Piano World Home Page Forums General Discussions Legal Issues Please Be Careful What You Post!

I just received another lawyer letter (via email) asking to have posts removed about a
certain piano dealer and threatening legal action. No, I didn't hear from the dealer first, they chose to go straight to their lawyer (interesting).

By the way, I'm purposely not naming names here (the dealer, the lawyer, or the thread(s)), please don't start guessing or speculating.
I need to discuss things with our lawyer first.

The last time this happened (the infamous posts about a NY dealer) it cost me hundreds of dollars.
Now I have to have our lawyer respond to this one.
Even though I am technically not responsible ...

"The law is very clear in this area. As the host for a forum, Piano World is treated as a news vendor, bookstore or library and is not liable, since he neither knew nor had any reason to know of any purported defamation. He exerts no editorial control over the content of forum postings. Moreover, the Communications Decency Act has preempted a defamation claim. "

I have no desire to get in the middle of this.

I find it unfathomable that you can say what you want about the president of the United States, but you can be sued for what you say about a piano dealer. Be that as it may, I need to once again ask our members to be careful, before you find yourselves in court.

By the same token, if I was the dealer and someone was saying something untrue about my store, I wouldn't be too happy.

[I must admit though, threatening legal action against a site with 6200+ piano loving members and thousands upon thousands of visitors doesn't sound like the best business tacticts. Perhaps a more gentlemanly approach first would have been better?]

It would be interesting to get some of our members from the legal profession to weigh in on this subject. I can't see why members couldn't post negative comments about a dealer, tuner, mover, whatever, provided they were true and sustainable. And provided we allow equal time/space for rebuttals.

Or maybe we need a legal slush fund and some pro-bono lawyers? :-) [Just kidding]

PLEASE ALSO SEE: Forums 10 Commandments

You shouldn't be kidding, if I were a lawyer I'd certainly do pro-bono work for this site.

I'd contribute to a legal defence fund for sure. Set up a link.

Someone had a good idea (maybe in the offending thread)... when you have had a good experience with a dealership, we should ALL trumpet the news loudly and frequently. If the experience was less than satisfactory, we should just remain silent. Perhaps something like "I have also visited (dealer name)." End of comment.

Sometimes silence tells volumes, and I am assuming that there would be no legal issue over simply acknowledging that you have been to the dealership, or better yet, just saying nothing.

My 2c. Sorry you are having problems again, Frank.

Nina

I'd certainly help, Frank, but I it's not my practice area and I'm out of state so I wouldn't be much help.

That really stinks! Maybe you could put a little caveat in the piano forum telling members not to publicly post negative feedback about particular venders (you can bet none of 'em will send you threatening letters when the comments are positive. :rolleyes: ), but also post a line encouraging PF members to post requests on the piano thread for people to respond to them privately for questions regarding particular venders. That way, the flow of information won't be stopped - it just won't be public. Plus, in that format, we can all say what we would normally filter somewhat on the public forum; in other words, REALLY tell them what we think. That'll get 'em!!

Why won't you post the name of the store? That would be worse than the bad word of mouth, yet would seem to fall inside the reasonable boundaries.

Or just make a sticky topic. The following dealers are good, the following dealers have threatened to sue us.

I know, it's not funny.

Time for me to hit your PayPal link again.

Why can't slimy dealers take responsibility for their own misdeeds instead of pinning the blame on everyone else....I guess some people just don't get it...

KathyK, that seems like a good plan. I guess if someone were to show up and ask about this or that dealer with a poor reputation, one of us could post a reply asking that replies take place off-list.

I did think it weird when a newcomer turned up here recently and posted very brief messages about the reputations of certain piano dealers. A different thread for each dealer, which is unusual. No details about what they were looking for, either; just asking about dealers. Very suspicious.

Cindy

Kathyk,

When I first read your idea it seemed terrific. But then I thought about it a bit and realized the abuses that such a system might invite. Imagine that someone puts up a post asking for private feedback about ABC Pianos, an honorable dealership - one of the good guys. Among the (hopefully) many notes filled with accolades would perhaps be a few (or more) sent by shills fronting for jealous and unscrupulous competitors. Surely, these notes would be negative (or worse) and ABC would have no opportunity to respond. ABC has no recourse when it is unfairly slighted or disparaged by salespeople in its competitors' showrooms - and that's bad enough. I worry about giving the bad guys another possible route of attack.

I agree, we should all hang our washing out in full view of everyone

That stinks, I would bet that whatever was said, about whoever, was right on the mark. People who are guilty of such behavior typically extend it to doing things like contacting their lawyer, and not even discussing it first.

It must be frustrating for you, here you are providing a service, and people do stuff like this.

Tell me, how does a web site like
www.f***edcompany.com get away with posting
the things they do?

While I prefer the forums be as unbiased as
possible, and not a place for personal vendettas, we shouldn't be prevented from posting the truth.

Anyone can have a bad day, but the truly good companies/stores/dealers will own up to their mistakes and make them right.
I find it is usually the questionable ones who get on the defensive (and call out the watch dogs).

So, what happens if you just don't respond to these lawyer threats? Does it still cost you money? I can't believe it's happening to you again, Frank. All you have to do is google, and you can find complaints on online message boards about all sorts of businesses. Why are do all the sue-happy weenies sell pianos?

Jodi

Could PW start a dealership list?

Good ones get a
Ones with no track record get an "Unknown"
Bad ones get a
Or can you be sued for Graemlins too?

It could be developed using a rating system based on member input (voting) with explanatory comments but precautions would be necessary to prevent problems like Irving mentioned.

Maybe it's best to keep doing it the way we are though. Pat good dealers on the back publically. If we don't know the dealer, say we don't. If someone asks about a bad dealer, say nothing .... although what I'd really like to say is "I'd like tell you my frank and candid opinion but the last time I did this dealer threatened to to sue PW."

It amazes me that some folks will spend their money to persist in doing things the wrong way while others know what right is and just do it.

Frank, please let us know how we can contribute to the PW Legal Defense Fund.

JP

While this forum has been incredibly useful for so many people it has become a victim of its own success, and if contributors have to hold their punches with respect to negative comments about specific dealers then consumers become a victim of this forum's success as well.

Anyone used to usenet is probably completely unaware of the 'prohibition' against negative comments about specific businesses (I certainly was until this thread started).

The success of this forum has drawn most contributors away from usenet, so that RMMP is not even worth monitoring IMO. So we are left with a playground full of people with opinions, yet all we hear are the 'positive' ones. Not good.

I agree with Christopher and some of the others.
If all we post is positive information we do a disservice to the thousands of people who come here every day looking for help and advice.

We need to find a way to convey negative information without worrying about legal threats every time.
Maybe some of our friends/members in the legal professions could offer some advice?

Here's what I'm thinking (but I'm certainly open for other ideas). We ...

Post Polls either one poll per dealer, or multiple dealers in one poll. I can set it so voters can only vote once. We indicate that a poll has to have had at least 10 votes to be considered a reasonable representation.

Star Ratings Use the 5 star rating system

Personal Experience
Negative posts should be based on personal experience and include facts, not based on hearsay.

Other suggestions?
Legal opinions?

I cannot remember anything particularly unpleasant being posted about anybody on the Forum lately. It is obvious that the complainer was waiting to pounce and spoiling for a fight.

Many apologies from all of us Frank. Don't let this get you down.

You've probably explored this angle, but I would expect that there are non-profit groups seeking to protect free speech as it relates to a defacto public forum, even if it is hosted in a private space?

Alternatively, and I'm guessing here, perhaps the legal problems would not apply to a PRIVATE forum? So everyone who joins PW has to pay a fee to join the private discussions? I don;t like the idea much myself because I think all this info should be in the public domain, but perhaps having a membership fee somehow indemnifies you from this legal problem?

I don't know if any forum lawyers have, indeed, contacted you offering guidance, whether it be in private or otherwise. If and when that happens, perhaps they will need a copy of the exact letter that you received so they can assess the validity of the retailer's position. I know this is sort of common sense and probably something you've already taken care of, and I also know that it is not a substitute for having your own lawyer review the letter and facts.

I'm not a lawyer and am probably in over my head, but I do find suspect, the retailer's ability to squelch negative speech on a forum, as such. Were it conspiratorial, untrue, and intended to damage the retailer's name and business as opposed to relate facts....maybe it would seem less of a first amendment issue.

That said, many of us know of other forums (Taylor guitar, Motif Forum...that routinely rip apart Guitar Center)that utilize negative critics. An interesting example is 'The Complaint Station'. And one example there is Rowe Furniture who gets slammed repeatedly, and hard, but they usually post a follow-up telling the complainant(?)what action to do.

I'm not sure what would prompt either Guitar Center or Rowe Furniture, organizations with good financial resourses, to take a pass on contesting the negative forums...while this retailer in question professes to have a legal issue.

One suggestion would be for you to contact the forums mentioned above (owners/administrator/whatever) and ask their take on the situation. While I can't give real legal advice, I can only say that it would be a shame if you heeded this retailer's directive, when it was based on well written legal bluster. The fact that they went straight to a lawyer, this time, could be to present the best 'impact' for their directive - which they may know to be flawed.

If all this fails, my suggestion would be that the precise name and location of said retailer not be mentioned but that the general area of business, etc. and other pertinents be allowed - so as to make more vague any claim they think they have, but to still convey facts/opinions amongst forum readers who can fill in the missing info on their own.

Frank,
I like your idea about the polls. 5 stars being best, one star meaning look elsewhere. As you indicated votes are based on personal experience only and no dealers can vote. Also let me know how to contribute to the PW legal defense fund.

Understand why you can't mention the dealer. If it were known however, over in the usenet, I'm sure folks in the RMMP would have a few choice words to say.

Rich

I like the polls idea.

What's not legal about that? Consumer reports and hundreds of other sources rate products and services.

Frank,

Clearly, people here are frustrated by, even resent, a rule that muzzles them. Most of us have always taken for granted that as Americans we have the right to express ourselves freely. “Freedom of Speech”, to most of us, means that we can say whatever we want, whenever we want so long as what we say is not libelous and so long as we don’t yell “fire” in a crowded theatre when there is no fire. If a piano dealer treats people unfairly, has an inventory that is sub-par or is simply unpleasant, surely we should be free to state this here without constraint. Or should we be?

This forum offers no protection to anyone (dealer, manufacturer, distributor or whatever) who might be the victim of a smear campaign run here by devious shills masquerading as innocent piano lovers. Believe me; I would like nothing better than for each and every crook and incompetent to be exposed for what he or she is. This would only help my business so long as I would be sure not to be one of them. But if by allowing the crooks and incompetents to be exposed, we make it possible for innocents to be unfairly maligned, we should perhaps not be so free to expose them.

Even a well-meaning person can, perhaps a bit thoughtlessly, say something negative about a piano person or entity that is not completely fair. This can and does happen here at times and it can and does cause harm. If the negative comment is well deserved, that’s perhaps okay, but it isn’t always so well deserved, it isn’t always sure to be adequately countered and we can’t always know when it is undeserved.

So what should we do? If we can’t be fully free to express negative opinions that would surely make this forum less fun. Some of our best contributors might find themselves too bored to want to stay on. And, as you say, If all we post is positive information we do a disservice to the thousands of people who come here every day looking for help and advice. So there seems to be no question but that we must provide a way for people to express all of their sentiments, both positive and negative, without constraint. Self-policing has worked pretty well here and this has been sufficient to ensure against most abuses and to counter most unwarranted slights. But the system is not fail-safe - some abuses have not been caught; some unwarranted slights have not been countered. Because the system isn’t fail-safe we have a dilemma that must be addressed and resolved.

Does your proposed system do the trick? If it’s sufficiently tweaked, perhaps it would work. So let’s start tweaking and see what happens. First, if we’re going to have any sort of ratings, we must make sure that the raters are as credible as possible. One way to do this would be to require that each rater be open about who he or she is and to also require that he or she be a reasonably frequent poster (100 total posts, perhaps, or 50 posts in the last year) with a star rating of 4 or more from at least a dozen other frequent posters. Not too many cheaters would achieve “rater” status with requirements like this. Second, the raters must always be open to challenge. Should the forum community feel that a particular rater is unfair or biased, it must have the means to boot him or her from the rater pool.

I might have more to say, but I’m late for an appointment. I hope that this dialogue continues with more ideas along these lines.

In other words, throw out the scores of the American and East German judges.

Usenet
RMMP

Please explain.
First, I've have seen RMMP.
It is a google group, rec music makers piano.

Don't laugh, but what is usenet?
Is RMMP part of usenet? or vice versa?
And why are they not sueable?

Epinions, Crutchfield and a host of other sites have plenty of ratings and customer feedback, I wonder how they get away with it?

I also like the Star rating system. But limiting this rating to users with a certain number of stars may not work as; those piano shopping are newer and have few posts.

Any cease and desist letter from a lawyer needs to be taken seriously--not because there is necessarily any substance to the underlying claims, but because even a frivolous lawsuit can be expensive to defend. Having said that, 99 times out of 100 (or 1000?), there is no suit. the letter is puffery and an inexpensive way of stiffling legitimate expression. You back down because you do not understand your rights or you are not willing to take the chance that this is the 1 in a 1,000 case that will be litigated.

Typically, the letter wants you to stop doing something or remove something from the marketplace. In my experience, if you ignore the first letter and they do indeed file suit (unlikely), then you can decide to do what they originally requested and they will go away -- USUALLY. In court it is VERY hard to prove monetary damages. BUT WHO WANTS TO GO TO COURT?

There are two defenses that protect everyone and Frank has highlighted a third that protects him.

The two defenses that we all share are:

1. Truth. If what you say is true, you are not liable for saying it no matter how badly it reflects on a dealer.

2. Opinion. You are entitled to yours, and as long as your remarks are clearly an opinion, you cannot be liable for expressing it. It doesn't even have to be reasonable. If you begin your expression with: "In my opinion...." you are safe (as long as the "opinion" does not go on to make a factual mistatement too).

Now, what gets you in trouble? A statement purporting to be a statement of fact that is untrue and causes harm to another. Such as (assuming they are untrue): ABC Piano Dealer has the highest prices in the NYC area. ABC Piano does not even have a service department.

There are many forums and publications where products and businesses are rated and customers allowed to comment. As Frank notes, on the web a forum host is protected.

Lawyers write cease and desist letters with nothing to back them up all the time. Nobody wants to get sued, and defending even a stupid lawsuit can be expensive. The vast majority of such letters do not result in a suit if ignored, and most of the ones that are litigated probably have some merit. But in the end, anybody with $125 can start a lawsuit.

How you respond to these letters depends in large part on how "risk averse" you are. I have not seen the letters and know nothing about the underlying claims and allegations, but I suspect they are just phooey....

jf (Esq.)

I am not sure there's that much value in setting up a rating system for dealers. There are so many scattered throughout the U.S. and the rest of the world, I just don't see that there's a large enough sampling of consumers to reliably rate any but the largest dealers or the chains. Just my opinion.
_________________

Would it provide any coverage of your or our collective posteriors to have a prominent banner on each and every page (especially the "New Topic" page) that "the comments posted are the opinions of the respective posters and full responsibility for those comments lies solely with the person making the comment"?

BTW, Frank, I don't use PainPal, but if you send me a private message with your mailing address, I shall drop a check in the mail.

Finally, relevant to Frank's first reply on this thread (about another public forum for ranting), didja see this morning's recycled Calvin and Hobbes strip?

For some reason, this whole thing would make me want to fight fire with fire. It really would.

What's to stop Frank from posting the entire letter he received from the dealer's lawyer right here, without comment? That's certainly not defamation, now is it? Surely any new members ought to understand that the dealer in question is one that threatens frivolous litigation? Sometimes if you expose a roach to the light of day, it will scurry off and leave you alone.

Honestly, I think that "covering" for this dealer by maintaining their anonymity might be making matters worse. They know that having their lawyer ink a letter for $50 will chill discussion on this board. Frankly, I think they're bluffing, and they'll never file suit. If they do, then they'll lose and this harassment will stop once and for all.

That said, my lay opinion on this is that I wouldn't start any formal system for ranking or evaluating dealers. My hunch is that allowing people to voice their opinions is one thing, and your exposure is limited. I think you're allowed to run an internet discussion board like this and not be responsible for everything that is said.

Once you take the next step and encourage a ranking system, thought, you might be in a different situation. You might need to take reasonable steps to guard against someone spamming the poll/rating results, voting again and again under different identities to malign a dealer. I don't know.

I think the best defense is to keep the forum exactly as it is -- a place where individuals can say what they want publicly, and anyone who wishes to defend his/her honor can do so publicly.

Oh, and one more thing, Frank. You probably don't want to post anything your lawyers sent to you or tell us what they're telling you. Your adversary might take this as evidence that you're waiving the attorney-client privilege and argue they're allowed to review your confidential communications with your lawyers. That would be something to avoid, to put it mildly.

Cindy -- conceding that it is easy to be a tough guy when she's not the defendant

I think the lawyer who sent the email should be sent a letter back from another lawyer telling him that any more attempts to intimidate this forum and its members will be viewed as an attempt to violate our collective civil rights and will be aggressively pursued. My guess is the attorney who sent the email is not convinced he has a leg to stand on, but because his client is demanding he threaten you, he does so via email to see if that's enough to scare you into submission.

You have a right to state facts. The dealership this lawyer works for is a known fact. The contents of the email is a known fact. I'd post all that information, with a well worded little disclaimer at the top saying this is what you got, this is why, and nail it down so it won't move from the top. There's nothing they can do about you posting facts.

PS: Cindy, you posted yours while I was writing, so I just saw it. We're thinking alike, you just said it better than I did. I think the email, along with the name of the dealer involved, should be posted without comment, and nailed down to the top of the list with no way for anyone to respond to it. And it should stay there for a long, long time.

Via e-mail?

Is this how they do things these days?

Frank said,

"We need to find a way to convey negative information without worrying about legal threats every time."


CJQ's comments suggest a possible solution. If we cannot post negative comments on PW for fear of law suits, how about posting to RMMP instead?

If someone asks about a dealer one of us knows to have problems/issues, we tell them we cannot respond on PW because of litigation concerns. We tell them to post their question to RMMP where it will be candidly answered.

Can PW be held liable for comments posted by one of its members to RMMP?

Of course, Irving is right, it is important that negative posts be based on fact, not hearsay. I would think that in order for someone to pen a creditable negative comment about a dealer, it ought based on first-hand knowledge or involvement in the issue at hand. That's only fair to the dealer involved. The dealer can respond with his side of the story on RMMP if he so chooses.

Could something like this work?

JP

Just my 2 (or 3) cents on this. I was recently a beginning-player newbie piano buyer. This is a very common circumstance. I didn't think it was possible in a two week period to be subjected to quite as many misleading sales pitches (i.e. lies) and high pressure sales tactics as I was, for a purchase that was emotionally important to me (I have for a long time wanted to play, but for various bad reasons never started), and involved a reasonably large amount of money.

I found that by posting on here I was able to get some outside sources of information and an independent perspective. In particular I wound up purchasing a less well-known piano (a Schulze-Pollmann) from a dealer I had never heard of before (Faust-Harrison), rather than a well-known piano (Yamaha) from a dealer my teacher had initially recommended (Frank and Camille's). In part this was my judgment, in part my teacher's ultimate endorsement, but also in part due to the reputation of both the product and the dealer on this website.

I also felt better once I realized that it wasn't just me who was subjected to the sleaze of the piano sales industry, but that this was common. I feel it is essential that people be allowed to post negative personal opinions and information about piano brands and dealers. I find it interesting that only piano dealers seem to feel the need to resort to lawyers to stop personal opinions being posted in a chat room. Apparently, car dealers, guitar dealers, political candidates etc. do not feel the need to do this. Further evidence of the general sleaze level of the piano sales industry.

I must respectfully disagree with Irving. He is understandably concerned about either malicious posting from rival dealers or general social malcontents, or even perhaps harmful information from ignorant piano buyers just saying random stuff they don't really know about. I agree that all of these are possible negative results from a free press and free information on the internet. (My industry - financial advice - also faces the problem of false reporting and commentary, not just in chat rooms, but in respected newspapers.) The trouble is that the cost of excluding these problems (censorship, entry requirements that exclude most new posters, voluntary restriction to only happy positive comments) are worse than the potential problems. Given the number of posters on here, I doubt that any truely false comment would not at least be challenged, and anyone with a brain in their head should know to take an isolated free internet chat room comment for exactly what it is worth. The benfits to good dealers (including F-H) of an open forum like this, in my opinion far outweigh the potential negative consequences. Dealers deserve protection, but consumers also deserve a wide range of viewpoints (accurate or not), and free speech usually works both out fairly.

The problem as I see it is for PW itself to give us guidelines for what can and can't be said (i.e. always say "this is my personal experience", or something like that) so that PW doesn't get tied up with lawyers, itself a reflection of the unethical sleaze level of the industry. In Britain manufacturers can sue a paper for false information. In America they cannot (in general, there are some archaic agriculture laws in Florida and Iowa.) I personally believe that if PW were to fight it, it could win. (However, I am not a lawyer, so this is just a random personal opinion.) But that is not economically feasible. So what forum members need is guidelines as to how to give their opinions, in a way that helps real consumers (and quality dealers, over time), but does not cause a problem to the good people who run PW.

Believe me, I've considered saying ok, let's go to court.
It would be interesting to have a couple hundred (or more) Piano World members show up in our defense. Piano World has done nothing wrong, we provide a public forum that many thousands of people around the world find very helpful.

We average over 9 million hits a month, that translates into a whole lot of people!
Getting our friends riled up by threatening to censor them might not be the best idea.

And I will not have our forums compromised by
someone trying to twist the legal system around to their advantage.

However, that said, I think it would be more prudent to find a way to protect ourselves and be allowed to continue to provide information to our thousands (make that millions) of wonderful guests/friends/members.

We need to work through the details, and once again any suggestions from a legal standpoint would be welcomed (feel free to contact me off line if you prefer not to be construed as offering legal counsel).

I'm thinking we need:

~ A good disclaimer [public forum, Communications Decency Act, etc.,etc.]
~ A means for providing rebuttals [which we already have, just post your rebuttal]
~ Continue to be self-policing
~ Guidelines
~ Open Communications (if a business or individual feels something is unfair/unjust, they can contact me).

You should be aware while Piano World cannot be
held responsible for individuals posts (beyond possibly being asked to remove/edit the post), the individual making the post may be exposing themselves to possible litigation.

As to posting the letter I received this time, or anything about the dealer, I will wait to hear back from our lawyer first.

I did previously post (with my lawyer's permission) an excerpt from his reply to a similar issue...

"My client has absolutely no legal responsibility for this posting. The law is very clear in this area. As the host for a forum, Piano World is treated as a news vendor, bookstore or library and is not liable, since he neither knew nor had any reason to know of any purported defamation. He exerts no editorial control over the content of forum postings. "

There is more to it, but you get the idea.

And yes, I will contact other forums to see how they handle these things. In the meantime, keep the ideas flowing!

Unfortunately, there will ALWAYS be people who will NOT follow guidelines, no matter how many times they are told.

It could be the unscrupulous dealers themselves who would/could violate the guidelines.

This is a terrific forum. It needs to remain alive and well in its present format.

Post the "cease and desist" letter or e-mail or whatever the heck it was, for all to read. Make it a "sticky" thread so it won't be missed by anybody checking out the Piano Forum for the first time. Let the letter speak for itself, and let Forum browsers form their own opinions of the folks who sent it, and their motivation and their ethics.

Why not shine some daylight on this stuff?

To begin with I am not a lawyer. I'll take a stab at what might be happening. If only individuals wanting opinions on pianos occupied this forum and someone made a comment about a dealer experience, then that would probably not be and issue. However, this forum also contains piano dealers, technicians, designers, professional musicians, who as a group could "restrain the trade" of a particular brand of piano, dealership, parts manufacturer, etc. In other words, the dealership's argument might be that by disparaging them you are restraining them from operating their business and are therefore liable for damages. I belong to another forum run by members of my particular profession and we are constantly reminded not to mention any specific manufacturers in a negative way for this exact reason. Just my 2 cents.
Jon

Fair enough, Frank.

If you want to be conservative about it, there is another approach. You could write to the dealer's lawyer and say, "I have received your e-mail. I have decided to handle future communications of this nature from you or your client by posting the communication in its entirety at the Piano World web site." Then they've been put on notice, which may cause them to back off all by itself.

Personally, I wouldn't bother with this, as it might just touch off another (costly) exchange about your right to publicize your dispute with them. I'd just post the whole e-mail letter, myself (making crystal clear that this is an e-mail you received *purporting* to be from dealer's lawyer). And I'd shoot them an e-mail reply containing nothing more than the link where their letter is now enshrined, so that they understand the consequences of harrassing you. Why, perhaps they'd be willing to drop the whole thing for all time if you agree to remove the letter from the site!

Oh, and regarding posting what your lawyers have said, I should have been a bit more clear in my remarks. I was referring to anything your lawyers tell you as part of your consultation, not what your lawyers have told the dealer. The former is privileged; the latter is not.

Jdsher:
Yes, but the party liable would be those conspiring to restrain trade. Frank still shouldn't be liable if he isn't involved (although he still could be named in any suit filed, I suppose). Whether the claim is restraint of trade, defamation, interference with prospective economic advantage or anything else, the party with the most exposure is the party uttering the offending words, I'd guess.

Cindy

I'm guessing usenet IS google, or that usenet is under google now.
Maybe the reason usenet won't be sued is because they are huge and can afford fancy lawers.
Help out the dumb guy here.

usenet is NOT google, google.groups has arhived all of usenet as far as I know (they bought the deja archives), but usenet is a separate planet.

Sorry to bother y'all, just looked it up.
I don't get out much.

When a forum member posts a positive experience with a dealer, mentions that dealer by name on the forum, obviously that is a big plus for good dealers. I'm sure you would get no threatening legal letters from their lawyers!

It's also a big plus for forum members coming to the forum because they see personal recommendations of good dealers they should visit.

Perhaps we could also post negative experiences, but just not mention the dealer by name? Should someone want to alert a poster, about a less than reputable dealer, it could be done via email or a private message.

The absense of good recommendations for some dealers would be one way of stating the obvious.

Not a perfect solution, but perhaps it would prevent Frank's threatening lawyer letters.

Frank, I do think a good disclaimer is a good idea.

It was obvious that the poster baited for replys.
Keep the Forum as it is now because I hear and see many people who say that they have benefited from reading through here.
If an opinion of a brand is requested, any person should be able to give their own impressions on the instrument as well as how it was presented, tuned, prepped, priced, delivered, ect. This will involve the dealer regardless if the decision is made to curb any postings about them.
Frank, let me know if you need my help.

Just for some humor, A lawyer for this unmentioned dealer bought a grand from us.

Hey, Larry!

I just saw your edit. It sounds like we are thinking along the same lines.

And you know what that means, don't you?

The dealer will send us both threatening e-mails claiming were engaging in a *conspiracy!*

I suggest we thwart our adversary by speaking in secret code. Henceforth, let's refer to smoking this dealer out of his hole by posting the e-mail here as the "Roach Approach."

Cindy -- keeping her voice down in case they're listening

Frank, If their legal approach is already in the wrong, what makes you certain changing things will have an effect? That's the nature of being frivolous. If, in any other way, relative distinctions are made about dealers, some will be still left behind who may sue, or do whatever $125 buys them.

I'd just ignore the email and suggest we don't change a thing. It was probably all dressed up and formal, with a letter head....yada, yada. Your first post suggests you already know you are right and nobody here feels any differently about that. So, why accomodate?

You could also economically craft up a response email using the discovery that your previous experience generated, forward it to your lawyer and have them send it on all fancy like. How much could that cost since you've already demonstrated that you obtained representation under a similar circumstance?

I do take it your lawyer will remember you? Whatever you do, it seems pretty clear the opposing side is taking the longshot you'll fold. On the off chance litigation takes place, you can count me in for help.

Chris

I'll send a check too!

PW has enriched my life.
I might as well pay to defend it.

I am going for all out on this.

Call their bluff.

There are perhaps dozens of company lawers here clenching their teeth [secretly] for battle.

But they are too smart for actually going ahead.

To be seen as loosers before a world wide audience.

Go,stick the papers on the doors of Wittenberg!

Call the e-mail tigers on the floor!!

Norbert

The pertinent laws which protect this board and participants are called anti-SLAPP laws. Here's a website that deals with the subject: The California Anti-SLAPP Project. Although it deals specifically with California law, there is information about other states. A search of the web will no doubt turn up other information.

This legal stuff is so confusing ......

My opinion: All of us know that PianoWorld.com provides an extremely valuable service to people seeking to purchase & maintain a very expensive consumer product. There is no place, other than PianoWorld.com, where Joe Consumer can get honest, frank advice concerning these subjects ("The Piano Book" is a good resource but it doesn't cover everything). These types of discussion should be welcomed & encouraged. Piano owners also appreciate the other discussions provided by fellow students, technicians, teachers, musicians, & lovers of keyboards in general.

I sense that the potentially litigious scenarios usually arise when a legitimate NEW poster (consumer) starts asking for advice re ABC Piano Weasles Co., whether he is considering a purchase, or has made that purchase. I believe these posters (consumers) expect & should receive honest opinions from members of this forum. Therefore, I think it is very important for all NEW & existing posters to be made aware of the following, e.g.: "What you post is your opinion only & may be subject to possible litigation. Be truthful, polite & respectful. Don't slander others. Our success is due to the efforts of our individual members, blah, blah....".

Of course, those who "troll" or "bait" members on this forum for negative dealer comments should be banned ..... And I think the senior PW folk are quite on top of this. (As an aside, I'll state that when I bought one of my new pianos & spoke about it on PW, I was "baited" through a PM, by a dealer for "my experiences" concerning other dealers .... so members should look out for this too).

Like Axtremus, I wanted to do something to celebrate "a #-of-posts milestone" .... Also, I'm like PianoJuggler, .... I don't do Paypal .... So,

Frank, if you can PM me with your name/address/zip code ..... I'll send you a U.S. money order & a smile .

Changing things in response to frivolous demands amounts to appeasement. This begets more of the same. I urge Frank to not give in to this sort of thing.

Best,

Steve O.

What would be the consequence of posting "I had a fairly lukewarm experience with a dealer in East Overshoe, Minnesota who caries a Japanese brand that starts with 'K' and an Austrian brand that starts with 'B'..."

...naming no names...

I'm also surprised that PF hasn't gotten a similar letter from a laywer representing the entire piano industry in an Asian country that starts with 'C'.

Just curious: did the letter also demand that Frank provide details of the offending poster's IP address, so they can sue said person's ISP as well? That's the direction the anti-spam laws seem to be going.

Chris raises a good point. Even if the forum self-polices itself, since anyone can write a threatening letter, who says self-regulating will satisfy every grubby dealer? What about piano brands? If I say "Faziolis are lousy. My Brand X upright is better. Don't buy Faziolis," can Fazioli send a "stop it" letter to PW? How can the forum function then?

I think Jack Frost (esquire) is chiming in with the angles that are most pertinent. Fortunately or unfortunately, a lawyer's input is probably most important here.

Any concessions of format, such as using star rating systems in lieu of actual verbage, will mean that this dealer has unilaterally, and possibly without contention, tailored a very large playing field to suit only themselves. The Piano Forum, for those of you that find it valuable as it is, would be forever changed...and vulnerable to other non-approving retailers. As it stands, no concessions have been made and the Piano Forum, I suppose, stands strongly and states that it has law on its side.

When that is no longer the case, and I do sympathize with your dilemma, Frank, the Piano Forum may become more of a 'target' for the disgruntled.

I do, however, think you are on the right track when you mention properly disclaiming the forum and the posts. I think that is a good way to go, and possibly, if I understand Jack Frost, a way to cement your legal argument...which seems sound anyway.

I can not decide financial issues for you. I can, personally, only say that it would be 'nice' if the Forum changed its format due to more than a "shot across the bow" email. Rather, I submit that they don't want to pay lawyers' fees any more than you do. They have written this email to you out of a 'fear' response. Fear of losing business, etc. If properly combatted, they may realize they should put their energies into improving their reputation rather than spend $ on lawyers. This isn't your concern, though, really. Rather, you need to do the thing that you can afford and that will allow you to sleep well at night.

All that said, can someone tell me if this is the nyc dealer that was mentioned some time ago?? I really don't know who we are even talking about here. *sigh*

It's not.

It's not.
BTW, I've put this in the hands of our lawyer, so we can once again waste money defending our public forums:-(

Frank, I would like to make a Support the Piano Forums contribution, but not via Pay Pal. Can you email me your snail mail address (or post it here)
so I can send you a check?
Thanks a bunch - for hosting this great place, and for putting up with all of us.

Jodi

Jodi - Thanks for link. I've bought lots of stuff from SheetMusic, but not as a hyperlink from PW. All future purchase will be from that link.

Frank,

With our freedoms seemingly being gradually eroded in this country, this PW issue might be one place where we can clearly make a stand.

If PW ignores this and future similar threats from dealers' lawyers, and the unlikely happens and there is litigation: it would be one dealer paying his attorney's fees, versus ***ALL*** of us who choose to contribute $$ to PW's legal fees. Sounds like we would be in a very good position, doesn't it?. The dealer loses a lot of $ whereas many of us lose insignificant amounts. If the dealer were informed of this, it might curtail his litigious inclinations.

For instance, if 50 of us tossed in $20 that's a grand right there, and I know from last year's discussions about the NY dealer that many posters said they'd contribute much more (and count me in as a contributor).

Perhaps a hard list can be made of definite contributors and amounts, should a lawsuit occur or substantial attorneys fees be involved -- would such a list make Frank breathe easier about (a) ignoring such dealers' attorneys' letters; and/or (b) taking more overt actions such as posting such letters?

Frank, three or four others have said they would like to send $ but NOT via PayPal, but via regular mail. I also am in this category, so pls send me your smail mail address and the payee's exact name if possible.

I vote to keep the forum as it is, and without any sort of "star" rating system. Let viewers interpret positive and negative verbal feedback as they wish. IMHO that's preferable to superimposing an artificial (and probably statistically imprecise or even incorrect) rating system.

Statistics theory likes very much to have at least 30 data points, and I doubt we'd get anywhere near that for feedback on most dealers. So why try to sqeeze what is really anecdotal evidence into a statistical rating system?

Frank, I am one of your member/lawyers (lawyer/members?). I very much enjoy your site. It sounds like you're already getting good legal advice, so I'll just add a thought or two for us all to keep in mind...

1. There are way too many lawyers.
2. It doesn't cost an agressive competitor much to turn and aggressive but ethically challenged laywer loose with claims of defamation/libel.
3. Most allegations of defamation/libel are made for purposes of chilling the competition, nothing more.
4. The practicalities of taking a libel/defamation case to trial are considerable...not the least of which is proof of damages. How is your hypothetically injured dealer going to prove to a jury that his business has been damaged by this forum?
5. Given the practicalities/difficulties with libel and slander cases, 99% of the demand letters that go out are not precursors of litigation. They are intended to (i) chill the market from saying anything contrarty to the letter writer's interests and (ii) cause the recipient to spend money on lawyers. Judging from this thread, your angry dealer has achieved what he intended to achieve.
6. I wouldn't change a thing. You're doing great and your posters already seem to be very moderate in their language. TGG

Oh yes, and I just wanted to add my vote to not change a thing about this place. Adding some sort of dealer rating system would just open a whole 'nuther can of worms. It's just not necessary.

Jodi

I would vote against a dealer rating system as well. I have met dealers who would make this into a huge game. They would have their employees or spouses or neighbors all write glowing reports -- and yes, even some legit customers. There would also be those who would go the next step and create fictions regarding their competition.

Wish it weren't so but I'm sure you've seen it since I have.

Ken

Thanks TGG,

I'm working now on a better disclaimer than the short one on our landing page (yes, there is one in the boxes at the top of the page). I'll also work up some posting guidelines.

I'd also like to warn anyone that pulls this on us again that we will in fact see them in court, and sue for damages, court fees, and legal fees, not to mention publish the entire damn thing on our web site and the other piano user groups.

I will amass the considerable number of legal professionals we have among our members, contact the civil liberties groups, and alert the media.

And I'd be willing to bet we could get a large number of our members, friends, and visitors to join us in the case (and likely come up with more people willing to testify).

They might still win the case, but I can gaurantee thousands of prospective piano customers will know how they choose to do business.

I'm tired of this. I don't like being threatened and I don't like anyone trying to gag our forums!

It has been mentioned here that businesses need to be able to protect themselves from misinformation being spread, and I agree.
But who is protecting the consumers from less than honorable businesses? If we stop posting negative feedback we aren't doing our job (and WE are being less than honest).

If someone has a legitimate gripe, they are welcome to post it, or contact me personally (not through their lawyer's), otherwise they had better back off!

I'm an attorney too. I play the piano and read this web forum to forget about the stresses of the legal world, but I guess the law has invaded this portion of our lives.
Defamation is a very old cause of action which was part of the common law we adopted from England. Defamation lawsuits are still viable although truth is a defense. That means if you post something that is true, you can ultimately win a lawsuit. It doesn't mean you can't be sued. I would agree with pretty much everything that TGG just posted, as it doesn't seem like it would make any sense for this piano dealer to follow through with its threat. I would urge that posters use caution when posting, as they may expose themselves to defamation claims. Always post facts, as opposed to simply smearing. If a salesperson does something particularly unethical, instead of calling him a sleaze, set forth exactly what your experience was, and let the reader decide for himself.
A little self-serving disclaimer would also help to keep Piano World up and running. Anyone can threaten lawsuits these days. It is one of society's biggest weaknesses.
I know that this web forum was extremely valuable to me in learning more about the piano, and in helping to make an intelligent choice in my piano purchase, and in learning more about musicianship. I would hate for it to be gone due to expensive litigation. It may not sound brilliant, but if everyone is just a little bit cautious before they post, it will help keep this forum alive.

You've got moxie, chutzpah, and more than likely, law on your side. I'm sure the great advice from lawyers here have helped you take that stand. You have now responded to the complainant and enlightened them to the fact that 'your' back-bone, ethics, and belief in the work you do, can not be brought down to the same suspect level of this retailer. Feels good, doesn't it? It's a feeling that a person on the wrong side of ethics/fair-play can't have.

Frank:

Great! Exactly the thing to do! I am very glad your position has changed from the SoftSoft situation. If you don't fight for your correct position, you announce to the world that you fold at the first letter from a lawyer.

Incidentally, as a trial lawyer myself, I agree completely with TGG's post (and others) who correctly point out the difficulties inherent in a libel action against the person running an unmoderated public board. The letter came not because anything wrong was done, but because the dealer didn't like to read negative commentary. That's just too bad.... The dealer could, of course, sue the poster if the poster posted falsehoods about the dealership. This would be a more viable case, but even then the problems of proving damages still exist.

Your board is great. We all owe you a debt of thanks (and more should you need it!) for keeping this place as it is.

Best,

Steved O.

Frank,

This is so much better than looking for ways to "fix" something that, all things considered, is working surprisingly well - just the way it is. BRAVO!!

Count me in for moral and financial support and whatever other type of support you might need. You are taking an honorable and courageous stand. And you have many many friends here who will stand by you on this because of who you are and because we all have a stake in this. I might not like some of the things that are said on this forum and I might even worry sometimes about the motives behind some of the posts on it, but I will fight with you to the end to defend it.

Frank,

I am very new to the forum but I can tell you I enjoy it considerably and it has been very helpful in my purchase of a new piano.

With that said, I can also say it feels like I have been told more lies shopping to buy one piano than I have been told in the 39 years I have been alive. A forum like this with open negative and positive opinions needs to exist. I found two honest piano dealers while shopping for a piano.

I really do not understand the dealer's complaints. They have an open forum where they can rebut any comment made about them in as much detail as they would like. They certainly did not have that opportunity when I had my telephone consultation with a piano tech and with Larry Fine.

Next it will be the manufacturers. What if Kawai, Yamaha, Moog, or any of the other manufacturers did not like my opinions of their products. Are they going to threaten to sue also. If all anyone can say are good things, then the forum will become the equivalent of some of the magazines I see where the reviews of every product reviewed are always good or great. I don't read any such magazines any more because I would also like to hear some of the negative points in a review.

The free speech that need protection the most is that free speech which some may not like. It is easy to protect free speech when that which is spoken is readily accepted by everyone. It is much more difficult to protect free speech for an idea that no one likes. Yet, that is the freedom that most needs protection.

Anyway, I hope the board can remain "free".

Frank,

After reading through this thread again and considering everyone's input & views, I think your proposed approach is the right one to take.

You've got my support, financially and otherwise.

Droit et Avant* my friend.

JP

*Be Right and Go Forward

Again, I must contend we're fighting here nothing else but a timid paper tiger wanna be.

And it ain't much *fighting* anyways - shadow boxing at best - for this he is too smart to come out of hiding and make a fool of himself....er... the business he claims to *defend*!

Which would be all out in the open for the world to see!!

In fact he isn't even a paper tiger.

But a degenerate,lousy ,cowardice e-mail bug.

Let's call his bluff.

Norbert

Will there be a specific legal fund link set up for PAyPal?

I am a lawyer and I joined the forum to contribute to this thread. There have been many useful suggestions made already so I don't need to say too much. I agree with TGG's advice and also with the suggestions by Cindysphinx.

It is a very useful means of defense to post threatening letters from lawyers. The store concerned would likely back off very quickly if they knew that every move they made would be publicised on a popular forum. Here are some examples where letters have been posted to reveal what would normally go on privately:

http://www.californiacoastline.org/streisand/lawsuit.html
http://untied.com/site/
http://www.somethingawful.com/legal/

One last piece of advice. In order to avoid incurring costs in future why don't you (with the help of your lawyer) formulate a standard letter that you could send yourself to respond to future threatening letters. You could use the letter that your lawyer is sending to the particular store concerned as a basis.

I don’t have a solution to the problem described above, but I want to comment on the (dealer name deleted) dispute.

My recollection is that someone went to the dealer, left a check as a deposit on a piano, then telephoned later in the day to cancel the purchase. One thing about the post struck me: that the buyer was told that the person with whom he or she was speaking on the phone had no authority to cancel a sale in that manner, but the buyer said something like, “I said that I considered it cancelled.” If the poster, in describing his or her own position, would admit to having made a statement that seemed to me to be somewhat high-handed, I wondered if the poster might have been even more rude on the telephone than that statement might suggest. We all tend to put ourselves in the best light when describing any dispute in which we are involved, so I didn’t expect that we would necessarily hear the dealer’s side represented accurately by the poster.

The vast majority of subsequent posters were on the side of the original poster, and it seemed to me that a lot of venomous comments were made in the process.

We might fault the dealer for not allowing the purchaser to back out of that sale, but we should at least recognize that the dealer probably had the law on its side.

Consider this possibility: that I want to buy a piano, visit seven dealers in one day, and find that there is at least one piano at each location that “sings to me.” I leave a check as a deposit at each of those locations. Assume, further, that at every one of those locations, someone arrives after I have left, loves exactly the piano that I liked, but is told that there is a deposit holding that piano. Later that day, I decide which of the seven pianos would best suit me, and I call six dealers to cancel the sale I initiated with my having left that deposit. Those six dealers not only don’t have the sale they thought they had made, but they have lost a potential customer in the disappointed would-be buyer who was told that the piano he liked was spoken for.

I think that the law should protect a dealer from such a customer, no matter how unlikely the situation I have described.

I know that I’m in the minority here, but I think it’s regrettable that a forum such as this one really offers no protection to a dealer – and I’m NOT speaking here of the unnamed dealer we are referring to in this thread – who may be totally reputable, but whose interaction with one customer is represented only in a post by that customer, who obviously has an axe to grind.

I understand where you're going, NorthAmerican. In the infamous incident with [dealer name deleted] the dealer actually posted here to defend itself, and its version of events was unconvincing, to say the least.

I don't think we have a situation where the forum offers no protection to a dealer. The dealer has all the protection it needs -- the ability to come here and tell its side of the story, letting the forum members and prospective customers decide what to believe.

Cindy

NorthAmerican/Cindysphinx, that is not the case this time.

In this short lived thread (I pulled it), 4 different members advised staying away from a particular dealer, even giving a specific example why. Three of the members are long time posters, and not given to raising false alarms.

Granted, it was their opinions, and more specific examples may have helped support the advice. But part of the purpose of a public forum is to be able to express your opinions, and for others to respond/refute.

NorthAmerican,

As a dealer, I appreciate that you understand that it is possible for this forum to unfairly cast a negative light on one dealer (or piano or manufacturer) or another. I have made this point here myself several times. However, in practice, the balance here is really quite good - aided by excellent self-policing and the desire in practically all of the regulars to be as fair as possible to everyone. When a serious accusation is made, it is aggressively scrutinized so that if there is any degree of unfairness on the part of the accuser, it is quickly revealed. People here do not lightly accept unfair and unfounded accusations. That's why this forum works; it's why so many people enjoy staying or visiting here.

As to your thought that a dealer might have the law on his side in accepting a deposit and then refusing to refund it a few hours later, this was discussed here extensively. In a nutshell, the overwhelming sentiment was that, at least in NY, the law is probably not on the dealer's side. No goods were delivered or special ordered and 72 hours had not passed. But the point that everyone kept coming back to is that the law is not the issue; the issues are common decency, fair play, and the fact that reputable piano dealers give their customers as much slack as possible - even when the law is on their side.

Agree with Irving. Anyone in business will have a bad experience - or perhaps a bad customer. We should never assume that particularly a new poster is telling gospel. At best it may be the truth as they know it. At worse, it may be outright falsehoods that besmirch the reputation of an honorable person.

I think this board has some continuity and diversity of backgrounds that we can deal with these kinds of issues.

At the same time, some dealer's business practices should see the healthy rays of sunlight - and be seen for what they are. This forum helps that cause.

Ken

It seems am incredible armada is being amassed for one single degenerate,cowardice,lame e-mail bug.

I think a simple anti-virus system would do.
[perhaps Chinese-made.... ]

Just call'im on the carpet.

He'll run as fast as his bare feet will carry.

norbert

Frank,

I too think you come around to the right perspective.

We need to take a stand.

This whole issue is a perfect example of lawsuit abuse and needs to be addressed at a much higher level than this forum. Lawsuit abuse is a serious problem within all of America.

This cease and disist order could be an infringement on freedom of speech and is certainly an act that will hamper free exchange of information. A lawsuit like this may even border on malicious prosecution and certainly is a total waste of time for all involved.

The dealer that contracts an attorney to battle all the isssues that the dealership has caused ( obviously poor business ethics in dealing with the public) is probably guilty of any accusations made on this forum. The truth be told!

It is a shame (for fear of further lawsuit threats) that we can not expose the dealership and run Him right out of Dodge.