Korbel wants Comcast to ID anonymous critics

[oogabooga]

I also thought it was about "Korbel tastes bad" but those are some more serious things they have said. I wonder how they prove that the comments have had an effect on business?

Originally posted by: Joemonkey

maybe it's a new sesame street based flavor? I hear Korbel Ernie will be damn good stuff

Korbel Big Bird is a 3l yellow Bottle?

 

[BoomerD]

Originally posted by: Joemonkey

Originally posted by: BoomerD

Originally posted by: Joemonkey

what do you guys think? careful what you say!

First, based only on the article you linked, Korbel has a pretty good chance of getting the information they seek. Defamation is not protected speech.

Next, based on this:

Korbel Burt is the most popular sparkling wine made by the Guerneville-based wine company.

The Press-Democrat needs to hire a better proof reader. The accompanying picture even shows "BRUT" spelled correctly.

maybe it's a new sesame street based flavor? I hear Korbel Ernie will be damn good stuff

Then wouldn't it be "Bert?"

Maybe it's a Burt Reynolds designer bubbly...designed to knock your hair off...

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

?If people have to worry about having their identities revealed, they are going to be reluctant to join the discussion,? she said. ?There is a real potential to stifle free speech on the Internet.?

I think this potential isn't limited to the internet anymore. The "Fairness Doctrine" that keeps trying to get shoved down our throats will take care of stifiling free speech in the real world.

 

[Patt]

So ... were the comments opinion based? As in, were they "I hate the taste of their wine" or were they "To make their wine they slaughter kittens and PETA has been chasing them for years" type of comments? If there were legitimate opinions I can't see it flying, but if they tried to pass off lies as factual info, I can see the validity of the lawsuit.

Edit: in reading again, it looks like they were more of the second variety ...

 

[ultimatebob]

Originally posted by: joesmoke
Korbel Corp. killed my dog!

Korbel Corp. gang-raped my grandmama's face!

Korbel Corp. paid the terrorists champagne and herion to commit 9/11!

Korbel Corp. hates gays and jews and isn't sorry about it!

They also supported the Nazis!

(It's not libel... I'm sure that at least one Nazi had to drink the stuff )

 

[Q]

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: Joemonkey
what do you guys think? careful what you say!

I'm for it. Free speech != anonymity. You can be allowed to say what you want, but it can't violate law, such as defamation.

Also, Internet != anonymity. The Internet is wide open, and always has been since its inception.

I agree, those are some pretty ridiculous claims by the posters, defamation no doubt.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: actuarial
That's a very interesting point. I've never really thought of it that way.

It doesn't really matter. The Internet is a public network and anything transported by it is not private information, it's public. Difference between private and public network.

I'm talking the transport part of the public network. Data on servers belongs to their respective owners but just by being on the public network make it public domain - think about how a search engine can work.

 

[compman25]

I went to school with the Heck's (owners of Korbel) and used to ride moto cross on their property, their kids are spoiled and it is probably the daughter posting all the negative stuff about Korbel. I think Gary disowned her.

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: Joemonkey
Comcast would comply with such a court order, but only after notifying its customers that their identities are being sought, said Comcast spokesman Andrew Johnson. Customers can then go to court to fight the release of their names.

Aren't court cases public record?

Originally posted by: Quintox

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: Joemonkey
what do you guys think? careful what you say!

I'm for it. Free speech != anonymity. You can be allowed to say what you want, but it can't violate law, such as defamation.

Also, Internet != anonymity. The Internet is wide open, and always has been since its inception.

I agree, those are some pretty ridiculous claims by the posters, defamation no doubt.

I just don't think that you can make a case for defamation on the internet, because that would imply that comments on the internet should be taken seriously.

:shrug;In my opinion, pretty much everything on the internet falls under the satire clause of libel laws.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: actuarial
That's a very interesting point. I've never really thought of it that way.

It doesn't really matter. The Internet is a public network and anything transported by it is not private information, it's public. Difference between private and public network.

I'm talking the transport part of the public network. Data on servers belongs to their respective owners but just by being on the public network make it public domain - think about how a search engine can work.

Public domain is a concept that applies to intellectual property law. It has nothing to do with privacy. Stop making shit up.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: actuarial
That's a very interesting point. I've never really thought of it that way.

It doesn't really matter. The Internet is a public network and anything transported by it is not private information, it's public. Difference between private and public network.

I'm talking the transport part of the public network. Data on servers belongs to their respective owners but just by being on the public network make it public domain - think about how a search engine can work.

Yeah, if Microsoft's website layout and information is delivered via this public network to your home computer for viewing, all the data on it is public domain. Now go try putting up a website with their layout and see how long it lasts. :roll:

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: actuarial
That's a very interesting point. I've never really thought of it that way.

It doesn't really matter. The Internet is a public network and anything transported by it is not private information, it's public. Difference between private and public network.

I'm talking the transport part of the public network. Data on servers belongs to their respective owners but just by being on the public network make it public domain - think about how a search engine can work.

Public domain is a concept that applies to intellectual property law. It has nothing to do with privacy. Stop making shit up.

Excuse me for using the wrong term.

It doesn't change the fact that The Internet is a public network and as such there is no expectation of privacy.

 

[biggestmuff]

Originally posted by: ultimatebob
Meh... Korbel's champagne sucks anyway. Moet Chandon is where it's at, man.

Don't give them the distinction of using that term for their sparkling wine.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: biggestmuff

Originally posted by: ultimatebob
Meh... Korbel's champagne sucks anyway. Moet Chandon is where it's at, man.

Don't give them the distinction of using that term for their sparkling wine.

We're not in france silly. It's Champagne here.

Korbel does offer real champagne. Just because the grapes don't come from a particular region in france doesn't change that FACT.

 

[zerocool1]

Originally posted by: Patt
So ... were the comments opinion based? As in, were they "I hate the taste of their wine" or were they "To make their wine they slaughter kittens and PETA has been chasing them for years" type of comments? If there were legitimate opinions I can't see it flying, but if they tried to pass off lies as factual info, I can see the validity of the lawsuit.

Edit: in reading again, it looks like they were more of the second variety ...

read the OP, it's related to how they "handled" a sexual harassment issue.

 

[Miramonti]

anyone have a link to forum comments?

 

[Xylitol]

Originally posted by: Citrix

The postings in a Craigslist forum last year accused Korbel of punishing employees who reported sexual harassment. They also contended the winery was plotting to cut down redwood forests on its Guerneville property. Other posts alleged Korbel bribed law enforcement and court authorities to keep the company out of trouble.

well if they can prove damages from people saying those things then Korbel does have a lawsuit and comcast should cough up the names.

?If people have to worry about having their identities revealed, they are going to be reluctant to join the discussion,? she said. ?There is a real potential to stifle free speech on the Internet.?

spewing out lies, false accusations and hurting a business or person is NOT free speech. If the only thing a person can contribute to a conversation are lies and false accusations then they need to keep their mouth shut. Free speech is protection from speaking out against the government and not get imprisoned or shot. Not protection against defamation, posting crap like that on the internet should not be protected just as it isn't in printed paper or shouted from a soapbox or spread in the rumor mill.

you combat those lies by posting up and stating the exact opposite and arguing. You don't take people's anonymous identities in order to combat this

 

[AreaCode707]

Free speech is the right to stand up for what you believe in, not the right to say whatever the fvck you want. We prove ourselves deserving of our rights by using them responsibly, and to do that we need to be accountable for our speech and actions. Anonymity is not part of the right of free speech.

Oh, and this is my home area. There are a lot of weird and fairly delusional people here, and they will do all sorts of unsubstantiated and unjustified things, all the more if there is no penalty to them.

 

[MrDudeMan]

Originally posted by: Xylitol

Originally posted by: Citrix

The postings in a Craigslist forum last year accused Korbel of punishing employees who reported sexual harassment. They also contended the winery was plotting to cut down redwood forests on its Guerneville property. Other posts alleged Korbel bribed law enforcement and court authorities to keep the company out of trouble.

well if they can prove damages from people saying those things then Korbel does have a lawsuit and comcast should cough up the names.

?If people have to worry about having their identities revealed, they are going to be reluctant to join the discussion,? she said. ?There is a real potential to stifle free speech on the Internet.?

spewing out lies, false accusations and hurting a business or person is NOT free speech. If the only thing a person can contribute to a conversation are lies and false accusations then they need to keep their mouth shut. Free speech is protection from speaking out against the government and not get imprisoned or shot. Not protection against defamation, posting crap like that on the internet should not be protected just as it isn't in printed paper or shouted from a soapbox or spread in the rumor mill.

you combat those lies by posting up and stating the exact opposite and arguing. You don't take people's anonymous identities in order to combat this

Actually you do what they are doing and hold the idiots accountable for their misinformation. This isn't typical internet trolling like what you are doing right now.

 

[rudder]

Originally posted by: ultimatebob
Meh... Korbel's champagne sucks anyway. Moet Chandon is where it's at, man.

Saved for lawsuit.

 

[manowar821]

What a bad company. Fuck them for trying to obtain the identities of anonymous posters in order to take them to court over BS like that. If some anonymous users can actually affect their ability to stay afloat as a business, then they're pretty shitty to begin with. If not, then what the god damn hell is the problem? I've never understood why "slander" is considered to be a punishable offense.

Also, I hear Korbel puts cow urine in their bottles.

 

[MrDudeMan]

Originally posted by: manowar821
What a bad company. Fuck them for trying to obtain the identities of anonymous posters in order to take them to court over BS like that. If some anonymous users can actually affect their ability to stay afloat as a business, then they're pretty shitty to begin with. If not, then what the god damn hell is the problem? I've never understood why "slander" is considered to be a punishable offense.

Also, I hear Korbel puts cow urine in their bottles.

Tell that to the people who have been a victim of it. If someone started a rumor about you that you are a child molester and was persistent enough to really make that information widely known, you would feel very differently.

People saying stupid, untrue things can have a very real effect other than simply spreading misinformation.

 

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: MrDudeMan

Originally posted by: manowar821
What a bad company. Fuck them for trying to obtain the identities of anonymous posters in order to take them to court over BS like that. If some anonymous users can actually affect their ability to stay afloat as a business, then they're pretty shitty to begin with. If not, then what the god damn hell is the problem? I've never understood why "slander" is considered to be a punishable offense.

Also, I hear Korbel puts cow urine in their bottles.

Tell that to the people who have been a victim of it. If someone started a rumor about you that you are a child molester and was persistent enough to really make that information widely known, you would feel very differently.

People saying stupid, untrue things can have a very real effect other than simply spreading misinformation.

I have yet to hear of a situation where anonymous internet users start into motion a rumor so horrible that it affects somebody in a real way that wasn't in some way their own fault. Even if I had, I wouldn't consider that a good reason to strip away privacy.

 

[AreaCode707]

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: MrDudeMan

Originally posted by: manowar821
What a bad company. Fuck them for trying to obtain the identities of anonymous posters in order to take them to court over BS like that. If some anonymous users can actually affect their ability to stay afloat as a business, then they're pretty shitty to begin with. If not, then what the god damn hell is the problem? I've never understood why "slander" is considered to be a punishable offense.

Also, I hear Korbel puts cow urine in their bottles.

Tell that to the people who have been a victim of it. If someone started a rumor about you that you are a child molester and was persistent enough to really make that information widely known, you would feel very differently.

People saying stupid, untrue things can have a very real effect other than simply spreading misinformation.

I have yet to hear of a situation where anonymous internet users start into motion a rumor so horrible that it affects somebody in a real way that wasn't in some way their own fault. Even if I had, I wouldn't consider that a good reason to strip away privacy.

This isn't a right to privacy we're discussing. When you post something in a public forum you have no reasonable expectation for privacy. If we're talking about Korbel suing them for something they said in a locked-down, private-access forum, then we might be discussing privacy.

This is a discussion about the right to anonymity. There has never been such a right before.

 

[Canai]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

?If people have to worry about having their identities revealed, they are going to be reluctant to join the discussion,? she said. ?There is a real potential to stifle free speech on the Internet.?

http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19/

:laugh:!!!