A representative of Ace Internet Marketing says via email:

I notice that you are a student of law, and being so you should be well versed in the area of defamation, with reference to your blog entry and your mention of our business ace Internet Marketing.

You wrote:
“Ace Internet Marketing copies the full article and posts it on its blog (with no context/discussion/transformative use/anything, not even a proper link to where it came from!).”

I must point out to you the fact that you are incorrect with your claims, as there was a mention or the author and a link was placed back to the original content, the girl who posted this content in question is based in India, she done so with no malice or intention of offending any party. Once we became aware of Mr Mulleys concerns we immediately removed the duplicate content as instructed by the author. She was instructed only to add only content where she had permission, I am currently reviewing all content she added, We have had no other complaints from anyone else and when we do so we will act on all complaints on a case by case bases.

To be honest I have seen many instances of people republishing content, i honestly thought it was ok if the poster mentioned the original author and placed a link to the original content, as far as i know this was done in all instances. If i am incorrect in my assumptions then im sorry for being ignorant on the subject.

Bye all means post anything you like on the subject and certainly point out all short comings we have made and we will endeavor to correct these, but please post truths as this is unfair and is damaging to our good name. I welcome any constructive comments you have on the matter.

I responded as follows:

Dear xxxx,

I see no evidence of defamation in my post. Regarding the republication of the content of others, I suggest you review the Copyright and Related Rights Act and in particular section 37 (rights of the author) and Chapter 6 (exceptions). As you are probably aware, for a statement to be actionable under Irish law it must be untrue. I stand over my comments on the unauthorised copying of Mr. Mulley’s content.

You are aware that the good name of a company is not protected by libel law, right?



To clarify the last sentence – I am aware that it is possible (although relatively rare) for a legal person (i.e. a company) to bring a libel action – but simply saying something that is merely damaging to the company’s good name is libel understates the test.

I won’t be removing my post.

Incidentally, I continue to believe that a statement of the name and homepage of the original author (note: not even a permanent link to the content) at the foot of an article on a company’s website is not sufficient to sustain an exception to copyright law. Obviously Ace believe this too as they have deleted the original article. It is amusing, then, that they threaten libel action against me for saying something that they accept to be true.