Posted Wednesday 28th January 2009 17:04 GMT
...the only way the court would accept the charge of defamation would be if he destroyed the evidence by deleting the comment?
How would he then prove that the defamation had taken place?
Posted Wednesday 28th January 2009 17:19 GMT
Should have said he didnt delete the comment as it was evidence and product server logs for evidence of reading
Posted Wednesday 28th January 2009 17:19 GMT
...if you have to delete said comment when you find it?
The comment will include date/time stamps and IP address. Deleting it will remove the evidence.
Posted Wednesday 28th January 2009 17:19 GMT
Could he not be leaving the posting there as evidence?
If it is deleted, apart from a screen grab, there was no proof it was ever there. (Save for the wayback machine if it was indexed)
Also I am pretty sure that at least a few people would have looked at the blog/posting if only because of some blog software notifying other sites of updates (pingbacks? I could be completely wrong here) - could he not use the server access logs in his defence?
Don't really care either way tbh
Posted Wednesday 28th January 2009 17:19 GMT
"Mr Justice Eady said that it is not sufficient simply to assert that an article's appearance online means that it has been read."
Or, "Bloggers are so full of shit they think that just because they posted something then the whole world is falling over each other to read it."
Blogging - Onanism for the new century
Posted Wednesday 28th January 2009 17:19 GMT
"Mr Justice Eady said that it is not sufficient simply to assert that an article's appearance online means that it has been read.
"There is no presumption in law to the effect that placing material on the Internet leads automatically to a substantial publication,""
Seems to be at odds with what Eady said in Mardas vs New York Times [yes, that's right, a case being heard in a British court between an American and a Greek], that these things "cannot depend upon a numbers game, with the court fixing an arbitrary minimum". Is Eady finally seeing the light, or is it just that the plaintiff isn't a billionaire?
Posted Wednesday 28th January 2009 17:49 GMT
If he had deleted the comment, there would have been no defamation and no need for evidence.
Posted Wednesday 28th January 2009 20:06 GMT
screenshot + log file + witness + printout + lots of other crap
-_-;
Posted Thursday 29th January 2009 01:01 GMT
Never mind deleting the comment - every blogging system I've seen supports hiding comments. No deletion, no destruction of evidence, and no "tacit approval" defense available. Of course, this does require the user to actually RTFM.
Posted Thursday 29th January 2009 01:46 GMT
"There is no presumption in law to the effect that placing material on the Internet leads automatically to a substantial publication"
Which means that simply making a file available to others does not mean it has been "published" - or distributed. Therefore uploading a torrent file does not mean anyone has downloaded it. I hope the next filesharer to be pulled up by the copypigs draws on this interesting precedent.
Posted Thursday 29th January 2009 05:51 GMT
The nasty man got mauled by the troll?
Oh dear!
Posted Thursday 29th January 2009 10:31 GMT
If he deletes the comment then, no, he cannot prove defamation has taken place. This is because defamation has not taken place and there is no case.
The claimant should prefer that no defamation takes place, rather than defamation has taken place and he recieves compensation. The only reason the claimant would prefer the latter is if he was greedy and the compensation exceeded the damages done to him.
Back to the article
