To be fair to cable companies, airlines do this also, and they're much worse since they're trying to compete on price. For example, a ticket from Orlando to Miami might be listed for $50. But then there's a "seat reservation" fee, then a "checked luggage fee", then a 9/11 security fee, then a landing fee, then a mandatory airport fee. Before you know it, you're paying $200 for a ticket advertised for $50.
And this is perfectly legal! It makes me wonder why more companies don't do this.
If these guys were artists at Marvel Comics, then it's probably safe to assume they knew some rough history about the characters. Even if they didn't know the exact details, the editors would fill them in about which armor Iron Man wore and for what mission.
Then something happened and they're no longer at Marvel Comics.
Then "Iron Man 3", "The Avengers", and "Avengers: Age of Ultron" come out and they all make tons of money.
Yet who has ever heard of Radix? Why haven't any producers come to these guys to give them $200 million to make a movie?
Conclusion: these guys need some marketing and it's less expensive to file a lawsuit against Disney/ Marvel than it is to buy some billboards advertising their comic. Sure, the lawsuit will be squashed before opening arguments, but look at how we're all giving publicity to Radix.
I was wondering when the next bad video game would come along. It's been about 20 years since the media blamed everything on "Doom", so something needs to take its place. I thought it would have been Quake or Diablo or some other monster/ shooting game. Who would have thought it would be a creative, free-world game?
Isn't SoundCloud located in the US? And if so, doesn't that mean they have to follow all US laws?
But if they don't want to apply the US' fair-use laws, does that mean they can pick and choose which laws to follow? Suppose some country gives them tons of money to block another country's feeds? As a private company, is it still their right to do as they please?
But consumers have the right to take their business elsewhere.
How is Vereb even in office after such a blatantly unconstitutional move?
I know that's probably a rhetorical question, but I'll answer it anyway: because we live in a society where people want to be protected from anything that might offend them. Then politicians pander to this feeling by saying they're only targeting criminals with the new laws. Then people get behind the law because they'd rather not be offended than have a constitutional right to free speech.
I'd love to see a test run of this law. What happens when the supporters themselves are accused of offending someone and they get hit with a lawsuit? Oh, whoops, they didn't think it would apply to them.
I hope this offends a lot of potential customers and costs Branson a lot of sales he'd have otherwise expected. The problem is that companies lie Virgin Group as so big that even a few million protesters won't put a dent in their income. And can you get a few million people to stop using Virgin products and services? Otherwise, there's no downside to Virgin filing notices like this.
How will they enforce this when so many people don't know or care about where they get stuff? How many people take images from Google Image Search without knowing the images are copyrighted? How many people simply say "I found it on the internet"?
1) How would the UK feel if Iran or North Korea issued a similar statement? Would the people in the UK be okay with following the laws from another country? Or are laws like these okay as long as it's porn?
How would they feel if Iran decided that viewing Christian websites was amoral and decided to fine people?
2) Who are these survey people that get such respect that all of the government listens to them? Oh, that's right, they were probably *paid* by the government to come up with these results. If so, then why isn't the media asking more questions about the survey?
It seems to me that a case like this proves that the judge is either 70 years old, out of touch with the electronic world, or both. There's no reasonable explanation for kicking anyone off of anything just because they're accused of something. What ever happened to due process of law? If someone is accused of illegally downloading files, then provide proof in a court of law, find him guilty, and then punish him.
Does Ireland have any kind of constitutional right to due process? If so, who's going to be the first lawyer to challenge this judge's decision?
And what's your suggestion for getting members of Congress to listen to people? Comcast has millions of reasons (dollars) to make sure members of Congress don't listen to the public. Then the members of Congress use this money to fund their re-election campaign to make sure no one else can elected and do something about the issue.
... I looked at the crest and immediately recognized the Olympic logo. Could someone please explain how this is any different than displaying the Apple or McDonalds' logo?
Okay, maybe these are different industries and the Olympics didn't enforce the trademarks and so on and so on, but the "moron in a hurry" will recognize the Olympic logo. Then, by extension, people may ask why the school is displaying the logo on their crest? Is the school a training site? Did they host the games? Then why would the school use that specific combination of colored rings?
And have you also destroyed all of your Leica camera gear? After all, Leica sent a takedown notice that Zazzle followed. Sure, Zazzle could have stood up for its artists and said Leica was wrong, but their lawyers probably said it was cheaper and easier to along with Leica.
Maybe the beer company should ask Fox for some legal support since Bart Simpson may be BART's next target of a lawsuit. After all, there's TONS of merchandise with Bart Simpson's name on it. Maybe people have been thinking "Bart Simpson" is actually "BART Simpson", a stealth way to market the train service!
In my day (which was 4 years ago), we didn't have selfie-sticks: we had tripods. I would put on in on a bench or in a tree, aim it at my wife, set the timer, run over to her, and then the camera would go off. But the risk ask always been that someone will steal the camera or it'll fall over or something else will ruin the shot. Or you can hand your camera to a stranger and hope he doesn't run off with your iPhone 6.
If we're going to ban selfie-sticks because they're less risky than handing your camera to a stranger, then we should ban selfies because they're poor photos.
To be honest, I think Rex Sorgatz is being a busybody just to get attention. Look at me, everyone, I'm complaining about something that's popular!
And I have the same message to him as I have to all busybodies who like to tell people what to do: what gives you right to tell me I have to watch House of Cards only once a week because you're too afraid of spoilers, so Netflix has to change their schedule because of you?