Author Topic: Jury awards $11.3M over defamatory Internet posts  (Read 6533 times)

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102387
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Jury awards $11.3M over defamatory Internet posts
« on: October 10, 2006, 09:18:51 PM »
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-10-10-internet-defamation-case_x.htm

A Florida woman has been awarded $11.3 million in a defamation lawsuit against a Louisiana woman who posted messages on the Internet accusing her of being a "crook," a "con artist" and a "fraud."
Legal analysts say the Sept. 19 award by a jury in Broward County, Fla. — first reported Friday by the Daily Business Review — represents the largest such judgment over postings on an Internet blog or message board. Lyrissa Lidsky, a University of Florida law professor who specializes in free-speech issues, calls the award "astonishing."

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102387
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Jury awards $11.3M over defamatory Internet posts
« Reply #1 on: October 10, 2006, 09:20:09 PM »
The funniest thing is that the plaintiff paid all court costs and sued a broke woman. 

Does this constitute self-owned?  Or something else...?

DragonsBreath

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 649
  • Been to Hell and back! NEXT!
Re: Jury awards $11.3M over defamatory Internet posts
« Reply #2 on: October 10, 2006, 09:25:56 PM »
240, I see that the threats of a "lawsuit" has kept you in check. You're not even funny anymore. Sad to say this, but you kinda turned into an internet whuss! That shit must have scared the hell outta you. This ain't about you. So...

Well, now I know it can be done.....!

AVBG

  • Guest
Re: Jury awards $11.3M over defamatory Internet posts
« Reply #3 on: October 10, 2006, 09:26:37 PM »
sued

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102387
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Jury awards $11.3M over defamatory Internet posts
« Reply #4 on: October 10, 2006, 09:28:07 PM »
i still post.  240 doesn't. but...   ;)

besides, half these cats are clients now.   once they become clients I no longer bring them up in anything less than a flattering light. 

SUBTRACTION

  • Time Out
  • Getbig II
  • *
  • Posts: 87
  • Goatboy in jail for calling McGough fat on Getbig!
Re: Jury awards $11.3M over defamatory Internet posts
« Reply #5 on: October 10, 2006, 09:29:56 PM »
i still post.  240 doesn't. but...   ;)

besides, half these cats are clients now.   once they become clients I no longer bring them up in anything less than a flattering light. 

Like you don't have gimmick accounts,  ::)
Free  G o a t b o y!

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102387
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Jury awards $11.3M over defamatory Internet posts
« Reply #6 on: October 10, 2006, 09:31:18 PM »
Like you don't have gimmick accounts,  ::)

I post as 'Chick' sometimes when I want to put a little disinformation out there.

sgt. d

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4681
  • Don't tase me bro
Re: Jury awards $11.3M over defamatory Internet posts
« Reply #7 on: October 10, 2006, 09:31:39 PM »
i still post.  240 doesn't. but...   ;)

besides, half these cats are clients now.   once they become clients I no longer bring them up in anything less than a flattering light. 

Tamali scared the shit out of you. ;D

sgt. d

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4681
  • Don't tase me bro
Re: Jury awards $11.3M over defamatory Internet posts
« Reply #8 on: October 10, 2006, 09:32:20 PM »
I post as 'Chick' sometimes when I want to put a little disinformation out there.

Where is furby ???

DragonsBreath

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 649
  • Been to Hell and back! NEXT!
Re: Jury awards $11.3M over defamatory Internet posts
« Reply #9 on: October 10, 2006, 09:40:26 PM »
i still post.  240 doesn't. but...   ;)

besides, half these cats are clients now.   once they become clients I no longer bring them up in anything less than a flattering light. 

Translation: "You're right! I have lost the very reputation that has put me on the map".

Seriously dude, I would look forward to reading your posts. Now......they just plain ol' SUCK! You ain't even funny anymore. WEAK! Your last 4000 posts have sucked.

You must have been warned by the 'powers that be'. Oh, I get it....since you have found this as a source of "income", you no longer have balls.

$300 website + free balls!

gordiano

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 17124
  • TEAM "CUTE PENIS", TEAM TRIFLIN' RONNIE COLEMAN
Re: Jury awards $11.3M over defamatory Internet posts
« Reply #10 on: October 10, 2006, 09:43:52 PM »
The funniest thing is that the plaintiff paid all court costs and sued a broke woman. 

Does this constitute self-owned?  Or something else...?

Yes, that is total self ownage.


I can't imagine how many people take this shit seriously. If you do, you're pathetic. I can't imagine why ANYONE would want to sue over hurt feelings on an internet board.

Anybody wants to sue me, go for it. You won't get shit.  ;)
HAHA, RON.....

Special Ed

  • Toms
  • Getbig V
  • *
  • Posts: 4666
  • Special Ed Forever!
Re: Jury awards $11.3M over defamatory Internet posts
« Reply #11 on: October 10, 2006, 09:46:21 PM »
That verdict will either be reversed or severely reduced on appeal. Just like the 50 Milion Dollar Coffee Spill.

Special "Useless Judgments" Ed
BigNationRadio.com

divcom

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4211
  • The World South of the USA isnt for pussies.
Re: Jury awards $11.3M over defamatory Internet posts
« Reply #12 on: October 10, 2006, 09:52:55 PM »
Big Joke. 
Oh...Monica!

onlyme

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19328
  • Don't Fuck With Bears
Re: Jury awards $11.3M over defamatory Internet posts
« Reply #13 on: October 10, 2006, 10:15:13 PM »
YOUTUBE  is justg 19 months old andit was bought by Google for $1.62 Billion.  Unreal

ieffinhatecardio

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5202
  • More proof God is a man.
Re: Jury awards $11.3M over defamatory Internet posts
« Reply #14 on: October 10, 2006, 10:32:36 PM »
YouTube is just the most recent hot-potato...the last one holding it is the looser.

I don't know, I think it's going to be interesting to see what the wonderboys from Google can do with it. Clearly they're flush with success and feeling invincible. They just might make something out of it, there really is nothing else like YouTube.

ieffinhatecardio

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5202
  • More proof God is a man.
Re: Jury awards $11.3M over defamatory Internet posts
« Reply #15 on: October 10, 2006, 10:51:40 PM »
Nope. They can't optimize banner ads. The meta-data from the videos is not enough, and/or completely missing. And, quality, high-paying advertisers are going to shy away because they do not want their product possibly being associated with the hottest video on YouTube when it's a 16 year old picking his nose and feeding it to his little sister. Not good for business to have Tide, Coke, Toyota or McDonalds associated with that.

Hot. Potato.

Last person who pays the bills looses. If it's not Google, it's the people Google gets to advertise on it. So Google may be a winner. But, mark my words, the last person (or group) holding it will be loosers.

Clearly they have a plan, they wouldn't have given away 1.6 billion in stock if they didn't think they could make it work. I agree with your assessment of top rate advertisers but perhaps that's not the way they plan on generating revenue. Would a fee based YouTube work if the fees were small enough? There is enough content to keep people coming back.

The True Adonis

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 50229
  • Fear is proof of a degenerate mind.
Re: Jury awards $11.3M over defamatory Internet posts
« Reply #16 on: October 10, 2006, 10:54:06 PM »
They couldn`t scrape up two pennies for gas money to even make it to the lawyers office, let alone pay the initial consulting fee.

Let them try.

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102387
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Jury awards $11.3M over defamatory Internet posts
« Reply #17 on: October 10, 2006, 11:14:06 PM »
youtube is an awesome example of using the customer as a co-producer in the service process.  much like the McD counter that "lets" you pour your own beverage (resulting in one less employee needed per shift), it lets the user upload all the content, and all they provide is the database for people to do it.

It's funny... anyone who is over 25 should remember the 2 Jan 2001 tech bubble bursting.  What caused it?  Among other things, overinflated value estimates of stocks.  Once confidence weens, it's all over.  Once the code goes public, politics take over, and/or bandwidth prices drop with the next magic internet wire, youtube is toast.  And the google kids know it.  They just believe that 1.6 B in stock is less than the value it'll bring to current stock value before the barriers to entry are gone and the technology/database of videos/subscriber base is no longer worth it.  Google is worth 80billion - what is 1.6B in stock (that the youtube kids prob have to sell very slowly) really going to do?  We're all talking about it, so...

This always happens.  Can you believe people once put millions into a company which based its business model on the prediction that people would be repeat buyers of 20-pound dog food bags coming in their mail?  I mean, didn't anyone do a simple shipping cost per square foot analysis to see that people were going to be wooed into overpaying by that sock puppet for only so long?


Alex23

  • Guest
Re: Jury awards $11.3M over defamatory Internet posts
« Reply #18 on: October 10, 2006, 11:27:34 PM »
I agree. They have a plan. But that plan might be to pass the bill onto some naive rich people. Again, hot-potato. Greatest example is the sale of AOL to Time Warner. Another is the "sale" of Netscape to the investors on the stock market.

Fee based? I dunno. What would you pay to see shit quality 30second-5min clips of people picking their nose, or the funniest tv ad, or parts of movies? Half of which you can find elsewhere on the net. Maybe if they upped the quality (for for-pay members, and left it as-is for free members) and charged like $4.95/month unlimited. Then spammed the hell out of the site with ipod video download ads (through their own store), or have a dvd store.

Does that add up to enough to pay for the $1mil/month bill bandwidth? Plus everything else...


Totally right garraeth. They have zero business model and their technology is laughable. From what I've heard. they've been cruising mostly on VC money for the past 19 months... nobody "cared" about the balance sheet because of all the "hype". I don't see what value google see into it... google had its own "google video" which didn't really took off and was negative in revenue as well...

Google business strategy/aquisitions folks are loosing their edge and I know what I'm talking about, that's what I do for a living in the valley...

rocket

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 10739
  • Not a champion
Re: Jury awards $11.3M over defamatory Internet posts
« Reply #19 on: October 10, 2006, 11:34:19 PM »
Hey guys, 1.6 Billion for one the worlds largest violations of copyright law is a smart move.

ieffinhatecardio

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5202
  • More proof God is a man.
Re: Jury awards $11.3M over defamatory Internet posts
« Reply #20 on: October 10, 2006, 11:40:27 PM »
youtube is an awesome example of using the customer as a co-producer in the service process.  much like the McD counter that "lets" you pour your own beverage (resulting in one less employee needed per shift), it lets the user upload all the content, and all they provide is the database for people to do it.

It's funny... anyone who is over 25 should remember the 2 Jan 2001 tech bubble bursting.  What caused it?  Among other things, overinflated value estimates of stocks.  Once confidence weens, it's all over.  Once the code goes public, politics take over, and/or bandwidth prices drop with the next magic internet wire, youtube is toast.  And the google kids know it.  They just believe that 1.6 B in stock is less than the value it'll bring to current stock value before the barriers to entry are gone and the technology/database of videos/subscriber base is no longer worth it.  Google is worth 80billion - what is 1.6B in stock (that the youtube kids prob have to sell very slowly) really going to do?  We're all talking about it, so...

This always happens.  Can you believe people once put millions into a company which based its business model on the prediction that people would be repeat buyers of 20-pound dog food bags coming in their mail?  I mean, didn't anyone do a simple shipping cost per square foot analysis to see that people were going to be wooed into overpaying by that sock puppet for only so long?



I have two questions regarding this.

If YouTube really is a dog then the short term benefit of the acquisition isn't worth the loss of 1.6 billion in stock and the eventual downturn in stock value once the market realizes Google can't make YouTube profitable. Where's the benefit? A short term stock hike isn't worth 1.6 billion in stock.

What kind of board of directors would approve such a gamble when the only benefit will be short term and the eventual losses will outweigh any benefits.

No offense 240 but your theory is hard to grasp, at least for me. That doesn't mean you're not right though.

Alex23

  • Guest
Re: Jury awards $11.3M over defamatory Internet posts
« Reply #21 on: October 10, 2006, 11:51:48 PM »
I have two questions regarding this.

If YouTube really is a dog then the short term benefit of the acquisition isn't worth the loss of 1.6 billion in stock and the eventual downturn in stock value once the market realizes Google can't make YouTube profitable. Where's the benefit? A short term stock hike isn't worth 1.6 billion in stock.

What kind of board of directors would approve such a gamble when the only benefit will be short term and the eventual losses will outweigh any benefits.

No offense 240 but your theory is hard to grasp, at least for me. That doesn't mean you're not right though.


You have a point ieffinhatecardio. But Google business model it quite particular; they make money by pricing adsense at a certain level, based on their "traffic", the more traffic, the more pricey the adds are. Much like TV ratings.

now 1.6bil is peanuts when valued at 130bil market cap; simple integration of YOUTube or even a "fade out" and migration of the "customers"  to their google video and they get "into their money". No financially but position wise... 

It's a classic destroy by aquisition pattern IMO..


rocket

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 10739
  • Not a champion
Re: Jury awards $11.3M over defamatory Internet posts
« Reply #22 on: October 11, 2006, 12:26:44 AM »
If I had copyrighted material of mine on Youtube without permission I would see this a perfect opportunity to join a class act suit against the very wealthy pockets of google. :)

djohnsen

  • Getbig II
  • **
  • Posts: 299
Re: Jury awards $11.3M over defamatory Internet posts
« Reply #23 on: October 11, 2006, 12:37:16 AM »
Yo, 240!

How is the baby? Boy or a girl?

djohnsen

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102387
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Jury awards $11.3M over defamatory Internet posts
« Reply #24 on: October 11, 2006, 12:37:34 AM »
If YouTube really is a dog then the short term benefit of the acquisition isn't worth the loss of 1.6 billion in stock and the eventual downturn in stock value once the market realizes Google can't make YouTube profitable. Where's the benefit? A short term stock hike isn't worth 1.6 billion in stock.

Google is riding the wave.  It will not be worth 80+B in 10 years.  You pump it before you dump it. technology has wonderful way of killing those barriers to entry.

What kind of board of directors would approve such a gamble when the only benefit will be short term and the eventual losses will outweigh any benefits.

Tech stocks are always short-term.  If it fits on a cd-rom, it can and will be copied and distributed with time.  Those 6 geeks at Excite had the first mainstream search engine in 1993 - got it up to 6.5B in 99, and was bankrupt in 2001.  Why?  Cause the technology was copied, and the monster idea they had no longer gave them a competitive advantage.

Hell, youtube could have added a search engine and/or a mailbox to their homepage, and google may have had a serious threat on its hands in 6 months.  Competitive advantages NO NOT last in tech markets.