Lloyd Irvin's students accused of brutal rape (Part 4)

[KJGould]

Originally Posted by Vitamin C

They also each dismissed the (I am assuming) court appointed defense. I wonder who is paying for their attorneys.

Wonder if TLI hires from this firm ...

[robotsonic]

Haha, it's so obvious it's a pyramid scheme, isn't it? Like everything about it, from the shady videos to the crappy looking 'testimonial' websites to the absurd promises of making shitloads of money with little or no effort or risk. Everything about it screams pyramid scheme and yet still dumbasses give their money to him.

The fact is BJJ is a niche sport, no-one is really making any serious money out of it, except perhaps Carlos Gracie and a few BJJ fighters who turned to MMA. I don't know why people buy into this bullshit about making loads of money...from BJJ???? No-one gets into BJJ for the money.

[ironmanbret]

Originally Posted by Zankou

My background is in IP litigation, so sure, I know bucketloads.

This isn't a copyright, trademark, or right of publicity issue; it has nothing to do with intellectual property (nobody is confused into believing it's a Lloyd Irvin website, and none of the text is copied from protectable Lloyd material).

Instead it's a libel/slander issue. The claim would be that the domain name/website accuses Lloyd of rape, when he was acquitted, and it is therefore libel.

so the person who wrote the letter citing all the intellectual property issues did so simply as a scare tactic, perhaps?

[trianglegrrl]

Originally Posted by lechien

Ok, I thought he made his fortune and was going out of his way to help out his fellow beings on how to belong to his millionaire club without no self interest of getting richer.

Whew. I was worried.

[Zankou]

Originally Posted by All In The Game

But does it accuse him? Does the title go too far in implying that he raped someone, because the website seems to be very careful in its phrasing, saying that he was "involved" in a gang rape.

That's going to be the central issue. Haven't looked at the website, but the argument would be that a reasonable person reading the title would interpret it as making the claim that LI raped somebody.

The counter-argument would be that a reasonable person would have to interpret that domain name in light of the website text, which clarifies that it is just somebody's opinion.

In the US, it's usually very difficult to win libel/slander, our free speech laws are fierce. So LI probably has a tough fight. I think the "just an opinion" side would likely win.

[Zankou]

Originally Posted by ironmanbret

so the person who wrote the letter citing all the intellectual property issues did so simply as a scare tactic, perhaps?

Yeah they are generic "cease and desist" letters. They tend to be full of bluffs. When you (a) aren't making a commercial use (meaning you aren't making money from the use); and (b) you are commenting about somebody in connection with an issue of public interest, good luck trying to shut that down with intellectual property laws. I can say "Obama is a fascist communist Muslim atheist," and there isn't anything in IP law that would give him a way to shut me down.

Just like I can say "Ford trucks explode into flames any time you turn the key." Now, I might get nailed with slander, but just because I'm talking about Ford doesn't mean it's a trademark infringement. It's not, because among other things it's not a commercial use of the mark.

[Jdonw]

Originally Posted by Zankou

Ethical investing is the biggest waste of time ever. It has absolutely zero effect on corporations' behavior. So why do it? It's just patting yourself on the back while doing nothing real.

If you don't buy the corporation's products, or publicly protest them, that can actually have at least some effect on them. Small, but in the aggregate significant.

I wouldn't bother in ethical investing on the stock market. I will however take into account when I directly give my money to a company for goods or services. But I also think people are free to make their own decisions on how to run a company, so I'm not harshly judgmental of most business practices where all parties involved are aware of their situation.

[Vashgun]

Originally Posted by The Apostle

Andrew Carnegie perhaps. Dale Carnegie no. Which did Irvin allegedly study up on? Thought it was Dale and Dale more than likely did not use slimy tactics.

yes, apologies, I was just reading up on Andrew Carnagie and his insane empire. My grandfather has tried to get me to read Dale Carnagie's books for years. It might promote a bit of sly manipulation but i think its generally not that bad.

[theD0N]

Regardless of whether LI would win, the threat of lawsuit or even the act of filing a lawsuit (even if LI will probably lose) is enough in most instances to bring the website down. LI has a lot of skin in the game, and he's got resources to spend. Whereas, the person running www.lloydirvinrapeexposed.com is simply doing this a favor to the rest of the BJJ community, or out of spite, etc, etc., and probably doesn't have a couple thousand dollars to spend on getting LI's complaint dismissed/demurred.

As Zankou said, the claim for relief is libel/slander. And given the facts of this case, it would probably be pretty easy to craft a complaint that would survive a motion to dismiss or demurrer, and that alone would cost the other side several thousand dollars to defend.

[seatea]

Originally Posted by Zankou

That's going to be the central issue. Haven't looked at the website, but the argument would be that a reasonable person reading the title would interpret it as making the claim that LI raped somebody.

The counter-argument would be that a reasonable person would have to interpret that domain name in light of the website text, which clarifies that it is just somebody's opinion.

In the US, it's usually very difficult to win libel/slander, our free speech laws are fierce. So LI probably has a tough fight. I think the "just an opinion" side would likely win.

LI seem to be attacking the site over a copyright issue:

To Whom It May Concern,
We are the agents representing the copyright of certain material being infringed upon and hosted by your company, located here:
http://www.lloydirvinrapeexposed.com/
In particular, I cite the following:
1. Certain textual elements derived from Facebook.com of a defaming nature used without either express cited permission or citation of source.
2. Creative assets and infringing images acquired from copyright material via YouTube.com without express permission or citation.
3. Unauthorized dissemination of textual content derived from prweb.com.
4. A copyright photographic element entitled “cropped-team-lloyd-irvin-bjj2.jpg” embedded within the head of the site.

The full letter here: http://www.lloydirvinrapeexposed.com/lloyd-sends-attack-lawyers-to-take-down-this-site/#more-97