Would one get n legal trouble for this website?

[kayeng]

Hi guys.

Let's say John would build a website in which the contents are mostly copied from other websites' contents. For instance, a researcher/investigator publishes his findings about a corrupt company in his own website, but his website just isn't reaching a lot of people. Now John, feeling that it is imperative that people read his findings, posts the said findings in his (John's) own website, then advertises his (John's) own website, all with the investigator's approval.

My question is, assuming the findings are 100% correct and accurate, and scumbag company still has the nerve to take legal action in order to stop the dissemination of damaging information, would the company go after John or would it go after the investigator? Because John in this case is somewhat merely a messenger, although he (John) was the one who really put the info out there for all to see--through the advertisements.

I've seen lots of similar websites, "public service" websites, so-called "conspiracy" websites, and they don't seem to get in trouble, but I'd like to be sure.

Please don't suggest that John advertise the investigator's website instead. For reasons that can't be put here, let's just assume that it's not an option.

Thank you for your time.

 

[Proserpina]

Hi guys.

Let's say John would build a website in which the contents are mostly copied from other websites' contents. For instance, a researcher/investigator publishes his findings about a corrupt company in his own website, but his website just isn't reaching a lot of people. Now John, feeling that it is imperative that people read his findings, posts the said findings in his (John's) own website, then advertises his (John's) own website, all with the investigator's approval.

My question is, assuming the findings are 100% correct and accurate, and scumbag company still has the nerve to take legal action in order to stop the dissemination of damaging information, would the company go after John or would it go after the investigator? Because John in this case is somewhat merely a messenger, although he (John) was the one who really put the info out there for all to see--through the advertisements.

I've seen lots of similar websites, "public service" websites, so-called "conspiracy" websites, and they don't seem to get in trouble, but I'd like to be sure.

Please don't suggest that John advertise the investigator's website instead. For reasons that can't be put here, let's just assume that it's not an option.

Thank you for your time.

Let's say you tell us your US location and we'll go from there.

 

[kayeng]

We're not from the U.S. , we're from Southeast Asia. Do we have to say exactly where? Is this website for U.S. residents only?
Thank you.

 

[Zigner]

This website is for questions related to US law only.

 

[quincy]

Hi guys.

Let's say John would build a website in which the contents are mostly copied from other websites' contents. For instance, a researcher/investigator publishes his findings about a corrupt company in his own website, but his website just isn't reaching a lot of people. Now John, feeling that it is imperative that people read his findings, posts the said findings in his (John's) own website, then advertises his (John's) own website, all with the investigator's approval.

My question is, assuming the findings are 100% correct and accurate, and scumbag company still has the nerve to take legal action in order to stop the dissemination of damaging information, would the company go after John or would it go after the investigator? Because John in this case is somewhat merely a messenger, although he (John) was the one who really put the info out there for all to see--through the advertisements.

I've seen lots of similar websites, "public service" websites, so-called "conspiracy" websites, and they don't seem to get in trouble, but I'd like to be sure.

Please don't suggest that John advertise the investigator's website instead. For reasons that can't be put here, let's just assume that it's not an option.

Thank you for your time.

Yes, please provide the name of your country. The laws in each country differ in significant ways. We handle only US law questions and legal concerns on this site but, admittedly, the way the question is asked of posters ("What is the name of your state? US law only") makes many who come to this site believe that they only have to mention their state name if it is a US law question. It is not worded very well.

Although your country's laws on defamation will be different than those in the US (and, depending on your country, possibly FAR different than those in the US), I can tell you that in the US if what John publishes on his website repeats defamatory statements made by the investigator, or if he is providing links to defamatory content, he can be named as a co-defendant in a defamation lawsuit. John could be seen as helping to disseminate defamatory content to a wider audience, increasing the harm suffered by the defamed individual/company.

There is some protection offered website hosts in the US under the Communications Decency Act, Section 230, but whether this would help John escape litigation is a question mark. He could still be sued in the US and have to defend against the suit. But there is no CDA Section 230 in other countries that provides this type of immunity from suit for webhosts.

Also, if John is publishing copyrighted material taken from other sites without the express (preferably written) permission of the copyright holders, he can also be sued for copyright infringement.

Most countries laws on defamation are harsher than they are in the US - less is tolerated - because the citizens of those countries do not have laws that protect free expression to the extent that the US does. And, although copyright laws share many similarities throughout the world, the enforcement of copyright laws vary in significant ways - with some countries ignoring infringement to a great extent and others (like the US) awarding statutory damages to copyright holders whose works have been infringed.

Regardless of your country of origin, it is never a good idea to base your own actions on what others are doing - as what others are doing may be violating laws. It is possible that the websites you have seen are not violating any laws but it is equally possible that they have just not been discovered yet, or they might have been sued already over their content, or they could be in the process of being sued.

I recommend you sit down with an attorney in your part of Asia and review any plans for your website, prior to implementing them or, if you have already been named in a lawsuit, I recommend you have an attorney help you with your defense. Good luck.