Are websites so paranoid about the DMCA process that they take anything down with any notice? Why didn't someone look into the claim before taking the mod down? Wouldn't it be obvious that the DMCA claim didn't come from the rightful rights owner?
And even if there's no punishment for perjury, what about other action against people who file a false claim? In this case, shouldn't the other company be kicked off Steam for filing a false claim?
I don't know if this has been brought up yet, but has anyone talked about how CBS/ Paramount might be suing to protect their brand-names in the interest of other licensees?
For example, CBS/ Paramount license the Star Trek names, logos, likeness, and so on to comic book companies like DC, Marvel, and Dark Horse. What would happen if they saw people like Alec Peters making Star Trek projects without paying for a license?
This would like how the NFL doesn't want anyone using the words "Super Bowl" unless they're an official sponsor and paid for the rights to use the name.
Maybe the NFL will decide this guy is right and cut down on the number of commercials. It'll then decide that "commercials" only mean 30 second or 1-monute spots... but that ads shown along the bottom or over the action aren't "commercials".
I can easily see a game turning into this: And here's the coin toss, sponsored by Bank of America. When you need money, go to Bank of America. The quarterback takes the ball, sponsored by Toyota, the official truck company of the NFL. Visit their website at... And he throws the ball, This throw sponsored by Tide. When something has to be clean, use Tide. And he catches the ball and calls a time out. This time out sponsored by Rolex.
If customers want to be stupid and not trade-in a phone that explodes, then yes, they have every right to do so. However, when that same phone could explode and burn down their house or explode on an airplane, *or in any way hurt someone else*, then they lose their "right to be stupid".
Here's a hypothetical question that will become real pretty soon: how does this system handle driverless cars? Let's say this is an Uber car with no one in it. And let's say that the car is owned by a person who's letting it drive around on its own to make money. Now suppose the traffic cam takes a picture of it doing something wrong.
Who gets the ticket: the owner, since it's his car? Or Uber, since the car is "on duty" for them? And how does the owner fight the ticket since the traffic cam is at fault because the car was probably doing everything correctly because of its programming?
As the old saying goes, this is easier said than done. Here's the choice: 1) Pay the $150 fine and be done with it. 2) Fight it: go to court, take a day off from work (which will cost you how much?), go downtown, pay for parking, wait until your name is called, listen to the judge's speech about how pleading not guilty may cause you to have to pay the ticket and additional fines, and then risk pleading your case. Oh, and if you're found guilty, you get points on your license, which will raise your insurance rates and cost you more money.
And the poor that are more easily controlled? They're the ones who can least afford to take a day off of work and take the risk of going to court.
At what point are we going to hold lawyers responsible? I see two options: 1) They're not aware of section 230 of the CDA which is why they think Twitter is responsible. 2) They *are* aware of section 230 of CDA and they're filing the lawsuit against Twitter, hoping they can settle out of court and make some money.
Both of these options should be grounds for disbarment.
So let me get this straight: someone in the French office thought it was a good idea to send notices to websites in the US? And someone else signed off on it. Then someone else typed up the notices. Then the legal department sent out the notices. Yet not one single person in this entire chain thought it was odd to send a notice to a website in another country? Now Getty US has to apologize and clean up this mess.
They should all be fired for "we were just doing what we were told".
I think the root issue is that most people don't really know how much data they're consuming. Then they go to buy a phone and the salesman tries to sell them on the more expensive unlimited plan (or at least they used to) by saying it'll let people stream Netflix while they're on the road. Well, that's a great service! But how much data does Netflix use over a cell signal and if it knows the user is on a cell phone? Even if a person watched Netflix every day while on the bus or train, that might only be 5-10 hours a week. How much data is that, really? This is why people have a "gut feeling" that they need the unlimited plan to avoid any overage charges.
... and how soon will it be until China pressures Apple to remove all US media sources from the China app store? After all, any media that the government doesn't like can easily be labeled "fake news".
I know the customer probably wants the software to run properly in the first place, but if the company is deliberately bricking the software that he paid for, can he demand a refund? Okay, sure, the company won't give him one and they'll claim it's in their TOS, but can can he go up the ladder, so to speak? Can he file a chargeback with his bank or PayPal? Can he file a lawsuit?
Do you think this is a dumb case? I do too, so that's at least 2 of us. Therefore, "most" people agree that this is a dumb case.
Anyway, can lawyers like this get disbarred for taking advantage of tragedies? The families of the Pulse shooting have gone through enough and they don't need a scammy lawyer giving them false hope that someone Twitter and Facebook "will be held responsible"... meaning "I can file a lawsuit and hopefully get a lot of money for you".
I think I might be missing something, but I still don't understand why companies think it's better/ easier to file lawsuits against websites instead of trying to make things right with the people who posted the complaint.
Sure, every business will have complaining customers, but the real show of customer service comes when the company deals with it. If a person is so upset that they'll post a complaint, then the company should post a reply asking what they can do to help. Sure, the customer might scream "nothing", but at least the company is seen as trying, rather than filing a lawsuit and looking like a bully.
Such as etsy, cafepress, Zazzle, shutterfly, and more. Redbubble might want to think about these sites before pro-actively taking down content because it thinks someone might object to something.
And, yes, I'm sure none of these other sites would care about a drawing that said "winter is coming" with no connection to Game of Thrones. And if they did care, they'd probably ask for more proof of ownership than simply "it's a phrase from the show".
*Sticking with what you always used is an amazing bias we seem to have.* See also: all the people who still use Bank of America, Chase, and all the other "too big to fail" banks. It's very hard to switch to a credit union when you have your checking account set to auto pay your electric, water, cable, insurance, and other bills.
Which is worse: seeing naked people or seeing political stories
So they want Twitter and Facebook to "think of the children"? Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't both of these sites already require users to affirm that they're 18 and above? If that's the case, then children shouldn't be on the site to begin with.
Or if Twitter and Facebook do allow users under the age of 18, isn't there a warning that says users may encounter adult content? And, honestly, is seeing a naked person really worse than a lot of the "political" news? Which is harder to explain to a 15 year-old: that a lady is posing naked to make money or that propagandists from Russia are influencing the US political process by spreading fake news so Trump will be president to alter the balance of power in the world so the US will be less likely to oppose Russia's interests in Eastern Europe?