Just my 2 (or 3) cents on this. I was recently a beginning-player newbie piano buyer. This is a very common circumstance. I didn't think it was possible in a two week period to be subjected to quite as many misleading sales pitches (i.e. lies) and high pressure sales tactics as I was, for a purchase that was emotionally important to me (I have for a long time wanted to play, but for various bad reasons never started), and involved a reasonably large amount of money.

I found that by posting on here I was able to get some outside sources of information and an independent perspective. In particular I wound up purchasing a less well-known piano (a Schulze-Pollmann) from a dealer I had never heard of before (Faust-Harrison), rather than a well-known piano (Yamaha) from a dealer my teacher had initially recommended (Frank and Camille's). In part this was my judgment, in part my teacher's ultimate endorsement, but also in part due to the reputation of both the product and the dealer on this website.

I also felt better once I realized that it wasn't just me who was subjected to the sleaze of the piano sales industry, but that this was common. I feel it is essential that people be allowed to post negative personal opinions and information about piano brands and dealers. I find it interesting that only piano dealers seem to feel the need to resort to lawyers to stop personal opinions being posted in a chat room. Apparently, car dealers, guitar dealers, political candidates etc. do not feel the need to do this. Further evidence of the general sleaze level of the piano sales industry.

I must respectfully disagree with Irving. He is understandably concerned about either malicious posting from rival dealers or general social malcontents, or even perhaps harmful information from ignorant piano buyers just saying random stuff they don't really know about. I agree that all of these are possible negative results from a free press and free information on the internet. (My industry - financial advice - also faces the problem of false reporting and commentary, not just in chat rooms, but in respected newspapers.) The trouble is that the cost of excluding these problems (censorship, entry requirements that exclude most new posters, voluntary restriction to only happy positive comments) are worse than the potential problems. Given the number of posters on here, I doubt that any truely false comment would not at least be challenged, and anyone with a brain in their head should know to take an isolated free internet chat room comment for exactly what it is worth. The benfits to good dealers (including F-H) of an open forum like this, in my opinion far outweigh the potential negative consequences. Dealers deserve protection, but consumers also deserve a wide range of viewpoints (accurate or not), and free speech usually works both out fairly.

The problem as I see it is for PW itself to give us guidelines for what can and can't be said (i.e. always say "this is my personal experience", or something like that) so that PW doesn't get tied up with lawyers, itself a reflection of the unethical sleaze level of the industry. In Britain manufacturers can sue a paper for false information. In America they cannot (in general, there are some archaic agriculture laws in Florida and Iowa.) I personally believe that if PW were to fight it, it could win. (However, I am not a lawyer, so this is just a random personal opinion.) But that is not economically feasible. So what forum members need is guidelines as to how to give their opinions, in a way that helps real consumers (and quality dealers, over time), but does not cause a problem to the good people who run PW.

Believe me, I've considered saying ok, let's go to court.
It would be interesting to have a couple hundred (or more) Piano World members show up in our defense. Piano World has done nothing wrong, we provide a public forum that many thousands of people around the world find very helpful.

We average over 9 million hits a month, that translates into a whole lot of people!
Getting our friends riled up by threatening to censor them might not be the best idea.

And I will not have our forums compromised by
someone trying to twist the legal system around to their advantage.

However, that said, I think it would be more prudent to find a way to protect ourselves and be allowed to continue to provide information to our thousands (make that millions) of wonderful guests/friends/members.

We need to work through the details, and once again any suggestions from a legal standpoint would be welcomed (feel free to contact me off line if you prefer not to be construed as offering legal counsel).

I'm thinking we need:

~ A good disclaimer [public forum, Communications Decency Act, etc.,etc.]
~ A means for providing rebuttals [which we already have, just post your rebuttal]
~ Continue to be self-policing
~ Guidelines
~ Open Communications (if a business or individual feels something is unfair/unjust, they can contact me).

You should be aware while Piano World cannot be
held responsible for individuals posts (beyond possibly being asked to remove/edit the post), the individual making the post may be exposing themselves to possible litigation.

As to posting the letter I received this time, or anything about the dealer, I will wait to hear back from our lawyer first.

I did previously post (with my lawyer's permission) an excerpt from his reply to a similar issue...

"My client has absolutely no legal responsibility for this posting. The law is very clear in this area. As the host for a forum, Piano World is treated as a news vendor, bookstore or library and is not liable, since he neither knew nor had any reason to know of any purported defamation. He exerts no editorial control over the content of forum postings. "

There is more to it, but you get the idea.

And yes, I will contact other forums to see how they handle these things. In the meantime, keep the ideas flowing!

Unfortunately, there will ALWAYS be people who will NOT follow guidelines, no matter how many times they are told.

It could be the unscrupulous dealers themselves who would/could violate the guidelines.

This is a terrific forum. It needs to remain alive and well in its present format.

Post the "cease and desist" letter or e-mail or whatever the hell it was, for all to read. Make it a "sticky" thread so it won't be missed by anybody checking out the Piano Forum for the first time. Let the letter speak for itself, and let Forum browsers form their own opinions of the folks who sent it, and their motivation and their ethics.

Why not shine some daylight on this stuff?

To begin with I am not a lawyer. I'll take a stab at what might be happening. If only individuals wanting opinions on pianos occupied this forum and someone made a comment about a dealer experience, then that would probably not be and issue. However, this forum also contains piano dealers, technicians, designers, professional musicians, who as a group could "restrain the trade" of a particular brand of piano, dealership, parts manufacturer, etc. In other words, the dealership's argument might be that by disparaging them you are restraining them from operating their business and are therefore liable for damages. I belong to another forum run by members of my particular profession and we are constantly reminded not to mention any specific manufacturers in a negative way for this exact reason. Just my 2 cents.
Jon

Fair enough, Frank.

If you want to be conservative about it, there is another approach. You could write to the dealer's lawyer and say, "I have received your e-mail. I have decided to handle future communications of this nature from you or your client by posting the communication in its entirety at the Piano World web site." Then they've been put on notice, which may cause them to back off all by itself.

Personally, I wouldn't bother with this, as it might just touch off another (costly) exchange about your right to publicize your dispute with them. I'd just post the whole e-mail letter, myself (making crystal clear that this is an e-mail you received *purporting* to be from dealer's lawyer). And I'd shoot them an e-mail reply containing nothing more than the link where their letter is now enshrined, so that they understand the consequences of harrassing you. Why, perhaps they'd be willing to drop the whole thing for all time if you agree to remove the letter from the site!

Oh, and regarding posting what your lawyers have said, I should have been a bit more clear in my remarks. I was referring to anything your lawyers tell you as part of your consultation, not what your lawyers have told the dealer. The former is privileged; the latter is not.

Jdsher:
Yes, but the party liable would be those conspiring to restrain trade. Frank still shouldn't be liable if he isn't involved (although he still could be named in any suit filed, I suppose). Whether the claim is restraint of trade, defamation, interference with prospective economic advantage or anything else, the party with the most exposure is the party uttering the offending words, I'd guess.

Cindy

I'm guessing usenet IS google, or that usenet is under google now.
Maybe the reason usenet won't be sued is because they are huge and can afford fancy lawers.
Help out the dumb guy here.

usenet is NOT google, google.groups has arhived all of usenet as far as I know (they bought the deja archives), but usenet is a separate planet.

Sorry to bother y'all, just looked it up.
I don't get out much.

When a forum member posts a positive experience with a dealer, mentions that dealer by name on the forum, obviously that is a big plus for good dealers. I'm sure you would get no threatening legal letters from their lawyers!

It's also a big plus for forum members coming to the forum because they see personal recommendations of good dealers they should visit.

Perhaps we could also post negative experiences, but just not mention the dealer by name? Should someone want to alert a poster, about a less than reputable dealer, it could be done via email or a private message.

The absense of good recommendations for some dealers would be one way of stating the obvious.

Not a perfect solution, but perhaps it would prevent Frank's threatening lawyer letters.

Frank, I do think a good disclaimer is a good idea.

It was obvious that the poster baited for replys.
Keep the Forum as it is now because I hear and see many people who say that they have benefited from reading through here.
If an opinion of a brand is requested, any person should be able to give their own impressions on the instrument as well as how it was presented, tuned, prepped, priced, delivered, ect. This will involve the dealer regardless if the decision is made to curb any postings about them.
Frank, let me know if you need my help.

Just for some humor, A lawyer for this unmentioned dealer bought a grand from us.

Hey, Larry!

I just saw your edit. It sounds like we are thinking along the same lines.

And you know what that means, don't you?

The dealer will send us both threatening e-mails claiming were engaging in a *conspiracy!*

I suggest we thwart our adversary by speaking in secret code. Henceforth, let's refer to smoking this dealer out of his hole by posting the e-mail here as the "Roach Approach."

Cindy -- keeping her voice down in case they're listening

Frank, If their legal approach is already in the wrong, what makes you certain changing things will have an effect? That's the nature of being frivolous. If, in any other way, relative distinctions are made about dealers, some will be still left behind who may sue, or do whatever $125 buys them.

I'd just ignore the email and suggest we don't change a thing. It was probably all dressed up and formal, with a letter head....yada, yada. Your first post suggests you already know you are right and nobody here feels any differently about that. So, why accomodate?

You could also economically craft up a response email using the discovery that your previous experience generated, forward it to your lawyer and have them send it on all fancy like. How much could that cost since you've already demonstrated that you obtained representation under a similar circumstance?

I do take it your lawyer will remember you? Whatever you do, it seems pretty clear the opposing side is taking the longshot you'll fold. On the off chance litigation takes place, you can count me in for help.

Chris

I'll send a check too!

PW has enriched my life.
I might as well pay to defend it.

I am going for all out on this.

Call their bluff.

There are perhaps dozens of company lawers here clenching their teeth [secretly] for battle.

But they are too smart for actually going ahead.

To be seen as loosers before a world wide audience.

Go,stick the papers on the doors of Wittenberg!

Call the e-mail tigers on the floor!!

Norbert

The pertinent laws which protect this board and participants are called anti-SLAPP laws. Here's a website that deals with the subject: The California Anti-SLAPP Project. Although it deals specifically with California law, there is information about other states. A search of the web will no doubt turn up other information.

This legal stuff is so confusing ......

My opinion: All of us know that PianoWorld.com provides an extremely valuable service to people seeking to purchase & maintain a very expensive consumer product. There is no place, other than PianoWorld.com, where Joe Consumer can get honest, frank advice concerning these subjects ("The Piano Book" is a good resource but it doesn't cover everything). These types of discussion should be welcomed & encouraged. Piano owners also appreciate the other discussions provided by fellow students, technicians, teachers, musicians, & lovers of keyboards in general.

I sense that the potentially litigious scenarios usually arise when a legitimate NEW poster (consumer) starts asking for advice re ABC Piano Weasles Co., whether he is considering a purchase, or has made that purchase. I believe these posters (consumers) expect & should receive honest opinions from members of this forum. Therefore, I think it is very important for all NEW & existing posters to be made aware of the following, e.g.: "What you post is your opinion only & may be subject to possible litigation. Be truthful, polite & respectful. Don't slander others. Our success is due to the efforts of our individual members, blah, blah....".

Of course, those who "troll" or "bait" members on this forum for negative dealer comments should be banned ..... And I think the senior PW folk are quite on top of this. (As an aside, I'll state that when I bought one of my new pianos & spoke about it on PW, I was "baited" through a PM, by a dealer for "my experiences" concerning other dealers .... so members should look out for this too).

Like Axtremus, I wanted to do something to celebrate "a #-of-posts milestone" .... Also, I'm like PianoJuggler, .... I don't do Paypal .... So,

Frank, if you can PM me with your name/address/zip code ..... I'll send you a U.S. money order & a smile .

Changing things in response to frivolous demands amounts to appeasement. This begets more of the same. I urge Frank to not give in to this sort of thing.

Best,

Steve O.

What would be the consequence of posting "I had a fairly lukewarm experience with a dealer in East Overshoe, Minnesota who caries a Japanese brand that starts with 'K' and an Austrian brand that starts with 'B'..."

...naming no names...

I'm also surprised that PF hasn't gotten a similar letter from a laywer representing the entire piano industry in an Asian country that starts with 'C'.

Just curious: did the letter also demand that Frank provide details of the offending poster's IP address, so they can sue said person's ISP as well? That's the direction the anti-spam laws seem to be going.

Chris raises a good point. Even if the forum self-polices itself, since anyone can write a threatening letter, who says self-regulating will satisfy every grubby dealer? What about piano brands? If I say "Faziolis are lousy. My Brand X upright is better. Don't buy Faziolis," can Fazioli send a "stop it" letter to PW? How can the forum function then?

I think Jack Frost (esquire) is chiming in with the angles that are most pertinent. Fortunately or unfortunately, a lawyer's input is probably most important here.

Any concessions of format, such as using star rating systems in lieu of actual verbage, will mean that this dealer has unilaterally, and possibly without contention, tailored a very large playing field to suit only themselves. The Piano Forum, for those of you that find it valuable as it is, would be forever changed...and vulnerable to other non-approving retailers. As it stands, no concessions have been made and the Piano Forum, I suppose, stands strongly and states that it has law on its side.

When that is no longer the case, and I do sympathize with your dilemma, Frank, the Piano Forum may become more of a 'target' for the disgruntled.

I do, however, think you are on the right track when you mention properly disclaiming the forum and the posts. I think that is a good way to go, and possibly, if I understand Jack Frost, a way to cement your legal argument...which seems sound anyway.

I can not decide financial issues for you. I can, personally, only say that it would be 'nice' if the Forum changed its format due to more than a "shot across the bow" email. Rather, I submit that they don't want to pay lawyers' fees any more than you do. They have written this email to you out of a 'fear' response. Fear of losing business, etc. If properly combatted, they may realize they should put their energies into improving their reputation rather than spend $ on lawyers. This isn't your concern, though, really. Rather, you need to do the thing that you can afford and that will allow you to sleep well at night.

All that said, can someone tell me if this is the nyc dealer that was mentioned some time ago?? I really don't know who we are even talking about here. *sigh*

It's not.

It's not.
BTW, I've put this in the hands of our lawyer, so we can once again waste money defending our public forums:-(

Frank, I would like to make a Support the Piano Forums contribution, but not via Pay Pal. Can you email me your snail mail address (or post it here)
so I can send you a check?
Thanks a bunch - for hosting this great place, and for putting up with all of us.

Jodi

Jodi - Thanks for link. I've bought lots of stuff from SheetMusic, but not as a hyperlink from PW. All future purchase will be from that link.

Frank,

With our freedoms seemingly being gradually eroded in this country, this PW issue might be one place where we can clearly make a stand.

If PW ignores this and future similar threats from dealers' lawyers, and the unlikely happens and there is litigation: it would be one dealer paying his attorney's fees, versus ***ALL*** of us who choose to contribute $$ to PW's legal fees. Sounds like we would be in a very good position, doesn't it?. The dealer loses a lot of $ whereas many of us lose insignificant amounts. If the dealer were informed of this, it might curtail his litigious inclinations.

For instance, if 50 of us tossed in $20 that's a grand right there, and I know from last year's discussions about the NY dealer that many posters said they'd contribute much more (and count me in as a contributor).

Perhaps a hard list can be made of definite contributors and amounts, should a lawsuit occur or substantial attorneys fees be involved -- would such a list make Frank breathe easier about (a) ignoring such dealers' attorneys' letters; and/or (b) taking more overt actions such as posting such letters? [/b]

Frank, three or four others have said they would like to send $ but NOT via PayPal, but via regular mail. I also am in this category, so pls send me your smail mail address and the payee's exact name if possible.

I vote to keep the forum as it is, and without any sort of "star" rating system. Let viewers interpret positive and negative verbal feedback as they wish. IMHO that's preferable to superimposing an artificial (and probably statistically imprecise or even incorrect) rating system.

Statistics theory likes very much to have at least 30 data points, and I doubt we'd get anywhere near that for feedback on most dealers. So why try to sqeeze what is really anecdotal evidence into a statistical rating system?

Frank, I am one of your member/lawyers (lawyer/members?). I very much enjoy your site. It sounds like you're already getting good legal advice, so I'll just add a thought or two for us all to keep in mind...

1. There are way too many lawyers.
2. It doesn't cost an agressive competitor much to turn and aggressive but ethically challenged laywer loose with claims of defamation/libel.
3. Most allegations of defamation/libel are made for purposes of chilling the competition, nothing more.
4. The practicalities of taking a libel/defamation case to trial are considerable...not the least of which is proof of damages. How is your hypothetically injured dealer going to prove to a jury that his business has been damaged by this forum?
5. Given the practicalities/difficulties with libel and slander cases, 99% of the demand letters that go out are not precursors of litigation. They are intended to (i) chill the market from saying anything contrarty to the letter writer's interests and (ii) cause the recipient to spend money on lawyers. Judging from this thread, your angry dealer has achieved what he intended to achieve.
6. I wouldn't change a thing. You're doing great and your posters already seem to be very moderate in their language. TGG

Oh yes, and I just wanted to add my vote to not change a thing about this place. Adding some sort of dealer rating system would just open a whole 'nuther can of worms. It's just not necessary.

Jodi