Hmm
"The law would also prevent a business from asserting intellectual property claims on the content of a review..."
Depending on the exact wording, this might open the door for public reviews of vendor products.
It's now illegal in the US to punish customers for posting bad web reviews
President Obama has signed into effect a new law that bars businesses from punishing customers for giving bad reviews. The Consumer Review Fairness Act (HR 5111) voids any contract that involves prohibitions or penalties related to negative online reviews. The aim of the bill, written by Reps. Leonard Lance (R-NJ) and Joseph …
-
Thursday 15th December 2016 20:33 GMT Haku
Trump might want to repeal that, especially because he said this about journalists:
“One of the things I’m gonna do, and this is only gonna make it tougher for me, and I’ve never said this before, but one of the things I’m gonna do if I win… is I’m gonna open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money. We’re gonna open up those libel laws.”
-
Thursday 15th December 2016 20:52 GMT djack
Re: Trump might want to repeal that, especially because he said this about journalists:
I was just thinking of this tweet
-
-
Friday 16th December 2016 00:19 GMT vir
This isn't even real tech writing anyway and I would know, I've been to dozens of tech news sites all over the world. If you want the best authentic tech writing, there is a tiny, hole-in-the-wall place on the beach in Costa Rica that's run by a husband-and-wife team and they only put out four articles a week.
-
-
-
-
Friday 16th December 2016 12:13 GMT Charles 9
Re: Trump will revoke that law
That's the thing. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Neither side has had 60 Senators (what you need to invoke cloture which breaks a filibuster) for a long time, so if the GOP expect to get a lot through their administration they have another thing coming.
-
-
-
Thursday 15th December 2016 22:59 GMT skizzerz
Trump will be likely unable to do anything about this law; it passed the Senate with a unanimous vote, and the Republicans control the Senate right now.
I'm surprised El Reg didn't pick up on one particular part of the bill that impacts IT in particular (bolded): "The term “covered communication” means a written, oral, or pictorial review, performance assessment of, or other similar analysis of, including by electronic means, the goods, services, or conduct of a person by an individual who is party to a form contract with respect to which such person is also a party."
If my reading is correct, this would mean that you can no longer be contractually forbidden from posting benchmark results of things, as I know enterprise database vendors are wont to do among others.
-
Thursday 15th December 2016 23:25 GMT Anonymous Coward
My approach
Not that anyone will or should be interested, but anyway...
1. I hardly ever post online reviews of anything.
2. I really hardly ever post negative reviews of anything. The reasoning is that while I may not have liked something, I assume that a) most businesses do at least try, b) it might have been a one off, c) other people may not care about the same things I do, d) if I give a negative review and it turns out to be unfair I might have deprived the business of a customer, and the customer of a product he would have otherwise bought. So I prefer to play it safe, unless it is really blatant.
3. When I do post, be it negative or positive, it is anonymously or pseudonymously.
-
-
Friday 16th December 2016 10:03 GMT Cereberus
Re: My approach
I hardly post reviews on line because I got what I paid for nothing more and nothing less. If I get especially good or bad service / products etc. then I will post.
When I look at review posts for a product I always expect there to be a certain amount of bad feedback because that is life. Some people demand more than they should reasonably expect and post a bad review because of it whilst other people would think the same service or product is excellent - it is a personal view after all. Ultimately though I look to see what the balance of good and bad is and what happens when it goes bad.
If I get a product which isn't fit for purpose I shouldn't be afraid to say so. At the same time if I take it back and get it replaced for one that is fit for purpose and have posted a comment then I should update the comment to show it was a one off. After all nothing is guaranteed so if I get good after sales service to help solve a failing in a product I can accept the little bit of hassle of having to return and get a replacement and won't slam the product as a result or supplier as a result.
I also hate anonymous cowards and tend to ignore their views as probably being trolls (some cases are different where they could be putting themselves at risk but otherwise....). If you write something because you mean it then you should have the guts to put your name (or user ID) against it and not hide behind anonymity.
-
Friday 16th December 2016 12:14 GMT Charles 9
Re: My approach
"I also hate anonymous cowards and tend to ignore their views as probably being trolls (some cases are different where they could be putting themselves at risk but otherwise....). If you write something because you mean it then you should have the guts to put your name (or user ID) against it and not hide behind anonymity."
Unless, like you said earlier, some sellers don't like taking flak and start firing back. That's the reason for anonymity in the first place: to protect against retaliation.
-
Friday 16th December 2016 20:10 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: My approach
> I also hate anonymous cowards and tend to ignore their views as probably being trolls
The irony of your post being a reply to another one of mine. :-) If you allow me to say, that's a bit silly and I have my own philosophical reasons for always posting AC.
Agree with the rest of your post though, you have explained my approach better than me.
-
-
-
-
Friday 16th December 2016 04:31 GMT ecofeco
What a world
That it took a law to make this happen is absurd.
Don't get me wrong, I'm very glad it exists, but it should have never come to this. Freedom of speech is guaranteed in the Constitution, with the only exceptions being libel and slander, incitement to riot/violence and fraud (lying to make money). That any company could sue for a bad review should have never been allowed in the first place.
-
Friday 16th December 2016 11:04 GMT Donn Bly
Re: What a world
Constitutionally protected speech is limited to speed about the government. So while a tirade about a government official or policy is protected, a similar tirade against a private individual company, or company policy is NOT similarly protected under the US constitution.
I'm of mixed feelings on this law, while I welcome the additional protections I feel it will only embolden and encourage more fake reviews. Fake reviews are already a problem, particularly those that have been posted anonymously.
I really don't like the government getting involved and unilaterally changing the contract between two private individuals. If I have a contract that contains a non-disclosure that says you can use my software but you can't give anyone details about its proprietary functions or use my name to enhance your brand, then the government shouldn't be able to go back in later and remove the non-disclosure.
-
Friday 16th December 2016 11:28 GMT Olius
Re: What a world
Would it make you feel better about this law if I told you that we have vaguely similar in the UK, and for very good reasons?
Law exists that defines certain contract terms as illegal and therefore not contractually enforceable.
An example would be if your employment contract said that you could not work for a competitor for X months after leaving, but you work in a niche industry where the only jobs you could get after this one would be for a competitor. Therefore, such a clause would deny you the right to work, and so the clause is illegal and unenforceable.
(I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong about this one)
This isn't about govts overturning contracts willy nilly, it is about you not being coerced in to signing a contract which gives away certain basic rights - in my example, the right to work, and in the article, the right to free speech.
-
Friday 16th December 2016 12:20 GMT Charles 9
Re: What a world
"This isn't about govts overturning contracts willy nilly, it is about you not being coerced in to signing a contract which gives away certain basic rights - in my example, the right to work, and in the article, the right to free speech."
But freedom of speech in the Constitution (as well as all the other freedoms and rights accorded in the Bill of Rights) are specifically written to prevent government action against the individual. Action between private entities are subject to negotiable terms and conditions.
That being said, the law here is about balancing knowledge in common, which is critical for capitalism to work properly. People can only make informed decisions if they're informed of both strengths and faults. That's why we have fraud laws. But the catch is that it's hard to nail a fraud case due to lack of knowledge (misinformation by absence). If the seller has the ability to bias the public knowledge, this increases the imbalance of knowledge (which already inherently favors the seller--they know more about the product than the buyer does because they usually make it).
-
Friday 16th December 2016 14:38 GMT Olius
Re: What a world
Agree with every word, especially what you say about knowledge on both sides.
I know little of US law, I can only speak for how things are in the UK.
Because the knowledge is never perfect, and because customers and employees alike can be coerced through MANY means to sign contracts, we have things in our contract-law which try to correct these imperfections.
In a perfect system, every person applying for a job would have the ability to turn it down for any reason and take a different one instead and still be able to pay the bills throughout the whole process. This rarely happens in any profession, for any person - one takes what one can get. So your choice is "take the job and sign the contract" or "don't take the job, and have no job (hopefully for only a short time until the next one comes along in time to pay the bills)"
So if the only job on offer in your niche industry comes with a contract containing a clause which means that if you leave or get sacked, you can't get another job - because the only other jobs in your niche industry are with competitors, and your contract contains an anti-compete clause - this would be unfair: it would deny you work.
So we have contract law which says that such a clause in a private contract is unlawful because it would be unfair, because it would be signing away a deeper right.
As I said earlier, I know only the basics of this. But I suspect this came from court cases over contracts (civil law) rather than from our parliament. So this example probably isn't "govt oversight". But I hope it is a good example of where the legal system can step in to keep people honest - so that they cannot coerce people in to signing away basic human rights.
If this kind of thing didn't exist, then people (employers or otherwise) would be able to coerce others in to signing contracts which essentially say "You are now my bitch". In my example, one employer would be able to stop you from ever working again, via that non-compete clause. Contract law should not be able to trump other laws or rights.
-
Friday 16th December 2016 14:50 GMT Charles 9
Re: What a world
"If this kind of thing didn't exist, then people (employers or otherwise) would be able to coerce others in to signing contracts which essentially say "You are now my bitch". In my example, one employer would be able to stop you from ever working again, via that non-compete clause. Contract law should not be able to trump other laws or rights."
So noted, but businesses are bigger and richer than your average person as well as more focused, so they tend to have greater influence over legislators. Which is why legislation in the long run tends to favor them barring something "going too far" and either triggering a crisis or raising public outcry. I think in this case it's the last: increasing outcry forced their hand before things got taken to the courts, which are (at the moment) more people-friendly-versus-business.
-
-
-
Friday 16th December 2016 20:45 GMT Mark 85
@Olius -- Re: What a world
Here in the States, non-compete clauses in employee contracts are pretty much useless in many industries and professions. The courts will find for the employee. However, many employees fear that the employer will take them to court and tie them up for years and thus deprive them of income. The employee is basically screwed in that even if they win, they've lost the time the court case takes. So it's a gamble... try it and maybe your former employer will take you court and maybe they won't.
-
-
Saturday 17th December 2016 01:09 GMT ecofeco
Re: What a world
a similar tirade against a private individual company, or company policy is NOT similarly protected under the US constitution.
Yes it is. Ruling after ruling has said that you CANNOT under any circumstances, sign away your Constitutional rights. Yet U.S. businesses continually try.
-
-
-
Friday 16th December 2016 12:26 GMT Anonymous Coward
This could be trickier, I think, because I believe they attach the condition that they can ONLY review Ferrari cars if they review ONLY Ferrari cars. Trying to review a competing car results in Breach of Contract and you're blacklisted. This could be construed as different from not being able to post a negative review about a vehicle; rather, it's an inability to post ANY review about a competing vehicle: good or bad, and would probably have to be settled in a court first.
-
Friday 16th December 2016 16:59 GMT e^iÏ+1=0
Ferrari
"Or Ferrari cars for that matter (they wont let you review one if it's going to be tested against another manufacturers vehicles)."
I know there had been some kind of a kerfuffle which impeded the 3 car comparison which finally happened in the first episode of The Grand Tour, but didn't they make it in the end?
-
Biting the hand that feeds IT
