

Grooveshark is hunting an anonymous commenter - ryandvm
http://allthingsd.com/20120118/grooveshark-fights-a-copyright-lawsuit-by-chasing-after-anonymous-commenters/

======
ImprovedSilence
At first I thought: "How dare they, I'll never use Grooveshark again." Then I
realized Groovshark probably has an inkling that the anonymous comment from a
"former employee" is in fact some sort of astroturfing via the company suing
them, so as to strengthen their case. Just my thoughts on the issue. We
shouldn't be too quick to judge here, big media co's are devious bastards, no?

~~~
nkassis
I had a similar feeling, basically the comment can be considered slanderous. I
do have to agree with the site that they might not be able technically to give
the info.

I don't think whistle blower laws apply to someone making a post on the
internet but I could be wrong. I thought it was more if you heard of illegal
things and went to law enforcement about it.

Anyone can clarify if it applies or not?

~~~
groggles
>I do have to agree with the site that they might not be able technically to
give the info.

I have mixed feelings about sites that rely upon the "we regularly purge
identifying information" excuse. In this case I believe it makes the site
directly responsible for libel as they are actively looking to protect the
sources of information that benefits them.

~~~
Dylan16807
I don't see how that can be if they're doing it with all comments.

~~~
groggles
They do it for all comments to have a protection when someone comes gunning
for some comments.

This isn't about someone defending a champion of free speech or a hero of
mankind. It's about, in most cases, _liars_ who invent claims in comments to
support their side. Such lies gain truth through repeated assertion (remember
how RIM couldn't believe that the iPhone was possible? Retold endlessly, it
was all based upon a quickly deleted claim on some random message board by
some anonymous person claiming to be a RIM employee. The claim was absurd --
the iPhone used the same stock ingredients that RIM was used to -- but there
you had an "insider" to support it).

~~~
Dylan16807
People are bad about rumors, but there's still no reason to try to block
anonymous commenting. If someone wants to make themselves anonymous for a
single post, they will, barring blatant mistakes. We should not expect server
logs to let us snoop around a comment made with exactly zero reputation or
trustworthiness.

------
mason55
I can't imagine that the comments from the anonymous commenter can be accepted
as evidence or testimony in any sort of lawsuit or deposition. Wouldn't that
violate all existing precedent regarding the right to cross-examine your
accuser?

Edit: Nevermind... it appears that the Confrontation Clause only applies to
criminal and not civil matters.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confrontation_Clause>

~~~
freehunter
I'd imagine it'd go the other way: the burden of proof would be on UMG to
prove the claims made by the anonymous commenter. That would be easier to do
if they could get the anonymous commenter to testify.

