 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
209.97.232.110
In Reply to: Bye, bye TAS... posted by mkuller on March 4, 2007 at 21:10:47:
<< It also appears the magazine is covering for him. >>This is the part that I can't figure out.
Does anyone really know the facts of this story? If so, why isn't the person identified? If it is true there is no risk to the person
or persons who name names? Truth is a complete defense against any charge of libel. Or, is this a case of folks simply passing on rumor and innuendo?
> If it is true there is no risk to the person or persons who name
> names? Truth is a complete defense against any charge of libel.
You are correct, Wendell. However, having a complete defense does
not prevent the lawsuit from taking place in the first place. I
know from my own experience that it can cost you a considerable sum
of money in legal expenses defending yourself successfully against
a libel suit using this defense.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
John, everything you say is true. But the person filing the lawsuit needs money to do that. In my experience, most reviewers don't have that kind of scratch. I would think that a lawsuit with no chance of prevailing would be unlikely. My real point is that it serves no purpose to talk of an unnamed person from an unnamed magazine stealing or otherwise acting unetchically. It spreads the suspicion too broadly.
> everything you say is true. But the person filing the lawsuit needs
> money to do that. In my experience, most reviewers don't have that
> kind of scratch. I would think that a lawsuit with no chance of
> prevailing would be unlikely.
Having been sued a number of times, Wendell, I regret that you are
too innocent. The plaintiff's suit may be without merit, but there
are plenty of lawayers who will file the suit and front the upfront
costs, taking a hefty percentage of any settlement in return. Their
goal is not to _win_ a frivolous lawsuit for their client. Instead,
they gamble that faced with the choice between spending a large 6-
figure sum on a successful defense against the suit or a small
5-figure sum on a with-prejudice settlement, many defendants will
choose the latter as being the better of two bad things.
> My real point is that it serves no purpose to talk of an unnamed
> person from an unnamed magazine stealing or otherwise acting
> unethically. It spreads the suspicion too broadly.
I don't disagree. But I did think it necessary, given the wide
circulation being given this matter, to point out that it did _not_
involve Stereophile or a Stereophile writer.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
G’day,I agree completely with your reasoning for not “naming names” due to the risk of a costly legal defense.
However, isn’t your magazine at least partially responsible for the wide-spread circulation of this unsavory matter?
I do accept & agree that when such a rumor of unethical/unprofessional behavior arises it is quite reasonable to protect your own commercial interests by reassuring people that your organization is not party to that behavior.
Smile
Sox
> isn’t your magazine at least partially responsible for the
> wide-spread circulation of this unsavory matter?
In part, yes, due to Art Dudley's examination in his March column of
how he, as a responsible reviewer, steers his way through the ethical
minefield. But by "wide circulation," I actually meant the fact that
what had happened was being widely disseminated within the industry
at the recent CES.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
G’day,Thanks for the clarification.
It is my understanding, since my initial post to you, the “incident” has caused some ripples within the industry.
The sooner it is sorted out the better.
Smile
Sox
> it can cost you a considerable sum of money in legal expenses
> defending yourself successfully against a libel suit...Absolutely true. I'm in the commercial insurance business and have seen what the legal bills run for defending against baseless lawsuits. Many people with no experience think that you just walk up and tell the judge the other person is wrong and you're out of there.
Not quite. I recall once recent suit a client of ours faced. They won, but the legal bills for defense totaled approximately $750,000.
Some people think it'd be OK because the losing side can be made to pay the legal fees. First, that is not always true. In the case above there was zero reimbursement. Second, even if you could get some or all of your money back, that is an after-the-fact situation. You'd have to fund the defense costs up-front and hope that someplace down the road (perhaps years) that you'd get reimbursed.
So, it sure doesn't surprise me that no one would really wanting to be naming names on record.
It is one thing when your business is based on reporting news and you generate the cash flows necessary to incorporate the cost of legal defense into your financial model.Quite another situation when you're just a little guy running your mouth. That won't stop some but it should at least be a conscious decision before you open your mouth. There are a lot of things run amuck in our legal system these days. That may not seem "right" to the average Joe, but it is a reality.
Yup, I guess and when you don't 'generate' those 'cash flows' I suppose anything goes, whether it be in the reviewing of equipment or in the reporting of 'wrong doings'. Meanwhile there are lots of audiophiles spending lots of money on lots of equipment. Too bad for them I guess, on your view. And for some people, 'them' is 'us'.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
