes to this.
|
Imperator Jora'h
|
Posted - 2007.05.30 21:03:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Megadon
In light of recent events...
I have consulted my (C)rack Team of Ivy League Lawyers (CTILL)...
Did your CTILL team also mention that in order to recover your $15 it will cost you $500,000 in CTILL fees? 
|
Imperator Jora'h
|
Posted - 2007.05.30 21:15:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Dal Thrax
Can you append country please? That sounds like a British libel action, not the hell and a half it is to sue somebody for libel in the US.
Dal
Sure...California, United States
Although looking at it further this seems to relate to an employer defaming an employee.
The more relevant civil code is California Civil Code Section 46.
Slander is a false and unprivileged publication, orally uttered, and also communications by radio or any mechanical or other means which:
1. Charges any person with crime, or with having been indicted, convicted, or punished for crime;
2. Imputes in him the present existence of an infectious, contagious, or loathsome disease;
3. Tends directly to injure him in respect to his office, profession, trade or business, either by imputing to him general disqualification in those respects which the office or other occupation peculiarly requires, or by imputing something with reference to his office, profession, trade, or business that has a natural tendency to lessen its profits;
4. Imputes to him impotence or a want of chastity; or
5. Which, by natural consequence, causes actual damage.
So of the above #3 looks to be the relevant clause.
I am fully aware that these laws can differ from state to state not to mention countries.
|
|
|
Imperator Jora'h
|
Posted - 2007.05.30 22:30:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Mogrin
You need to add in the part where some of the stuff is actually true.
You can pretend it didn't happen on message forums but you can't do that in court.
It happened for real. All of the other suspicions might be real too, CCP would have to prove they weren't, in court.
So you see its not so simple as saying "WRONG!" in big red bold uppercase in a courtroom.
Uhmm...no.
It is not incumbent upon CCP to prove what they did not do. Indeed you cannot prove a negative.
It is up to Goons to prove that they had reasonable cause to believe the allegations were true. It is ok if the allegations turn out to be false as long as due diligence was taken in coming to the conclusion that what they claimed was true. It is obvious they did no such thing.
|
Imperator Jora'h
|
Posted - 2007.05.30 22:33:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Imperius Blackheart
All these people saying things won't stand up in a US court of law, you do realise that Iceland isn't in the US right? When you sign up to play Eve you sign a contract under Icelandic law, I don't know if it would stand up or even if CCP intend to sue for libel or slander or DOS or anything like that. Legal action was mentioned however.
Pretty sure if CCP wanted to sue US citizens they would have to do so in the US. Even if they could sue in Iceland they cannot compel the attendance of the defendants and even if they won they would have no way to enforce the ruling (unless one of these people moved to Iceland).
I believe the EULA bit about making Iceland the venue for a legal dispute is if you want to sue them.
|
Imperator Jora'h
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 04:50:00 -
[13]
Edited by: Imperator Jora''h on 31/05/2007 04:49:24
Originally by: Diana deVos
You mean like when you butcher legal concepts for which it is clear you have no understanding or training and insult others who have demonstrated a greater, albeit, layman's grasp? Including jurisdictional differences within the international community.
Prove me wrong or STFU. Everything you just said is a lot of arm waving, ad hominem crap.
|
Imperator Jora'h
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 05:30:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Imager
Goonfleet's lawyer has already guaranteed full exoneration of all the criminal charges levied against its constituents.
At a guess I bet the "swarm" is safe enough. It's the ringleaders (if anyone) that would need to worry a bit more. Not saying there is even a legal case that could be made against them but if anyone was going to be put up against the wall it'd be them.
|
Imperator Jora'h
|
Posted - 2007.05.31 06:09:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Mogrin
Anyone here besides me starting to think that these are just empty threats and is simply intended to add the appearance of fake sincerity?
Nope.
CCP did not say they are suing anybody. They said they are asking their attornies to look in to possible legal action. Big difference and frankly why wouldn't they? They have a legal department might as well make them work .
And it has been way too short a time for CCP to make a decision on whether they would actually sue or not. The legal eagles will have a lot of research to do then there would be a lot of internal discussion on what to do with the lawyer's recommendations (short of a "don't bother" recommendation). And if they did decide to actually sue then the company will clam up since chatting about on an ongoing legal case seems to be a universal no-no so we likely will not now much if anything about it even if it does happen.
|
|
|
| |
|