Examination of life and death when the network WEB2.0 sued reputation infringement of speech
March 20, public comments Network and restaurants - Fortune floor between the lawsuit, Hongkou District People's Court ruled win over the former, this is the recent public comments network involving the second honorary infringement case. Comments public network lawyers ZHOU Wen-jun was not optimistic, because the next three lawsuits are awaiting the outcome.
The remaining three lawsuits plaintiffs were holes Garden, sanlintang, Garden Court Restaurant, and wine are also embrace. The hole Garden is the second network sued the public comments, in the first lawsuit in August 2004, losing to the end. At that time, the case was considered a domestic honour in the first third-party appraisal. WEB2.0 universal application of technology to give users information providers and recipients of the dual identity.
Comments net is the public use of the technology, catering to consumers to provide a platform for third-party service commented. Comments criticism with the color content on the network, not only in a wide spread, some restaurants that, in real life also harm their interests, so they commented to the public network to court, the prosecution grounds - defamation.
Plaintiff restaurants Zaibai
"Fortune House's decision earlier than the other three down, because it is alleged that the public network Comments published in the" Shanghai Restaurant Guide 2003/2004 "(" Guide "), one of the tort of defamation." Shanghai Li-Law Firm Wu Hualiang said. Wu Hualiang for Fortune House, Hole Garden, sanlintang three restaurants common attorney.
Hole-first prosecution of the public comments Garden Network, also alleged that the "Guide," a book infringement, the first such case, the court verdict on the Fortune faster on the floor.
Reasons for the court: "The defendant selected from the plaintiff owned restaurants Comments content, and language which does not reflect the nature of defamation, and others based on their different feelings made within the scope of reasonable evaluation, it will not lead damaged the reputation of the plaintiff. "
And the first to lose Hole Garden, the alleged infringement, the Internet users to extend the original message, but not limited to the "Guide". Hole Zijiang Yang, general manager of the Garden, said: "The message from the users, not just that more can it say bad, but personal attacks."
Who is responsible for excessive remarks
Restaurant and the site of the debate, both sides have invoked the "Internet information service management approach" ( "measures") to defend himself.
"Procedures," 8 Article 15 provides that Internet service providers are not allowed to produce, reproduce, publish, disseminate contain insults or slander others, against other people's legitimate rights and interests of the information. Article 16 provides that the Internet service providers that transmit the information its Web site clearly belongs to the one listed in Article 15, should immediately stop transmission, keep the relevant records, and to the relevant state authorities report.
Hole Garden based on the above requirements, commented that the public network users should be responsible for the personal attacks of discourse. However, the public comments Lung-wei, vice president of network said: "16 is the only clear responsibility of the site. This provision, stressed that the 'found'. That as long as there is not such information, we have to charge."
Is not to say that "on our website there are no words, we must be responsible, because our site is a flood of information, we are unable to edit full prior gatekeeper." Wei Long considered.
Wu Hualiang that "approach" provides local unclear. He believes that, although not required prior gatekeeper site, but require the removal inappropriate remarks, and that "measures" also did not say that the report must be carried out after the excision. "Netizens on these Restaurant excessive remarks are linked to more than a year, the sites did not 'found', did not take the initiative to amend, not to be responsible for this?"
Case significance
"The first time litigation, we evidence in the public network editors commented," Guide ", the prosecution will be simple point for defamation." Zijiang Yang said.
Before the Trial, Shanghai members of the catering industry trade associations convened to discuss the case Hole Garden, the view that: "(pooling limited users commented on the catering enterprises overall rating even sort) to spread incredible, it will affect the normal order of the restaurant industry, catering Association must be a voice. "
IT industry is that the public comments of information, not by website was established to carry out the editing, but by the members of messages automatic classification rolling cumulative.
The emergence of such lawsuits is not accidental, and is rapidly increasing. Comments cases in the public network, there are areas of concern and Baidu sued Sina case.
Among them, the big companies sued decorative Sina infringement cases, in May 2005, lost to Sina results. Sina refused to accept the verdict, the prosecution of the sea. Shenzhen City Intermediate People's Court made a final judgement, dismissed Sina's appeal and upheld the Shenzhen Nanshan District People's Court's decision.
Lung-wei said that the public comments Network is currently the circumstances of the case, in several restaurants received "complaints", after examination revealed the existence of speech excessive users, public comments will be promptly deleted network; But the problem is that restaurants did not tell Comments public network, we will put on the court. Sina lost in a plot that, in that situation, is insisting on retaining the "extremist remarks" a very long time.
For similar case, Sina lost in Shenzhen, and the net was in the public comments in favour of Shanghai, ZHOU Wen-jun said that in China's Internet-related law does not sound circumstances, as regional differences, the same network of speech cases, it is absolutely possible larger difference in the judgement.
Some people have said that, therefore category of cases involving networks, reputation, third-party evaluation, and many other new issues, highlights the rapid development of the Internet industry faced by the legal vacuum. Now, each case will have Case significance. Word-of-mouth network CEO Li Zhiguo worried: "Once the public loses network Comments on the website WEB2.0 inevitable broader ramifications."
The harvest season approaching WEB2.0
Comments public network was founded in 2003, according to Wei Long description: "registered rapid growth in the number of members, registered a membership of more than 1 million a day up to 50 million visits." Message is similar to the public Member Comments net WEB2.0 Site The main sources of information.
As members reach a certain number, the website started selling group member information. "Member groups create our core values." Wei Long said, "they can in the above message is very important, is to ensure that we serve as a bridge impartiality of the key and we will be members of the derivatives business groups, such as the compilation of a book, or Member provide mobile value-added services, but to ensure that they comment on the restaurant industry. "
At present, the public commented network has not yet begun large-scale commercial operation, on the one hand, the number of members waiting for further accumulation, on the other hand, means very cautious earnings, the website worried that commercial operation will hurt its credibility.
Word-of-mouth network of services provided to users and the public network similar comments, Lee said the country: restaurants, and other public places open to public consumption the supervision of any person who is an irresistible trend. As long as they are objective, rational evaluation will be displayed on the network.
On the other hand, Li Zhiguo consider that the use of the website of WEB2.0 technology should be more proactive in some, obviously insulting, abusive comments such as the nature of time for the deletion.
However, Li Zhiguo still worried that once the public comments networks lost as a case, there will be a large number of sites using WEB2.0 technology, legal experience.
Leave a Reply