Legal question re : falsely attributing

[Triskadecamus]

Are lawyers really that narrow-minded?

Lawyers are as narrow minded, or as broad minded as they are paid to be.

Tris

[astro]

*Originally posted by Triskadecamus *
**You know, I really think the virtual reputation I have as Triskadecamus has value to me. Real value. I have spent a lot of time reading, and responding in 1800 (1800! wow, I should check that once and a while) posts. I am not really Triskadecamus, but I am Triskadecamus, here, and on a few other forums. The reputation in the cyber community is important to me. Important enough to establish the habit of one single cyber handle, and use it in all cyber exchanges where I am not identified by legal name.
**

I have to echo Tris here. The law may not attribute much real world value to our online reputations, but quite frankly my SDMB “reputation”, for better or worse, is quite important to me. I have a reasonably thick skin but if I was unfairly and/or maliciously slandered it would be quite aggravating, even though I would probably try to ignore it after rebutting the accusation.

I don’t think litigation (or threats thereof) is at all appropriate for online poster squabbles but I also don’t think the “value” of online reputations should be readily dismissed either.

In a more macro sense the SDMB is a unique home to a lot of different intellects and needs to be protected. This latest post by Ed Zotti absolutely convinced me of the extent to which the existence of this board hangs by a virtual thread, and if the risk of litigation or overall PITA factor for maintaining it gets too high it will be eradicated without a backward corporate glance by the reader.

Much as I hate to consider it, this board will need to go pay at some point in order to survive.

[Jervoise]

*Originally posted by Triskadecamus *
I have, on other forums published poetry under the cyber handle Triskadecamus. I consider those poems to be my intellectual property. I don’t much worry about someone making a big bundle of money on them, and not paying me my share. But I would claim the words to be my own, if I saw them in a pop forty song. I would decline to have them used to sell fallout shelters, or Alpaca breeding stock. I don’t know what legal ground I might have in that, but it is my belief that an author is an author, and a virtual author is an author, under the legal definition.

Careful about that. The disclaimer at the bottom of this page reads:

Contents of the Straight Dope Message Board and the Straight Dope Web site are copyright 1984-2002 by the Chicago Reader, Inc. All rights reserved. By posting on this board you grant the Chicago Reader, Inc., and its successors and assigns a nonexclusive irrevocable right to re-use your posting in any manner it or they see fit without notice or compensation to you.

Possibly your other forums have a similar copyright claim. Of course, you as the author may republish your poetry, but other than that…

[hackneyed]

All your poetry are belong to us.

[/hackneyed]

(I feel so ashamed!)

[jiHymas]

Originally posted by Narrad
**Even if one could sue for defamation of one’s user name (which I very much doubt), there would be no point. What monetary value would a court attach to injury done to Poster B’s online reputation? What evidence could Poster B lead to show he or she has suffered a compensatable loss? IMO, Poster B could only hope for, if anything, an award of nominal damages (about a buck )

This is a very different to an injury done to B’s real-life reputation. This type of injury can be proved by evidence and perhaps quantified in monetary terms. **

This is interesting in the context of the thread I started on “Anonymous and Pseudonymous Posting”
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=111657&highlight=pseudonymous in which I stated real-name-as-user-name was preferable because any bonehead statements, etc., would harm the poster in his own community, among other reasons (there was mixed reaction to this thesis).

But in light of the issues brought up by Poster A, Poster B and Narrad, it would seem that there is a possibility message boards will disallow real names for precisely that reason…and to further limit the potential for liability, actually assign user names at random, to isolate any possible harm to that particular board.

[istara]

Actually, reading the above, I could imagine a scenario where an internet entity could sue for malicious falsehood. This is a criminal offence which you can even get legal aid to pursue in the UK.

Unlike libel (where damage is a given, you don’t have to prove that you were damaged, you have to prove that the world were capable of bearing libel) for malicious falsehood to succeed you have to prove (financial?) loss.

So imagine the case of an internet pyschic, widely known to her fans and paying online clients as “Madam Amethyst” though not her real name. If - and especially if - her business existed solely online, I could see her successfully suing if a disgruntled customer attempted to sabotage her reptutataion - and hence her business - with damaging posts to psychic-related newsgroups, etc.

[chula]

A quick search turned up a few relevant cases, including one against Amazon.com brought by a writer for negative reviews of his book. Amazon.com was found to be a "provider or user of interactive computer services under the Communications Decency Act. I can’t imagine the Chicago Reader would be excluded from protection. Are they really so worried?

I also found a weird case, Marczeski v. Law 122 F.Supp.2d 315 D.Conn. (2000), in which a user of a lesbian chatroom sued other users for defaming and harassing her. They dismissed the defamation suit, saying

[P]laintiff would have to prove more than injury to her reputation, or that she had been subjected to public ridicule, or that her association with friends had been adversely affected. She must show a pecuniary loss or other special damage caused by the defamatory statements.

However, it appears that the court accepted the premise that one’s online identity is essentially the same as any public identity. But I can’t imagine any circumstances under which defaming one’s screen name could lead to pecuniary loss. In Narrad’s example of “his porn sucks,” the statement is an opinion and defamation would not come into play.