First off, IANAL. But since when did ignorance become a defense? It is acknowledged several times that yes, the people who republished her poem/story did in fact infringe on her copyright. Her demand is excessive - agreed. But being ignorant of a law does not mean you are exempt from that law - even if you took the offending material down immediately upon notification. She may be an absolute twat for going about it the way she did, but by the looks of it she has a legitimate case.
The problem with telling a customer that a cheque has cleared at another bank is exactly that - the cheque is drawn on another bank. In Canada, there are privacy laws that prohibit banks from divulging too much information to third parties - there are numerous banks that refuse to tell other financial institutions whether funds suffice to clear a cheque or whether or not a cheque has cleared. That is why hold procedures are in place to give cheques plenty of time to clear - local cheques often clear overnight while foreign cheques may take up to 2 weeks to clear, sometimes longer - but again, that is why there are hold procedures. Had the bank in question followed its own hold procedures, this never would have happened.
That Century 21 would rather have people go directly to their website to see the listings? This is as opposed to viewing the listings on a 3rd party site with the user possibly (probably) bypassing the link to the Century 21 website thus possibly not clicking on ads.
Not to mention that if the 'portal' site happens to link to some questionable content, the feeling might be that Century 21 is tacitly condoning the website and the linked content.
What about videos on Youtube that simply have a song playing with the lyrics showing up on the screen along with the music? Are the labels going to sue the individuals who had the audacity to do that as well?
Is the issue here really about whether or not FB condones content on TPB? How about this just being a measure of preventative maintenance? The amount of lawsuits that have been flung around simply because a website has linked to an infringing website is astronomical. So maybe FB just wants to be seen as taking early steps to limit its exposure to future lawsuits.
They did the exact same thing here in Vancouver leading up to the 2010 Olympics. There was a local pizza place that used the Olympic rings as part of their logo and have done so for the last 25 years. The IOC (or VANOC, not sure which) basically forced the guy to shut down shop or risk having the Olympic lawyers set upon him. And I know the same thing exists for using 2010 or Olympics as any part of a business name. It's become quite draconian in what can or cannot happen in light of our 2010 Olympics.
RSS
Twitter
Ignorance as a defense? (as Casey)
First off, IANAL. But since when did ignorance become a defense? It is acknowledged several times that yes, the people who republished her poem/story did in fact infringe on her copyright. Her demand is excessive - agreed. But being ignorant of a law does not mean you are exempt from that law - even if you took the offending material down immediately upon notification. She may be an absolute twat for going about it the way she did, but by the looks of it she has a legitimate case.
Re: if the banks didn't lie.... (as Casey)
The problem with telling a customer that a cheque has cleared at another bank is exactly that - the cheque is drawn on another bank. In Canada, there are privacy laws that prohibit banks from divulging too much information to third parties - there are numerous banks that refuse to tell other financial institutions whether funds suffice to clear a cheque or whether or not a cheque has cleared. That is why hold procedures are in place to give cheques plenty of time to clear - local cheques often clear overnight while foreign cheques may take up to 2 weeks to clear, sometimes longer - but again, that is why there are hold procedures. Had the bank in question followed its own hold procedures, this never would have happened.
Could it be... (as Casey)
That Century 21 would rather have people go directly to their website to see the listings? This is as opposed to viewing the listings on a 3rd party site with the user possibly (probably) bypassing the link to the Century 21 website thus possibly not clicking on ads.
Not to mention that if the 'portal' site happens to link to some questionable content, the feeling might be that Century 21 is tacitly condoning the website and the linked content.
What about Youtube? (as Casey)
What about videos on Youtube that simply have a song playing with the lyrics showing up on the screen along with the music? Are the labels going to sue the individuals who had the audacity to do that as well?
(as Casey)
Is the issue here really about whether or not FB condones content on TPB? How about this just being a measure of preventative maintenance? The amount of lawsuits that have been flung around simply because a website has linked to an infringing website is astronomical. So maybe FB just wants to be seen as taking early steps to limit its exposure to future lawsuits.
Re: Re: It's hitchhiking (as Casey)
Hitchhiking is most definitely illegal where I come from (British Columbia, Canada).
You might want to specify where hitchhiking is illegal instead of making an overly broad statement and calling someone else a name while doing it.
Vancouver 2010 (as Casey)
They did the exact same thing here in Vancouver leading up to the 2010 Olympics. There was a local pizza place that used the Olympic rings as part of their logo and have done so for the last 25 years. The IOC (or VANOC, not sure which) basically forced the guy to shut down shop or risk having the Olympic lawyers set upon him. And I know the same thing exists for using 2010 or Olympics as any part of a business name. It's become quite draconian in what can or cannot happen in light of our 2010 Olympics.