Originally posted by wormwoodYes, it is an internet blog, which means anybody in the world can read it. Falsely accusing someone of plagirism(sic?) is against the law, and I side with Mr. Davies in the action that he took.
it's an internet BLOG for heaven's sake.
I used to think you were one of the few reasonable persons in the less than stable pool of high level chess heros...
And what exactly is "unreasonable" about seeking action against someone libeling him?
Originally posted by gaychessplayerAgainst the law in which country? Are you supposing that your country's laws apply all over the world? Who has legal right over the internet which is a world forum? Who thinks this Nigel guy should get lost since he's made no moves? He could be anybody because of the anonymity of the interwebz. I vote we buy cotton candy and dance the tango for a few hours until we've all calmed down. Also we should wear clown makeup. The International Federation Of Chess Forum Posters demands it. The IFOCFP will settle for nothing less than candy floss and roller-coasters. So there.
Yes, it is an [b]internet blog, which means anybody in the world can read it. Falsely accusing someone of plagirism(sic?) is against the law, and I side with Mr. Davies in the action that he took.
And what exactly is "unreasonable" about seeking action against someone libeling him?[/b]
- Joined
- 16 Feb 07
- Moves
- 27653
Originally posted by gaychessplayerIf I recall correctly, the libel law in the US requires three things:
Yes, it is an [b]internet blog, which means anybody in the world can read it. Falsely accusing someone of plagirism(sic?) is against the law, and I side with Mr. Davies in the action that he took.
And what exactly is "unreasonable" about seeking action against someone libeling him?[/b]
1) it must be injurious
2) it must be false
3) the author (of the offending piece) must know that its false.
I don't think the article in question meets the third criteria by a long mile. It was a more or less factual comparison of two books that gave the opinion one might be cribbed from the other. Its not libelous to give an opinion based on limited facts, even if the opinion turns out to be incorrect. I'm sure British (and other country's) laws vary some, but I don't think this would stand a chance in court in the US.
Having said all that, accusing someone of plagirism is a very serious matter, and it doesn't seem to me one should be making these kind of accusations without totally solid evidence. I don't blame Mr. Davies for making a fuss about it, but it doesn't look illegal to me.
Originally posted by st00p1dfac3Basics on UK libel law are here, and both parties are in the UK:
Against the law in which country? Are you supposing that your country's laws apply all over the world?
http://www.urban75.org/info/libel.html
"In the UK, if someone thinks that what you wrote about them is either defamatory or damaging, the onus will be entirely on you to prove that your comments are true in court. In other words, if you make the claim, you've got to prove it!"
Originally posted by NigelDaviesguilty until proven innocent...NICE!
Basics on UK libel law are here, and both parties are in the UK:
http://www.urban75.org/info/libel.html
"In the UK, if someone thinks that what you wrote about them is either defamatory or damaging, the onus will be entirely on you to prove that your comments are true in court. In other words, if you make the claim, you've got to prove it!"
Originally posted by cheshirecatstevensIt seems some concerns have been expressed about this.
It is against the TOS to give persons real names on this site.
Just to clarify, it is indeed my real name but I'm quite happy for Nigel or anybody to use it in any way they see fit - either here or elsewhere.
Originally posted by NigelDaviesNot that I actually care about your little catfight, but I believe laws on websites only apply to the country where the server resides.
Basics on UK libel law are here, and both parties are in the UK:
http://www.urban75.org/info/libel.html
"In the UK, if someone thinks that what you wrote about them is either defamatory or damaging, the onus will be entirely on you to prove that your comments are true in court. In other words, if you make the claim, you've got to prove it!"
Originally posted by CrowleyApparently not.
... I believe laws on websites only apply to the country where the server resides.
http://www.dba-oracle.com/internet_journalism_libel_laws.htm
Depending on where you live (or anywhere your blog may be accessed), you may fall under the laws of that country. This article notes that if your blog can be accessed in Australia, you could be sued for libel, where the law strongly favors the defamed person:
"What it means is that foreign publishers writing material about persons in Australia had better have regards to the standards of Australian law before they upload material to the Internet," he said"
The UK has in fact probably the strictest libel laws in the democratic world. Which is why people who have little or nothing to do with Britain sometimes come here to sue people who also may have little or no connection to the UK - so-called "libel tourism". I know this is causing considerable concern in the US where freedom of speech and expression seem to be held in higher regard.
Nigel, please do us all a favour & challenge User 91723 Ronald Weyerstrass to a couple of games?
He hasn't lost yet & I for one would like to see him play a real GM.
What do you say - are you up for it?
Nigel - there's a lot of people, myself included, who like your work. You've produced some great books and Fritz trainer CD's.
But you seem to have been quite heavy handed in your response to something produced by an amateur website run for free by enthusiasts from a local chess club. The likes of this chess club, replicated throughout the country, are your audience and collectively they provide an income stream for professional chess players.
However much you felt slighted by the remarks made surely you could have kept the threat of legal action as a last resort. They seem like a decent bunch down there and this could perhaps have been resolved in a more amicable way.
You have done far more damage to your reputation by the way you've handled this than the original offending article was ever likely to do. Maybe you should go down there, play a simul, sign a few books, make some friends and let this sorry episode become forgotten water under the bridge....and a few games here on RHP would be a treat too ...as it'd be great to have a known GM among our number. Just a thought.