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?
This shouldn't be a big deal to the copyright trolls- it's simply a cost of doing business. You win some and you lose some. All they have to do is send out another batch of extortion, I mean "settlement" letters. If they can get 9 people to settle for $2,000, then they've more than made up for this loss.
Give them what they want: sports reports should ignore them
I understand that companies want to "control the message" regarding their property, but why would an organization be so strict that they won't let people post photos of a game? Do they *not* want photos or clips of the games to go viral and attract more attention? In that case, give them what they want: no one should post photos or talk about the games. Sports reporters should simply say "The home team played a game and they won. We can't give you the name of the team or the score or the big plays because the team claims a copyright on all of those."
Can we start a meme that says anything that happens between election day and inauguration day is because of Trump and not the result of long-term plans finally coming together?
Carrier brings some jobs back to the US? Because of Trump. Softbank promises jobs and investments? Because of Trump. Fidel Castro dies. Because of Trump. Ron Glass and Florence Henderson die. Because of Trump.
Will it ban posts designed to radicalize the far-right?
Will these blocks will also catch postings designed to radicalize the far-right into "investigating the truth" with a gun? I would certainly consider many of them to be terroristic postings.
Case in point: the recent issue where people (including generals!) were saying that Hillary Clinton ran a child sex ring out of a pizza restaurant. So of course a guy who only reads far-right media (meaning "radicalized") goes there with a gun to "rescue" the non-existent "sex slaves".
Can someone please explain the different between these kinds of posts and what ISIS posts? Both of them are designed to get people so angered that they take action against the enemy.
Or they could, you know, let people see the 16 episodes for free and make money downstream, rather than fighting this stupid fight.
Here's what should happen: someone sees an episode on YouTube for free, thinks is funny, and then goes searching for more... and look, the show is on at least 10 different channels, including: Nick at Nite, TVLand, AntennaTV, Cozi, Retro, MeTV, and probably more. I'd wager that in some parts of the country, you could get almost 24 hours of "The Andy Griffith" show if you kept switching channels.