MSE forced to hand over users ID's - Court Order

Richie-from-the-Boro

I find an irony in the way the internet works :

- the internet allowed Againstjpc, GomerPyle & Ladybirds to write a comment which was propagated by the internet
- those comments on the internet gave JPC an opportunity to claim and close down the comments made on the internet
- an [STRIKE]internet ambulance chaser[/STRIKE] internet lawyer saw a chance to make money by closing down the comments on the internet
- MSE handed over the nyms of the three to the lawyers, and the subsequent posts on the subject multiplied 100 fold on the internet

The irony is that the way the internet search engines work, each new post is the equivalent of refuelling the tank and keeping the issue live and at the top of a search engine stats. Pushing the subject back up the rankings ladder again and compounding the very issue JPC had in the first place, is the very inverse of what the [STRIKE]dumbing order[/STRIKE] litigation was designed to achieve.

Weird_Nev

You can commit real offences, serious ones, sat at home on your laptop. This is nothing new.

If people have genuine reason to name and shame a comapny then they have nothing to fear, but think of the power the internet now has: From hoteliers trashing competitors or posting fake positive reviews on tripadvisor, to spamming sites with praise for your new business, you can influence people because google can give you an opinion, no matter how misguided, in seconds. Someone with an axe to grind can use the internet, and it's apparent annonymity, to ruin someone.

Details are only released through a court order, which means a judge has to be satisfied that there are legitimate grounds to obtain the information. Companies can go farming details of anyone who's every said that their service was less than perfect, it's too expensive for starters. But just as people have a right to free speech, companies have a right to conduct their business without a campaign of libel.

So, carry on as normal!

bingo_bango

There is also a criminal aspect to this scenario. It hasn't been tested yet, but it's only as matter of time until a business makes a formal complaint to their local Trading Standards about these practices. At that point, The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations come into play. They create an offence for providing misleading information about a trader's product or services (which would immediately cover the 'I think company X is wonderful' type of post, to the other type where someone trashes company X online, which if found to be done on or behalf of another in the course of a business (fake posters paid to write damaging articles or competitor staff writing on their own whether or not they are paid for it) would also be an offence under the same Reg.

Expect a case to come along at some stage when the lawyers figure out that this is a cheap way to determine the true identity of an individual poster without the need for a Norwich Pharmacal order.

esuhl

bingo_bango wrote: »

There is also a criminal aspect to this scenario. It hasn't been tested yet...

Surely this is simply a case of libel - and with the number of libel trials that go to court, I think we can safely say that the law has been well-and-truly tested in this area.

bingo_bango wrote: »

...but it's only as matter of time until a business makes a formal complaint to their local Trading Standards about these practices. At that point, The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations come into play. They create an offence for providing misleading information about a trader's product or services (which would immediately cover the 'I think company X is wonderful' type of post, to the other type where someone trashes company X online, which if found to be done on or behalf of another in the course of a business (fake posters paid to write damaging articles or competitor staff writing on their own whether or not they are paid for it) would also be an offence under the same Reg.

The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations provides consumer protection from unfair trading practices; they don't protect businesses against unfair comments made by a member of the public.

againstjpc

I thank you all for your comments and yes - I am one of the named people!

I believe that MSE took the right precautions and only handed over our details upon request by a court, so I have no problem there, even though it could obviously lead to something different, which I won't post in case it's a defamatory comment :T

There are other websites out there that have 100's of comments on the company we mentioned in our posts, and they give broader details than we did, but for some reason this company and its lawyers are struggling to take it down, maybe MSE should see what they're doing different?

Blagger (dot) com is the other site, and has comments dating back to 2007 on the company in question. The company in question is, of course, mentioned in the article of its lawyers as Wyvern Media.

Do we think that their lawyers would spend £1000's advertising within their publications?
Do we think that their lawyers would advise their clients to spend £1000's advertising with this companies publications?
Do we believe that we have a case?
Do we believe that the evidence we have is substantiated enough to take them on?

These are questions we've been asked numerous times by people, and we know the answer to each question, but it's a case by case scenario that we will be dealing with and we think we have the ammunition to go with it!

I will soon be able to post some information that you will all find interesting, and I'm sure you'll all watch it.....slight clue!

I hope that we're the first of many to stand up for what we believe in, and also stand up for all small businesses across the country and many abroad. We shouldn't have to live in a world we we're fearful of what could happen next and we should feel comfortable that every person that rings us up offering us something that sounds good, turns out to be as good as they relayed it to us over the telephone!

That's all for now, but I look forward to reading more of your comments!:money:

NeverAgain_2

In cases of libel, the author and the publisher can be held liable.

In most cases, the publisher has more money to pay damages than the author.

I'm guessing the lawyers are assuming all the authors are of relatively modest means, so they are going after the ones published on MSE because MSE is a properly constituted business which is likely to abide by any court order and have the means to pay it.

Chasing 'blog.com' is a waste of time if it turns out the site is run by a potless bloke from the spare room of his council house.

againstjpc

I guess you could be right NeverAgain, although surely if something is so damaging to their client, they would want to take all the necessary steps to get them removed?

Obviously, we'll see something coming out soon, which should back our side of things!

NeverAgain_2

againstjpc wrote: »

I guess you could be right NeverAgain, although surely if something is so damaging to their client, they would want to take all the necessary steps to get them removed

You are right, the other reason to go after MSE is the alleged libel is more damaging because more people may read it on MSE than a little-used blog site.

Although if you look at the 'views' column, even on MSE most threads are read by a relatively small number of people, bearing in mind the majority of those hits will be duplicates - the same handful of people returning to read the next new post.

This is something you/MSE can use in your favour if you lose and it comes to assessing the amount of damages.

againstjpc

Yes - that's right. Although we did have many people coming forward to us to say that their business had been targeted by this company etc., so it was worth it!

I don't think they lost anything because of the thread to be honest, although I'm sure they'll claim 100's of 1000's was lost!

I think more and more people will find the blagger dot com site now though after this has come out, and people will be able to see that they can't be touched when posting on the other site.

I think it's a case by case scenario, whereas MSE have had to be forced to hand over very little details about each 1 of us, but maybe in the future they will have something in place to stop lawyers been able to go to court and action the notices etc.,

NeverAgain_2

The libel laws will continue to apply, it's merely a matter of how hard they are to enforce.

If someone daubs 'NeverAgain is a !!!!!!' on the local railway bridge, it's clearly libellous, but I have no legal recourse because the person who did it cannot be found.

If the same statement appears on the front page of The Sun, I can fill my boots.

I have legal training in this area and have seen many posts on forums which on the face of it are actionable.

But the libelled party has to weigh up the damage done to their reputation against the cost of pursuing it.

Most cases are sensibly dealt with by the site simply removing the offending posts.

No financial cost to either side, the damage to reputation is limited, and just as importantly, contained.

It goes back to my graffiti example, all I can effectively do is remove the offending statement.