I believe it has to be a first that a local blog aggregating site receives a legal letter. The details of the letter can be found here.

How Tomorrow.sg decides to respond will certainly be closely watched by the internet community because the guys at Tomorrow.sg will be setting a precedent. The situation is not unlike the traditional newspaper receiving a lawyer letter. Editors must then decide whether it is worth fighting a lawsuit for the sake of ideals, or just agree to the terms of the person who sent the lawyer letter.

The problem with Tomorrow.sg is that it probably has no deep pockets. Granted, most newspapers around the world don’t exactly have deep pockets (probably with the exception of Singapore Press Holdings), but I think Tomorrow.sg seriously doesn’t have the money to fight a lawsuit at all, unless some lawyer is willing to waive legal fees or someone is willing to bankroll the lawsuit. Of course, Tomorrow.sg would have to consider the worst case scenario and whether they would be able to pay the compensation.

I do wonder if the lawyers have also sent a letter to the original writer. After all, Tomorrow.sg links and republishes articles written by others and it would not make sense to just go after Tomorrow.sg without going after the original writer. But unfortunately for the law firm, the original entry is hosted on an overseas server, and the WHOIS data of the domain doesn’t list any contact information. There’s an email provided on that blog, but it’s a gmail account which the writer can easily close (or choose to ignore any email that threatens legal action).

Perhaps this is why the lawyers decide to go after Tomorrow.sg. The WHOIS data of Tomorrow.sg has an actual contact person and address. Interestingly, the letter requested Tomorrow.sg to disclose the name and address of the writer. I suppose the law firm had run out of ideas on how to get the identity of the writer and resorted to try and get Tomorrow.sg to do the work for them. In anycase, I doubt the people at Tomorrow.sg will know anything at all. If the lawyers had done some homework, they should have known that Tomorrow.sg probably knows as much them and nothing more.

Let’s watch how this pans out. In the meantime, I must say that there are quite a few grammatical errors in the letter (and the URL provided in the letter was wrong). Not very impressive, I must say. :mrgreen: