Yeah, gotta love that argument, I just have to wonder if Woods realizes that his lawyer is basically arguing that he's not nearly as important and/or credible as he thinks he is.
"Your Honor, my client's followers know that nothing he says is to be taken seriously, so clearly anything he says can be dismissed as hyperbole or empty mumbling. This random twitter account user on the other hand is much more credible, making any statements of their's much more likely to be taken at face value, and therefor damaging."
Despite what some lawyers will tell you, "File a lawsuit" is NOT always the best choice
Something which might have made a good argument, had that actually been what happened. They weren't using the characters to make a buck, they were using them to appeal to the fans of the games/movies.
However, even if the party organizers were just in it for the money, so what? The party organizers weren't even close to the only ones affected by shutting down the party, the fans also had something they enjoyed ended, despite the fact that they weren't in it for the money at all, but rather to enjoy a good time with others who shared their interest in the games/movies.
The parties were promoting Pokemon, and if the company didn't employ such rabid lawyers, or weren't such control freaks, they would have seen this as an opportunity to engage with their fans, rather than shut them down.
"What are you going to do, stop buying? Don't make us laugh."
This harassment of their fans and customers only works because people are too stupid and/or spineless to respond in kind. If a company shows that it doesn't mind stomping their fans into the dirt anytime they show their appreciation in an 'unapproved' manner, then the response should be simple:
See how well they do when their sales start dropping due to their abusive treatment of their paying fans.
I'm all for coming up with ways to stop the spread of ISIS, and to prevent further attacks by the group. But jailing an American teenager over his tweets seems... excessive.
It's not just excessive, it's flat out counter-productive. You fight extremists by showing people that you're better, and showcasing just how bad the other side is. Killing enemy combatants is fine militarily, but keeping them from replenishing their numbers, that is far more effective in the long run.
By going so over the top in their attempts to 'combat' the murderous thugs, the various governments are just making their message seem more legitimate than it actually is. Hearing about how bad some group in another country is is one thing, but experiencing the government cracking down on it's citizens is quite another, and far more visible to those same citizens.
Claims of fighting for freedom against oppressive governments doesn't work so well if the people actually living under those governments don't feel oppressed at all. If people can look around and easily show that the claims being made are bogus, the message isn't going to get very far. If however, the government does act as claimed, even if only in part, then the message will likely find a much more receptive audience.
You beat extremism in the long term by using military force only when absolutely necessary, with your primary tactic that of showing people that your side is the better one, and highlighting just how bad the other side is. Combating it by also acting extremist is just doing the other side's recruiting for them.
So they were getting money from monetizing the video, and now they get nothing. Absolutely brilliant, I can see they're really focused on making sure that the artists make as much money, and get as much exposure, as they can.
As always, watching their actions is like watching someone aim a gun at their foot, pull the trigger, and then start screaming about how painful it is and won't someone punish that guy standing over over there who had the gall to tell them that they were making a mistake, and who is clearly at fault?!
Add another entry to the list of reasons to avoid the parasites at all costs. The sooner they die off the better.
"Nice business you got there, be a shame if something were to /happen/ to it..."
“It is regrettable that PRS appears to be following this course of action in the midst of an active commercial negotiation with SoundCloud.
They're not even pretending not to be running an extortion racket at this point. Suing during negotiations is pretty clearly extortion, using a lawsuit as a negotiation tactic to force the other side to cave in to your demands. 'Agree to our demands or we'll drag you to court until you have no choice.'
The Mafia screwed up, forget organized crime, they should have gone into music. Same tactics, but shakedown someone for a 'license' 'just in case someone plays or sings our music' rather than 'protection' 'just in case a fire breaks out' and suddenly it's legal.
Of course, because as they like to remind people they're the 'good guys', and since the 'good guys' are always right, clearly anything that makes their jobs harder is to be removed or ignored as being 'bad'.
Of course the above is only for the 'good' cops, the real scum go into the job to indulge their power-fantasies, and for them anything that keeps them from believing that they can do whatever they want clearly needs to be removed, as it takes all the fun out of the job.
Statutory fines for fraudulent copyright claims, matching the fines for copyright infringement? Sounds good to me, even more so imagining the screaming that would result from the companies throwing fits that they actually have to start caring about accuracy, and can no longer just automate everything and not give a damn if innocent people and sites get hit.
If the local police don't like it that sounds like a pretty solid endorsement for it to me.
The 'lethal weapons' clause, 5.1, could be fixed easily enough simply by striking out 'lethal', such that it prohibits any drone mounted weapons, rather that just lethal ones. If someone wants to play around with weaponized drones they can join the army, otherwise they can do without.
The rest of it looks fairly solid, though the 'Exigent circumstances' clause, 4.1, seems rather open to abuse, given how easy it would be to argue that every call presents 'imminent danger to life or bodily harm'. A nice modification to that would be a requirement post-event to submit a justification for the need of the drone's deployment, with any gathered or resulting evidence barred from use if the justification was found to be too weak. Not perfect, but it would at least do something regarding the large loophole.
They should have reported it as involved with copyright infringement, that would have led to it being taken down the same day the report was filed. Phishing though? Eh, they'll get around to it eventually.
And of course you continue to defend the fraud. At least you're consistent on that, even if you're hypocritical about it in general.
As for the emotional argument, you mean like 'Won't someone think of the poor starving artists?', or 'Piracy will destroy music as we know it'? I don't care how old the fan is, what matters is that they were punished for doing something the actual creator said that they could by a fraud, with help from a company filled with incompetent fools.
Re: Re: Oh patent office, when will you ever NOT screw up?
I read it as two claims, one for items the customer can download, one for items that need to be shipped. Even if it was just talking about items that can be both downloaded and shipped(CD's/movies), it still talking about online shipping, albeit a narrow part of it.
Again with the "rake in", this money doesn't, for the large part, exist.
And yet frauds continue to claim songs by other people, so clearly they're getting something out of it, though I suppose some of it could just be losers trying to make themselves feel important and powerful by abusing the system.
But, if say someone pulled this off with say Gangam style at it's height, I would have pissed myself. I think we all would. (not you though)
So fraud, theft, and forcing someone to fight to reclaim the ownership of their own property = funny, got it.
Why does it have to be a 'multitude' of songs? You always ramp it up for effect. It's annoying.
Well hey, if someone fraudulently claiming ownership over one song is funny, doing it to several should be downright hilarious, no?
If you must know I'm largely against this sort of shit, a lot of my friends are musicians.
So you're against it, except when it's funny, in which case you're not, glad that's cleared up.
But mostly here it's the hypocrisy of the boy.
And again with this tired line, there's nothing hypocritical in his reaction to what happened. He said people were free to share or use his works, someone committed fraud by lying and claiming to own his works, screwed him out of any monetization for the song(s) in question, attacked one of his fans, and forced him to spend time and effort fixing the mess.
Hypocritical would be, oh I dunno, him claiming to be against such fraud and then committing it against someone else, or voicing support for someone else who did.
The responses ideally aren't actually aimed at the trolls, given that's a complete waste of time and effort, rather they're aimed at those that might read what they wrote and not realize the glaring holes or inconsistencies in their arguments.
They can also be used as 'practice' I suppose you could say, giving people the opportunities to work out their counter-arguments on easy targets, so they're better prepared to argue their position when someone actually looking for a discussion comes along.
I will agree on stripping out the insanely long subject lines though, handy as they are to be able to instantly spot when Blue's shown up again.
And at last you reveal your true position, took you long enough. Admiration and support for a fraud and liar, says everything I need to know about you.
Just out of morbid curiosity to see if your position is at least consistent, I'll repeat a previous question of mine.
Would you be similarly accepting if someone attempted to claim ownership over a multitude of major label songs using the system, and proceeded to rake in the ad revenue from them until the 'mistake' was noticed, or would you claim that the person doing that had done something wrong and deserved to be punished for their action?
So, consistent slime, or hypocritical one, which will it be?