Sun Marketing žaluje Roberta Štípka

Napsal Neregistrovaný;546340

Nicméně dovolte mi reagovat. Proč se tady nikdo neptá na to, proč se RŠ zachoval tak jak se zachoval? Proč tady nikdo neodsuzuje jeho možné nekalosoutěžní jednání? Proč si tu proboha nikdo neotevře Obchodní zákoník (který je dokonce v jednom článku odkazovaný) a nezamyslí se nad tím, že SM má pravdu. A proč tu nikdo nezmíní "Neznalost zákona neomlouvá"? Proč tu kritizujete to, že se někdo brání právní cestou?

Napsal Neregistrovaný;546340

Tady tato diskuse je typický úkaz lidského chování. Jednotlivec stojí proti "zlé společnosti", a tak se všichni (samozřejmě i jeho známí a čtenáři) postaví slepě na jeho stranu. A tvrdí" "zlá, zlá společnost", "co si to dovolili podat žalobu". Co takhle to dotáhnout až k absurdnímu záběru a kontaktovat Novu nebo ČT, aby z toho udělali velkou reportáž o tom jak zlá společnost žaluje hodného kluka, který se nebojí napsat něco o svém soutěžiteli? Veřejnost bude určitě na vaší straně a pokud to u soudu nevyjde (což si troufám říct, že opravdu ne), tak všichni budou tvrdit "zlý soud" a tak jako tak de facto vyhrajete... I když spravedlnost (v tomto případě bych se vás však zastal, že to nebude "Justice" nýbrž "Fair") říká něco jiného

Napsal Morasino;547042

Sun Marketing se nezachovali zrovna moc korektně. Zlobí se prostě za pravdu. Robert se možná hranice nekalé soutěže, ale co je moc to je moc. Pokud by to SM nechalo být, tak by se nic nestalo a nezkazili si zbytečně renomé (pokud nějaké mají), takhle se na ně bude z pohledu "kolegů z branže" pohlížet jako na malé děcka co se rozbrečí kvůli tomu, že jim někdo sebral dudlík.

Napsal Honza Čapka;547268

A jak jsem už psal, za pravdu se SM podle mě nezlobí. Pokud jste si jist, pošlete mi prosím nějaký důkaz o tom, že SM zakázalo Robertovi psát o tom, že má společné účty (což je předmětem žaloby).

Napsal Neregistrovaný;547438

Všechny ty příspěvky a komentáře si píšou sami ti lidé z agentury. I ty komentáře pod článkem si psali sami, a v této diskuzi vystupují anonymně, leč je to pořád jeden človek nebo pár těch lidí, snaží se zachránit..

Napsal rados100;546995

petrx: No pokud je mi známo vydával se za někoho jiného (nebo pracoval pro firmu, která si chtěla reklamu objednat - nevím přesně). A pokud jsem viděl celou mailovou komunikaci, tak musím říci, že RŠ si buďto nepřečetl jeden mail, nebo jednal záměrně - což je také předmětem žaloby.

Jinak doufám, že ten druhý odstavec nemyslíte vážně. Protože reakce "S tím přece museli v Sun Marketing počítat" je velmi ubohá. Chcete mi říci, že pokud se např. v sousedském sporu o délku plotu, podám žalobu a soused mi zapálí stodolu, tak já s tím měl počítat? Nemyslíte, že toto je argument, který by si vzdělaný člověk měl odpustit? Nechci se Vás nijak dotknout, ale tímto jste u mě ztratil jakýkoliv punc člověka schopného slušné diskuse.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

Streisand effect

The Streisand effect is a primarily online phenomenon in which an attempt to censor or remove a piece of information has the unintended consequence of causing the information to be publicized widely and to a greater extent than would have occurred if no censorship had been attempted. It is named after American entertainer Barbra Streisand, following a 2003 incident in which her attempts to suppress photographs of her residence inadvertently generated further publicity.

(...)

Mike Masnick originally coined the term Streisand effect in reference to a 2003 incident in which Barbra Streisand unsuccessfully attempted to sue photographer Kenneth Adelman and Pictopia.com for US$50 million in an attempt to have the aerial photograph of her mansion removed from the publicly available collection of 12,000 California coastline photographs, citing privacy concerns. Adelman stated that he was photographing beachfront property to document coastal erosion as part of the California Coastal Records Project. As a result of the case, public knowledge of the picture increased substantially and it became popular on the Internet, with more than 420,000 people visiting the site over the following month.

Examples

In April 2007, an attempt at blocking an AACS key from being published on Digg caused an uproar when cease-and-desist letters demanded the code be removed from several high-profile websites. This led to the key's proliferation across other sites and chat rooms in various formats, with one commentator describing it as having become "the most famous number on the internet." Within a month, the key had been reprinted on over 280,000 pages, printed on T-shirts and tattoos, and had appeared on YouTube in a song played over 45,000 times.

In April 2007, Bhumibol Adulyadej, the King of Thailand, was portrayed as a monkey in a video posted on YouTube. The Thai government banned the site for lèse majesté, and other YouTube users responded by posting other clips bashing Bhumibol, leading to tens of thousands of views.

In January 2008, The Church of Scientology's unsuccessful attempts to get Internet websites to delete a video of Tom Cruise speaking about Scientology resulted in the creation of Project Chanology. Similarly, the church attempted to remove a series of Operating Thetan (OT) document leaks from Wikileaks. Wikileaks responded by vowing to "release several thousand additional pages of Scientology material next week", a threat which was followed through.

(...)

In May 2009, Twitter user Amanda Bonnen posted the following tweet to one of her 20 followers: "You should just come anyway. Who said sleeping in a moldy apartment was bad for you? Horizon realty thinks it's okay." Bonnen's landlord, Chicago's Horizon Group Management LLC, encountered the tweet while preparing for a class-action lawsuit that Bonnen had previously filed against the company. Horizon then filed a $50,000 lawsuit against Bonnen on the basis that the tweet was malicious and defamed the company. Major news outlets, technology journalists, and bloggers reported on the lawsuit, and Twitter users reposted the original message along with criticism of Horizon for its actions. A tweet that originally would have only been of interest to Bonnen's 20 followers became visible to the world as a result of Horizon's reaction to it.

(...)

In November 2009, Wolfgang Werlé and Manfred Lauber, convicted for the murder of Walter Sedlmayr, demanded their names be removed from an article on the German language Wikipedia due to German laws. The German Wikipedia complied, but the information was widely publicized as a result. In the following few days, the visits to the page on the English Wikipedia increased from approximately 20 a day to over 10,000.

In December 2009, Ted Alvin Klaudt, a former South Dakota state legislator convicted of raping his two foster daughters, attempted to claim "copyright" on his name and demanded it not appear in any news articles. His demand was publicized and quickly spread to several major websites, increasing his exposure to the public.

In January 2010, an Australian Aboriginal man named Steven Hodder-Watts drew controversy when he successfully sued Google to remove links to the satirical page on his race on Encyclopedia Dramatica. After Google removed them, the search term that Hodder-Watt had used instead linked to 300,000 other results, all news services providing links to the offending article.

(...)

During the 2010 FIFA World Cup, FIFA attempted to block a marketing campaign by the Bavaria Brewery, claiming it violated the rights of their partner Budweiser. They took legal action against Bavaria and a group of women who attended the stadium wearing orange dresses supplied by the company. This backfired on them, as the lawsuit became a cause célèbre and an unsuspected amount of worldwide coverage was generated in print media, websites and blogs, featuring pictures of the girls and generating an outstanding amount of publicity for the brand. The story became viral and just a few days after the match, there were thousands of posts on Twitter with the #Bavaria tag, as well as many other negative ones with the #Budweiser tag. Facebook groups were also created in support of the brand. The Lost Agency estimates that the brand reached an audience of over 25 million people on the press alone, without considering the impact of social networks.

(...)