[jude]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pedalhead /img/forum/go_quote.gif ....There have been cases where individuals have sued online publishers for libel over customer book reviews published on their sites. "[/i]

Then I guess you better watch what you type about others on the Web.

I guess also, then, I better delete every bad review or negative statement made about anyone, any business, anything.

We are mindful of liability exposure, and decisions regarding these forums are sometimes affected by that very thing. Nevertheless, I do thank you for your concern.

 

[Solitary1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by scottiebabie /img/forum/go_quote.gif strange? yup your're absolutely correct this thread is darn strange. what i find strange is that people dont give a hoot when someones character and name gets assassinated and the rest applauds (on basically the worldstage) without a care for the consequences. what i find more strange is that the accuser gets "the benefit of a doubt" and doesnt have to prove his charges but the accused has to defend and prove himself innocent. anyone else see any whodoo voodoo here? what i find strangest is that "the good old boys" feel that since they pioneered this business, they are then defacto entitled to it regardless of global reality. does GM, FORD and CHRYSLER (if theres a Chrysler left) ring any bells? i guess its just me. O well, i'll bug out now and go shove my head in a hole. 'nuff said.

Yeh, well there's been a lot of indignation passed around regarding the moderation of this thread (or lack thereof) from the OP and the one moderator that posted. While I have no doubt Dr. Meier exerts no pressure on head-fi regarding his products, there IS a sense of loyalty presiding over this place when it comes to their MOT whether anyone wants to admit to it or not, and while that's not necessarily a bad thing it can be prejudicial.

That's why I was the first to suggest locking this thread and letting the two individuals/companies iron their differences out. If they feel the need, either can post the results once resolved. As far as I'm concerned, no one can come out of this smelling like a rose. Now, you have every T, D & H chiming in (yeh, including myself) with their thoughts and enough "fanboyism" to make things even murkier than they already are. Posting schematics and comparing parts in this thread is getting absolutely nothing accomplished. No points made or proven, just more opportunity for this thing to get really ugly.

That's a good line regarding the "good old boys". I have always admired Headroom's products, long before I knew of this place, but Tyll's assertion that any new entry into the headphone amplifier market must have something radical about it in order to "be allowed" to compete is ridiculous.

 

[pedalhead]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jude /img/forum/go_quote.gif I guess, then, I better delete every bad review or negative statement made about anyone, any business, anything. .

Oh come on Jude, this thread is a different ball of string, and you know it. Anyway, I've already labored my point. I'll sit back & watch this train-wreck unfold in silence...

 

[Hi-Finthen]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hi-Finthen /img/forum/go_quote.gif As has been said: Why would R19 and R20 exist (again, in identical fashion to the Porta Corda, in Jan's assessment, which probably few, if any, who know him doubt) if only to short them with wire? This IS the "smoking gun" IMO, needing to be verified by any owner for the debate to be settled.

Robert, rebuttal if you will please sir......

 

[gtp]

Getting back to the heart of the matter, what resolution is there that could satisfy both sides?

 

[Indygreg]

is all of this going to slow down Headphonia from having amps available for sale?

 

[hYdrociTy]

has anyone else compared the amps yet? the schematics have been released so if any of the electrically inclined headphonia owners could chime in now?

 

[cotdt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indygreg /img/forum/go_quote.gif is all of this going to slow down Headphonia from having amps available for sale?

They will only sell better now!

 

[feifan]

My apologies if a similar definition of "libel" has already been posted. I found the following on the PG® Graphics Company website:

"Libel: Defamation of an individual or individuals in a published work, with malice aforethought. In litigation, the falsity of the libelous statements or representations, as well [as] the intention of malice, has to be proved for there to be libel. In addition, financial damages to the parties so libeled must be incurred as a result of the material in question for there to be an assessment of the amount of damages to be awarded to a claimant. This is contrasted to slander, which is defamation through the spoken word" (http://www.brochure-design.com/broch...ng-terms.html).

Based on this definition, my guess is that this discussion is nowhere near the line that's marked "libel."

 

[Skylab]

Quote:

Originally Posted by feifan /img/forum/go_quote.gif My apologies if a similar definition of "libel" has already been posted. I found the following on the PG® Graphics Company website: "Libel: Defamation of an individual or individuals in a published work, with malice aforethought. In litigation, the falsity of the libelous statements or representations, as well [as] the intention of malice, has to be proved for there to be libel. In addition, financial damages to the parties so libeled must be incurred as a result of the material in question for there to be an assessment of the amount of damages to be awarded to a claimant. This is contrasted to slander, which is defamation through the spoken word" (http://www.brochure-design.com/broch...ng-terms.html). Based on this definition, my guess is that this discussion is nowhere near the line that's marked "libel."

Not only that, but the people who are trying to claim that it might be don't seem genuinely concerned about head-fi, but to have some other agenda.

This entire thread consitutes an excellent practice of the Right to Free Speech in the USA, and nothing more.

 

[pedalhead]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skylab /img/forum/go_quote.gif Not only that, but the people who are trying to claim that it might be don't seem genuinely concerned about head-fi, but to have some other agenda.

Please enlighten me as to what my "agenda" is...?

 

[Skylab]

I don't pretend to know, but sincere concern for head-fi certainly did NOT come across at all. Perhaps I am mistaken, if so, please correct me.

 

[Febs]

There is a fundamental lack of understanding evident in this thread regarding a number of legal principles, both with respect to defamation and to intellectual property rights.

The definition of defamation quoted above is not a particularly good one, as it appears to include the "actual malice" standard set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in New York Times v. Sullivan, a standard of proof which applies to public figures, and which has a meaning that may not be evident from the usual definition of the word. (In the Sullivan context, "malice" means that a communication was published either knowing it was false or with a reckless disregard as to whether it was true or false.)

A better definition of defamation can be found in Black's Law Dictionary, which, citing the Restatement (Second) of Torts, provides that "a communication is defamatory if it tends so to harm the reputation of another as to lower him in the estimation of the community or to deter third persons from associating or dealing with him. The meaning of a communication is that which the recipient correctly, or mistakenly but reasonably, understands that it was intended to express."

Black's Law Dictionary also defines defamation as "an intentional false communication, either published or publicly spoken, that injures another's reputation or good name." (Though I would need to check the caselaw to confirm, I believe that in this context, the phrase "intentional false communication" means an intentional communication that is false, as opposed to a communication that is intentionally false.)

I am only addressing the above posts to comment on the definition that they set forth of defamation. I offer no opinion whatsoever on whether any of the communications in this thread are defamatory. Note also that these definitions relate to U.S. jurisprudence.

 

[Hi-Finthen]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pedalhead /img/forum/go_quote.gif Please enlighten me as to what my "agenda" is...?

So you may sue us ? lol... I keed, I keed ;-}

 

[pedalhead]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skylab /img/forum/go_quote.gif I don't pretend to know, but sincere concern for head-fi certainly did NOT come across at all. Perhaps I am mistaken, if so, please correct me.

You don't pretend to know, and yet you still accuse. Next you'll be claiming the moon landings were faked & there are aliens in the White House. (ok the latter is possible)