Apparently a pub in Baltimore, MD took offense at the reviews it got at
Pubcrawler and had an attorney send a "cease and desist" letter.

http://www.pubcrawler.com/Template/R...rewerID=103130

Seems to me the bar doesn't have a case--courts have generally found that in
such cases, legal action can be pursued against the reviewer (if it falls
under the definition of libel), but not the forum or bulletin board itself.

Thoughts?

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 21:34:22 -0500, "Alexander D. Mitchell IV"
wrote:

Apparently a pub in Baltimore, MD took offense at the reviews it got at
Pubcrawler and had an attorney send a "cease and desist" letter.

http://www.pubcrawler.com/Template/R...rewerID=103130

Seems to me the bar doesn't have a case--courts have generally found that in
such cases, legal action can be pursued against the reviewer (if it falls
under the definition of libel), but not the forum or bulletin board itself.

Thoughts?


I thought the cease and desist was limited to the unauthorized use of
their logo. Their objections to the posts are irrlevant, it's just
like trying to sue a newspaper for publishing a restaurant critics
unfavorable review. They would have to prove some serious malicious
intent but then hey, the courts allowed an idiot to burn themselves
with coffee and walk away with plenty of cash, so anything is
possible.
leo

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 21:34:22 -0500, "Alexander D. Mitchell IV"
wrote:

Apparently a pub in Baltimore, MD took offense at the reviews it got at
Pubcrawler and had an attorney send a "cease and desist" letter.

http://www.pubcrawler.com/Template/R...rewerID=103130

Seems to me the bar doesn't have a case--courts have generally found that in
such cases, legal action can be pursued against the reviewer (if it falls
under the definition of libel), but not the forum or bulletin board itself.

I always wondered who had the lowest rating in Pubcrawler; it's the
Ropewalk Tavern. Apparently, it's easier for this place to sue than
it is to improve itself.


Phil

I thought the cease and desist was limited to the unauthorized use of
their logo. Their objections to the posts are irrlevant, it's just
like trying to sue a newspaper for publishing a restaurant critics
unfavorable review. They would have to prove some serious malicious
intent but then hey, the courts allowed an idiot to burn themselves
with coffee and walk away with plenty of cash, so anything is
possible.

I've been in contact with Pubcrawler over this. It appears:
1) some of the reviews were borderline libelous, alleging food poisoning,
unclean facilities, and dirty beer lines;
2) said reviews were being posted by users who didn't review other places at
Pubcrawler;
3) bad reviews are continuing at another website,
http://www.happy-hour.net/local_drin...er_reviews.htm

It appears there's a political and local feud going on, which may be the
direct cause of all of this. Personally, politics has NOTHING to do with
whether beer is good and service is good.

"Phil" wrote in message
...
I always wondered who had the lowest rating in Pubcrawler; it's the
Ropewalk Tavern. Apparently, it's easier for this place to sue than
it is to improve itself.

Not fair, Phil. This place is getting shite-bombed by arseholes on
Pubcrawler. Used to happen to the Iron Hill brewpubs, which deserve much
better overall ratings than they have. Disgruntled employees, ****ed-off
boyfriends/girlfriends, competitors, you name it, it happens. There's
definitely more than one side to this.

--
Lew Bryson

www.LewBryson.com
Author of "New York Breweries" and "Pennsylvania Breweries," 2nd ed., both
available at www.amazon.com
The Hotmail address on this post is for newsgroups only: I don't check it,
or respond to it. Spam away.

"Lew Bryson" wrote in message m...
"Phil" wrote in message
...
I always wondered who had the lowest rating in Pubcrawler; it's the
Ropewalk Tavern. Apparently, it's easier for this place to sue than
it is to improve itself.

Not fair, Phil. This place is getting shite-bombed by arseholes on
Pubcrawler. Used to happen to the Iron Hill brewpubs, which deserve much
better overall ratings than they have. Disgruntled employees, ****ed-off
boyfriends/girlfriends, competitors, you name it, it happens. There's
definitely more than one side to this.

Its like looking at a review of a Bob Klein book on Amazon...

And the other poster's reference to someone being burned by coffee --
if the reference is to Lieback vs McDonalds Restaurants they wouldn't
make light of it if they knew the facts -- not that facts ever stopped
anybody on this forum

Fred Waltman
www.LABeer.com
www.FranconiaBeerGuide.com

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 22:34:09 -0500, "Alexander D. Mitchell IV"
wrote:
I've been in contact with Pubcrawler over this. It appears:
1) some of the reviews were borderline libelous, alleging food poisoning,
unclean facilities, and dirty beer lines;
2) said reviews were being posted by users who didn't review other places at
Pubcrawler;
3) bad reviews are continuing at another website,
http://www.happy-hour.net/local_drin...er_reviews.htm

It appears there's a political and local feud going on, which may be the
direct cause of all of this. Personally, politics has NOTHING to do with
whether beer is good and service is good.


Hmm, dirty beer lines libelous? Maybe they *were* dirty or the
facilities unclean.I have no idea, never been to Ropewalk. I went to a
certain BP in DC last summer where the beer was good but the walls
were covered in fruit flies. I said so in my PC review, was that
libelous?

If you were looking for a BP and saw outright slams that obviously
didn't come from a beer lover, you ignore them. This happened quite
regularly at PC about RVBP in Suffern after the last brewmaster left.

It's easy enough to rememdy anyway - have PC require registration
before posting, 99% of other forums do for just this reason. If you
post a non-review, simply revoke the person's account. Other forums do
it all the time.
Leo

On 17 Dec 2003 23:21:52 -0800, (Fred Waltman) wrote:

And the other poster's reference to someone being burned by coffee --
if the reference is to Lieback vs McDonalds Restaurants they wouldn't
make light of it if they knew the facts -- not that facts ever stopped
anybody on this forum

Fred Waltman
www.LABeer.com
www.FranconiaBeerGuide.com

Ugh, so sick of hearing this argument. It doesn't matter if the coffee
was as hot as the sun, the person placing it in their crotch is at
fault. If I stick a fork in my eye and it's extra sharp, does that
justify a lawsuit?
Leo

In article , writes:
On 17 Dec 2003 23:21:52 -0800, (Fred Waltman) wrote:

And the other poster's reference to someone being burned by coffee --
if the reference is to Lieback vs McDonalds Restaurants they wouldn't
make light of it if they knew the facts -- not that facts ever stopped
anybody on this forum

Fred Waltman
www.LABeer.com
www.FranconiaBeerGuide.com

Ugh, so sick of hearing this argument. It doesn't matter if the coffee
was as hot as the sun, the person placing it in their crotch is at
fault. If I stick a fork in my eye and it's extra sharp, does that
justify a lawsuit?
Leo

Depends... was there a warning on the fork telling you not to stick
it in your eye? If there wasn't, you can bet there's an ambulance
chaser ready to cut you a 60/40 deal to persue a claim against the
fork's manufacturer.
--
http://www.legacy-2000.com for the best OpenVMS system security solutions.

VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)COM

"Well my son, life is like a beanstalk, isn't it?"

Maybe they should sue this newsgroup... Now that it's been mentioned here,
the tavern in questions will receive a lot more negative publicity than they
would have at Pubcrawler. Come to think of it, maybe they should sue the
internet........


"Alexander D. Mitchell IV" wrote in message
...
Apparently a pub in Baltimore, MD took offense at the reviews it got at
Pubcrawler and had an attorney send a "cease and desist" letter.

http://www.pubcrawler.com/Template/R...rewerID=103130

Seems to me the bar doesn't have a case--courts have generally found that
in
such cases, legal action can be pursued against the reviewer (if it falls
under the definition of libel), but not the forum or bulletin board
itself.

Thoughts?

wrote:
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 21:34:22 -0500, "Alexander D. Mitchell IV"
Apparently a pub in Baltimore, MD took offense at the reviews it got at
Pubcrawler and had an attorney send a "cease and desist" letter.

http://www.pubcrawler.com/Template/R...rewerID=103130

Seems to me the bar doesn't have a case--courts have generally found that in
such cases, legal action can be pursued against the reviewer (if it falls
under the definition of libel), but not the forum or bulletin board itself.

I thought the cease and desist was limited to the unauthorized use of
their logo.

I'm no legal expert, but my understanding is that it's
legal to use copyrighted text excerpts, images, etc., for
review purposes (at least-- educational purposes also are
covered) education. E.g., a newspaper restaurant review
can quote form the menu, include photos of an establishment,
etc. Ditto a college course on business management or whatever.
--
Joel Plutchak "We had all slipped into a silence of exquisite
plutchak@[...] fatigue with no wit to woo us. It was a special
silence. No lambs, just owls." - Neil Innes

wrote in message
...

Hmm, dirty beer lines libelous?

If it's false and drives business away, you bet it is. Particularly if it's
done with malicious intent.

As Lew said, there are two sides to every story. And if someone sets out to
damage someone's business, they can indeed be held responsible.

Maybe they *were* dirty or the
facilities unclean.I have no idea, never been to Ropewalk. I went to a
certain BP in DC last summer where the beer was good but the walls
were covered in fruit flies. I said so in my PC review, was that
libelous?

Not if it was true. If it wasn't and it cost them business, then potentially
yes. That's the textbook definition of libel/slander/defamation: knowingly
fals, harmful to business and/or reputation, and in the case of public
figures, malicious.

Of course, whether or not something is libelous is no barrier to being sued.
Anyone can initiate legal action. And it takes money to fight it off. Which
is why corporations love sending nasty letters to indivudals, knowing that
in 99 percent of cases they're not going to cough up the cash it would take
to fight it.

-Steve

"Joel Plutchak" wrote in message
...

I'm no legal expert, but my understanding is that it's
legal to use copyrighted text excerpts, images, etc., for
review purposes (at least-- educational purposes also are
covered) education. E.g., a newspaper restaurant review
can quote form the menu, include photos of an establishment,
etc. Ditto a college course on business management or whatever.

Yes, Fair Use applies to reviews. Tough to review a book without quoting
from it, for instance.

A logo? Technically dodgier. They're not reviewing the logo, after all. But
I doubt there's a court that would hold someone liable for that usage in
connection with a review.

It strikes me as the standard tactic of threatening legal action so someone
backs down either out of ignorance of the law or inability to or lack of
desire to pay the expense of fighting it.

And, some companies/attorneys do tend to use a shotgun approach when going
about things. Their real target may be the people posting, but Pubcrawler
gets hit with some of the shot.

-STeve

wrote in message
...

Ugh, so sick of hearing this argument. It doesn't matter if the coffee
was as hot as the sun, the person placing it in their crotch is at
fault. If I stick a fork in my eye and it's extra sharp, does that
justify a lawsuit?

It does if someone deliberately sharpened the fork to make it even more
dangerous, despite warnings from several people that doing so was begging
for trouble, and if they had internal memos saying they were willing to put
up with X number of fork-in-eye lawsuits each year in exchange for the
economic benefit of keeping the fork just below it's most dangerous
sharpness. And if your injury wasn't simply a poked eye, but far greater
damage than if the fork were just a normal fork.

But, don't let the facts get in the way of whining about something that
makes a convenient but completely specious argument.

-Steve

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 03:43:21 GMT, "Lew Bryson"
wrote:

"Phil" wrote in message
.. .
I always wondered who had the lowest rating in Pubcrawler; it's the
Ropewalk Tavern. Apparently, it's easier for this place to sue than
it is to improve itself.

Not fair, Phil. This place is getting shite-bombed by arseholes on
Pubcrawler. Used to happen to the Iron Hill brewpubs, which deserve much
better overall ratings than they have. Disgruntled employees, ****ed-off
boyfriends/girlfriends, competitors, you name it, it happens. There's
definitely more than one side to this.

I'm going strictly by what's on Pubcrawler right now. The website
took off the reviews and, now, are listing what people are saying
about the lawsuit.

I have seen reviews in pubcrawlere designed to slam a business. The
C.H. Evans Brewing Company comes to mind. I've also seen plenty pf
reviews written (supposedly) by the owners to boost their ratings. A
brewpub in Gettysburg (I won't name names) has been getting extremely
loust reviews for years. Suddenly, someone shows up and gives them a
perfect score. It's pretty funny.

Anyway, back to Baltimore, we don't know for sure if it's disgruntled
employees, etc. or if it's actual postings. But to have such a low
rating tells me that no one submits any good ones to counter them.
After all, someone has to have the worst drinking hole in this
country.

And to have your lawyer tell Pubcrawler to remove your logo from their
site is another matter.


Phil