Legal fund for Reviewers/Erin?

[TemploAztlan]

Would pulling the said speakers out of its store count as a proof of financial loss?
If Tekton “missed” the sale of 2 or 3 pairs of speakers and can assign it to Erin’s review, that’s still a lot of money Erin could be liable for (I assume…).
Now, nobody forced Tekton to stop selling these speakers. I don’t think the review uncovered any danger or health risk for the users, so Tekton cannot invoke a precautionary action in pulling the speakers out of their lineup.

He could submit that as proof. Whether a jury would buy it is another story. Like you said, nobody forced him to do it and that's what the defense would argue.

What would be more compelling is sales data showing a precipitous drop in revenues immediately after the review. Defense could still argue the drop was caused by something else e.g. bad publicity in audio community over legal threats.

 

[Deleted member 27254]

Still waiting for proof about what Eric Alexander said that was litigious, in his response to Erin's review. We're at 28 pages of comments...and amazingly, the facts are still missing. Many participants in this discussion write as if they are in full possession of the evidence. However,
1. We can't see the review, and
2. We can't see what Tekton supposedly threatened Erin with.

Will someone please post this information? It is vital if we're going to honestly assess what really happened.

I have no dog in this fight, only a desire to discuss this based on provable facts, rather than hearsay and assumptions. Surely that's not too much to ask.

Finally, regardless of what you think about Tekton products, I find it pretty shocking that someone here openly suggested vandalizing Tekton speakers at audio shows; and that the comment reaped winks and laughter from some.

I like ASR, but none of this is what I'd expect from a group of people who claim a dedication to science, facts, and rationality.

 

[Universal Cereal Bus]

American tort laws are a ridiculous naked scheme of allowing the rich to bully the poor.

Yet so many also decry tort law as a means for vexatious nobodies to make a quick buck off innocent corporations -- the McDonald's hot coffee-scalded grandmother being the oft-cited example. It can't be both ways, can it?

When I was taught the McDonald's case and the inaccuracies surrounding the reporting of it, my torts prof provided some interesting policy commentary about the role of tort law in our modern regulatory framework. While some on the political spectrum might disagree with even the basic assumptions, I believe this legal-economic-policy commentary is rather orthodox and probably widely taught in first year torts.

Essentially, modern life exists in a regulatory state but it's impossible (practically and politically) to regulate everything, so we leave torts to mop-up duty. An average adult has never experienced more regulation in any previous era. Now we take so many things for granted because we expect them to be regulated or satisfy some basic minimum threshold of safety and efficacy because they were subject to some equivalent of regulation. Life's a lot more efficient when we don't have to personally research whether every little thing we buy will give us cancer or start a fire. For really important things, the government writes laws. For some pretty important things, industry self-regulates, either to avoid government encroachment or civil liability. And for the rest, tort law and the spectre of a McDonald's-type case or class action will hopefully spur the parties to act responsibly. Or not (Tesla "FSD").

 

[CleanSound]

1. We can't see the review, and

Seeing Erin's review or not is irrelevant (unless Erin intentionally made slanderous comment to harm Tekton, which he didn't).

Eric Alexander threaten to take legal action against Erin, what appears to be that Eric claims that Erin's measurements aren't accurate.

2. We can't see what Tekton supposedly threatened Erin with.

You need to look harder, it's been screenshot and posted on ASR.

 

[soundman]

I don't know how many of you have been reading the Tekton review thread. But it seems that the company designer/owner has threatened Erin, forcing him to take down his video and written review of one of his speakers. As we all know, Erin's core contributions are measurements of the speaker and what he speaks of, is his subjective opinion. Neither of these is cause for threats of lawsuit and intimidation to take down a review with nary an attempt by the company to show what is in error. The right of a product owner to send what he has bought for testing and publication of the same is one of the most cherished things in my view. I hate to see Erin cave in just because he doesn't have the money to defend his work and injure consumer's rights in the process.

So what you all think about creating a fund to help him?

If you are in favor, someone needs to help setup the fund and let Erin know.

Edit: this is what we are dealing with:

UPDATE: Countless members have been supportive and committed to donating such a defense fund. Better yet, two member lawyers offered to help and I put one in touch with Erin. Progress is being made. Thank you everyone!

This reminds me of something that happened many years ago at The Absolute Sound. Harry Pearson reviewed a Sony product that to his ears performed poorly. Before publication he sent a copy to Sony letting them see what was going to appear in the magazine and allowing for a manufacturer comment which he intended to be part of the review. Instead of a manufacturer's reply, HP received a letter from Sony asking him not to publish the review! The review would reflect poorly on Sony. Imagine.. What did HP do? He wrote a column called Sony No Baloney and in it he reprinted their letter to him not to publish! I loved it and it will always be a cherished memory of integrity. The same applies here. If a manufacturer cannot accept the feedback on their product to the degree that they are filing a lawsuit reflects so poorly is beyond belief. I have never seen anything like this except the Sony letter; perhaps it is cultural; the Japanese need to save face, but a law suit. Unless the manufacturer can prove damages (loss of sales) on the basis of something said that is untrue there is no case.

 

[amirm]

till waiting for proof about what Eric Alexander said that was litigious, in his response to Erin's review.

You think he asked for an attorney to help him without this? Many times it is prudent to not say much in these cases. It is for that reason that neither I or Erin are sharing everything we know. You are welcome to distrust us but please don't extend this to others having to do so just the same.

1. We can't see the review, and

A number of us did see the review and have recounted it. This was captured before the video was taken down:

My review of Tekton Mini Lore remains active and you can read it and comments from the designer.

I have no dog in this fight, only a desire to discuss this based on provable facts, rather than hearsay and assumptions. Surely that's not too much to ask.

You can have your opinion but per above, there is more than sufficient information available to us that we needed to take immediate action to help Erin defend his rights to publish independent reviews, even if they are negative in nature. You also need to read the Tekton review thread if you want to know more about the situation such as this:

Erici, Sure. my official position is 'the FACTS are Amir didn't measure the loudspeaker correctly and placed the loudspeaker in a false light.' Furthermore, because Amir's review was unsolicited I am under no obligation to disclose his mistakes to him or anyone. I feel blindsided, I am his victim, and I feel a need to expose his mistakes. I believe Amir is capable of measuring a loudspeaker; it's his understanding of acoustical physics that I intend to expose and cast a light upon.

He seems to think permission is required from him before his products are reviewed ("unsolicited"). Since Erin's review was not, you can imagine him going after him.

 

[IAtaman]

Constitutional protections apply to protect you from the Federal government, not private actors

If I understand this correctly, Gulf Ship Manufacturing alleged the same, but Supreme Court disagreed.

Constitutional protections of free speech under First and Fourteenth Amendments still apply within the confines of a town owned by a private entity.

Marsh v. Alabama - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[PenguinMusic]

This is like Godzilla and King Kong putting their feud behind them when they realize they must join forces to fight a common enemy. Movie coming out this summer!

Already out

 

[PenguinMusic]

Hi,
I happen to be a lawyer, but not in the US, in Europe/France.
From what I understand, so far Erin has not been drafted to go to court.
So far, Erin just threatened him to sue him.

From experience, I think chances are Eric will not go beyond threatening.
He will leave it to that.
A legal sue costs money for both sides...

I do not know US laws about this kind of cases.
But I for sure know about french laws about those...
All I can say is that there is not a single perspective to approach such case that will get Erin to be condamned to pay anything.

The basis for the sue would be denigration I think.
Denigration supposes that someone speaks of a competitor or his product in a bad way.
Denigration can be made by someone who is not a competitor.
Denigration can not be lifted by proving that what you say is true.

So it looks bad for Erin does it not ?
BUT : if I consider cases ruled here in France, it shows that :
- 1°) people are not easily condamned when they are not competitors ;
- 2°) people are almost never condamned when they just speak badly of a product to inform others (if not, reviews would never be possible !) ;
- 3°) people are NEVER codamn,ed when they just act with their freedom of speech.

So, at least in France, Erin would not be condamned to anything and he would be able to recover the expenses of the sue that should be paid by Eric.

Those rules sound fair to me and I don't think they can be totally different in the US.

Eric probably knows about this and if his lawyer is wise (miracles happen !) he will advise him to let it be.

Regards

 

[jayapple]

Frivolous case, it will be thrown out by any judge.

This is why I mentioned earlier that it's very difficult to disrupt the speaker industry. It's a conservative industry, especially the high-end speakers refuse to be tested by any individuals, they only allow the results to be published in controlled journals so that they can sell high prices. Besides, they have a well-established legal department, which makes it very difficult for any individual to fight against them and ultimately compromise.

 

[antcollinet]

That insect is better looking !

It's not an insect

 

[StigErik]

It might have been answered before, but is Erin's audio corner run by himself as an individual (private person), or by some registered company?

 

[antcollinet]

I can't speak for other countries but I should perhaps correct the misinformation here. The law here in the UK is more like that you describe for the US: It is up to the plaintiff to make their case, there is no obligation on the defendant to prove anything although obviously it can help to do so.

Hang on - are we talking civil cases here?

In both UK and US (Don't know about Canada, but I think this is common for most western contries) civil cases are based on "the balance of the probabilities"

Ie based on the evidence presented from both sides, which is the most likely to be correct.

 

[Doodski]

Hang on - are we talking civil cases here?

In both UK and US (Don't know about Canada, but I think this is common for most western contries) civil cases are based on "the balance of the probabilities"

Ie based on the evidence presented from both sides, which is the most likely to be correct.

When I litigated the last time in Canada the defendant did not have to provide documents or anything. There was period of time where I was able to ask him questions and otherwise it was 100% up to me to prove my case. It was not a situation of slander, libel, reputation or loss of income etc. It was solely a matter of theft by abusing and manipulating process. (Also know as lying.)

 

[somebodyelse]

Curious, has the applicable standard changed since the late 1990s? When I was an undergrad a professor at my school wrote a book about Holocaust deniers, and one of them sued her and her publisher for libel in the UK. She had to prove the truth of the statements in her book - and did -to prevail.

I think the ECHR ruling on the McLibel case moved the bar a bit, and the law changed a bit in the Defamation Act 2013, but not hugely. My non-lawyer understanding is that it reduced the burden of proof on the defendant slightly, rather than shifting it to the plaintiff.

 

[Hatto]

It's sad to see a domain expert cave in so easily in the face of empty threats... These companies resort to such scare tactics in desperation hoping to invoke a fear response and when people are scared off so easily, it just encourages more to do the same.

 

[holdingpants01]

1. We can't see the review, and

we saw it and you can too, since you have the link to the review in your inbox sice yesterday

 

[amirm]

It might have been answered before, but is Erin's audio corner run by himself as an individual (private person), or by some registered company?

I can't tell from quick look at his site. If he hasn't created an LLC (Limited Liability Corporation), better do so immediately. I am of course so situated.

 

[Universal Cereal Bus]

gwing said:
I can't speak for other countries but I should perhaps correct the misinformation here. The law here in the UK is more like that you describe for the US: It is up to the plaintiff to make their case, there is no obligation on the defendant to prove anything although obviously it can help to do so.

Hang on - are we talking civil cases here?

In both UK and US (Don't know about Canada, but I think this is common for most western contries) civil cases are based on "the balance of the probabilities"

Ie based on the evidence presented from both sides, which is the most likely to be correct.

gwing is correct. The burden of proof lies with the plaintiff. Once some threshold for a given element is met, the burden may shift to the defendant for a subsequent element. The balance of probabilities or preponderance of evidence refers to the standard of proof, not the initial burden. It should be common sense and not require a law degree to intuit that a claim cannot succeed with no supporting evidence; the plaintiff has not met their burden and defendant may move for summary judgment.

 

[somebodyelse]

If he's operating as a private individual, he is / should be protected by laws on free speech, right?

At least here in the civilized part of the world (...Europe), you can say virtually anything you want, and nobody can sue you.

In theory yes, in practice not so much. SLAPPs exploit the expense of proving you're in the right, and many states don't have anti-SLAPP laws.

I guess the UK doesn't count as civilised as even when we were in the EU our libel laws were notorious. See McLibel for an example. The government claim they're working on anti-SLAPP legislation, but they've been saying that for some time now.