Lawyers are wonderful things. Threatening to not do what you are paid to do over a trademark dispute sounds like something that should get them a stern talking to from those things that are supposed to oversee them. I hope the Nuns win, and I hope that whoever decided that these looked similar be given vision coverage so they can get glasses.
Perhaps someone should check to see if the DoJ is using the new version of the xenophobic training manuals the FBI was using to understand Muslims (with Muslim crossed out and Chinese penciled in.)
They didn't have time to check what they assumed, because ZOMG espionage. They are sending a clear message that talking to the undeclared enemies of the state will result in them destroying your life. There is no recourse for these cases built on guesses and no evidence beyond vivid imaginings of true americans. When cooler heads FINALLY manage to get them to look and see that there is no case, there is no recourse. Just a slap on the back, as they shove you back into the crater that was your life.
Allegations are the thing people remember. No one ever remembers that they were found innocent, or were railroaded. See also Central Park Jogger Case - Even after real investigation proved these kids were railroaded & screwed... you still have people behaving like they must have done it.
We are far to obsessed with catching the boogeymen they created, that we forget these the boogeymen come from a story they told us to keep us scared. To keep the narrative going some innocent people getting screwed is a small price to pay... we can all sleep safer at night as they 'catch' people who are completely innocent. We all accept that this is the price others have to pay for us to be safe, never thinking what happened to others will ever happen to them.
Those that "investigated" this case, need to be removed from active duty until they can be retrained in how to investigate. They failed to do their job, and someone else is paying the price for their stupidity. As I am fond of saying, Stupid should hurt... and we should stop shielding the inept from reaping the pain they deserve.
I have a question, but lack the desire to look for myself, about the pieces. Is France one of those countries that allows the 'artist' (read as hes been dead for decades but someones gotta get paid) to collect a cut of every sale of the works? In a truly money-grubbing sense, the takedown could be to protect the money they MIGHT get someday when the private collector (Or the heirs) whos held them for a very long time finally tires of them and sells them. If there were printed copies, in their minds, suddenly the set is no longer one of a kind and the final sale price could plummet. Given the amount of money we see thrown away daily on chasing imaginary dollars they think they aren't making in other realms of IP, this would make perfect sense.
How much of this crap would be avoided (there are several other less legal case based examples) if all of the information was required to be kept on file with the Copyright Office?
It would clear up a whole bunch of problems about who owns what, and who has which tiny pieces carved off... rather than praying you can get a monolith to look in their paper files to see if they even have the rights.
Copyright is supposed to benefit the public in return for their special rights, with rights come responsibilities.
We have to expand who we claim we need to kill, so that we can keep the "war" raging. How could we get new recruits for the otherside if we don't give them more reasons to hate us. A great side benefit is all of the money that will flow into our foriegn & domestic campaigns to "protect" our citizens. So what if we are just breeding the discontent that will end in nothing good for either side, I need to prove I can get the $$$ to flow so I can retire to a cushy job with the contractor who's star I tied my life to.
They are expanding those who merely speak as targets, this is nothing new look at the Occupy & BlackLivesMatter spying. They are just trying to make it more acceptable so the 'good people' accept these unacceptable actions in the name of safety.
Isn't it nice to see how the law for the rich & famous is different than what everyone else gets?
The fact they are trying to paint this as a copyright issue is a nice smokescreen to add to the illusion that copyright is so under attack.
Imagine if there was just a central location where all of these alleged contractual obligations had to be disclosed when someone sought to obtain rights to use material. You know, like some sort of office of copyright so people who wished to used materials didn't have to go on snipe hunts trying to track down who controls what and who has extra requirements. But then this movie wouldn't have been made, and Ms. Franklin wouldn't be getting a new publicity bump. Who knows maybe she can carve enough cash out of the film to stay up to date on her taxes.
Perhaps it would be of benefit to look at how much the telcos are contributing (read paying) to these legislators to get such sweetheart deals. They make deals, give them cash and then no one makes them uphold their end of the bargain. If regular people cut deals like this, we'd be accused of money laundering. Contracts left unfulfilled, yet no attempt to enforce it or get back the money.
Given the history we've seen it doesn't seem to take much to get legislators to give millions away for a few silver coins.
If only they had spent money on creating an app instead of paying an idiot lawyer.
Imagine a 'waiting list' app that when there is a cancellation or they don't fill all the reserved seats that they update the list and it notifies the next people on the wait list who can fill that slot. Give them 5 minutes to confirm they want the spot and boom seats filled. Heck someone could create a centralized reservation app that bunches of places could sign up for. I need 2 for italian food, and if there was a cancellation for 2 boom the seats get filled. Its like there is an entire business model waiting to happen here, but archaic pen & paper and threats of fees make way more sense then getting the butts in seats.
But I guess it makes more sense to destroy the brand by using stupid legal terms that will drive people elsewhere. One does wonder if the $50 went to the waitstaff or to the bosses... betcha you know where it went.
The truly hysterical portion of this is the copyright cartels can't see the downside. The still believe copyright is only for them, and it will never be used against them. They have used copyrights as a weapon, and they've now seen that weapon turned back upon them... yet continue to try and upgrade the weapons.
We need to stop accepting that it is a huge burden to have to tick a box on a card to say I wish to keep my copyright. We need to stop allowing orphan works to be weapons, to only be dug out of the paper files after someone else makes a buck. Transfers & assignments need to be tracked officially, so that the ownership is never in question to someone who might want to built something new. Even those who do the right thing are met with well we might own it, we might not, but if you make a buck we'll find out then and sue you for everything.
Given all of the problems facing the world, keeping a few cartels happy with secret agreements to try and make them billions more they will gladly launder through offshore accounting practices to avoid supporting the system that spends it time fellating them seems like a stupid thing to do.
For a limited time... should be based on human lifetimes, not the lifetimes of corporations.
"there's quite a difference between laws ordering a company to refuse service, and a company voluntarily refusing service due to possible legal issues."
So all it takes is the threat of legal issues to get your way with twitter.
The accounts in question were within the law as written, might not like what happens beyond that but removing the accounts because of possible legal action (because no law said they needed to kill the accounts) means they should wipe out more accounts because they could face legal issues for violating different laws. Like when Italy convicted, IIRC, Google execs.
They are a global platform and its illegal for them to allow me to be seen in Russia, so I should have my account shutdown?
I discuss people reverse engineering, thats illegal in a few countries so my account should be pulled?
I discuss BT issues, some idiot claims that BT clients are illegal things so my account should be yanked?
I could be executed for illegal lifestyle in a large portion of the UAE, so I shouldn't have an account?
It is twitters playpen, and they can so what they want... but kowtowing to each petty whiner will leave them a platform empty of anything but forgotten advertiser accounts who can't reach anyone because everyones left or been banned because someone didn't like someone else.
So when/if these ne'er-do-well's violate the law again, does this mean one has standing to pursue the EU?
While allowing people to rebuild after past bad acts, it does seem to allow them to easily white wash their past misdeeds and sets others up to be harmed even if they attempt due diligence in researching someone they are dealing with.
If the EU actively allows criminals to hide their history making it easier for them to target new victims one should hold them responsible.
While one can hold up a noble goal of helping someone who did something stupid once reclaim their life, the flipside is this allows criminals to keep committing the same crimes without a public being able to be informed & safer.