A 'large burden'? Tough, they're the ones in the best position to know what is and is not authorized, and it's their stuff, so they should be the only ones able to send out C&Ds and legal filings anyway. And given how often they're trying to push all the work on other parties, as though every other industry and company should be just thrilled to act as unpaid investigators and enforcers, they deserve to be forced to do it themselves anyway at this point.
Did you tell them to check their CEO's office? Perhaps the office of the brilliant mind that's in charge of aiming their lawyers before letting them loose? I'm sure they could find several in their offices if they care to look.
You'd think at some point companies would actually do a little research before hiring another company to work for them, and realize that hiring this one in particular is pretty much guaranteed to end poorly.
"I can now confirm the 'cease and desist' letter sent to the Copthorne Village Association was sent in error in the course of an exercise...
Yeah, I don't think so, the odds of a screw-up this glaring being 'accidental'?
...carried out by Mark Monitor, a brand monitoring/protection agency.
Actually never mind, I can totally see a 'mistake' of this level happening given who they hired. If anything I'm surprised the hotel company didn't receive a similar C&D against their own site for violating their own trademark, given the 'accuracy' of the ones they hired.
Know where all the bodies are buried, all the dirty little secrets or embarrassing things that people would rather keep private, and have a system in place to spot 'trouble-makers' early enough to keep them from becoming effective, and you can pretty much do whatever you want, and take as much power as you can get your hands on.
To really take the lure out of bri- I mean 'campaign contributions', you could expand that idea so that contributions are randomized, and anonymous.
A person can donate up to a certain amount, but that money is put into a pool that all of those running use, making it impossible to tell who donated what, and giving all those running an equal footing(or as much as can be managed).
Not serious? Are you kidding, they might be told to not get caught engaging in similar practices in the future, and if the judge in the case is really put out, they might even be ordered to pay a fine that amounts to less than 1% of their quarterly profits!
Politician: You see, when I said I believed in surveillance reform, I was more talking about hypothetical reform, a general belief that it might be worth looking into investigating putting together a committee to study the matter, rather than support for the current reform bills, or any that might be proposed that in any way cause real changes.
It's called 'freedom of speech', something the site is very much in favor of, and tossing out vague ideas that the only thing that gets noticed these days are big, flashy, and yes, violent at times, events is hardly a 'call for violence' except in the most vague of senses.
Speaking of twisting the facts to suit an agenda...
First, you cannot be bound by a contract you yourself are not party to, so the 'it would violate the contract between the parties' argument is groundless, and without that all they have is copyright, which is probably why all three 'cause for action' claims are copyright ones.
Seriously, people can easily check these things, did you really think you'd be able to re-write the basis for their legal filing and no-one would notice?
Second, and this is the really important bit, is that if they were only asking for a judgement barring the site from broadcasting the fight, that would be one thing, yet they also asked for 'actual damages, profits and/or statutory damages', for something that had not happened yet, and this despite that they claimed that airing the fight would cause 'irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law' and which would cause damages 'that cannot be accurately computed at this time'.
So which is it, are the damages impossible to calculate, or aren't they? And how exactly does something that never happened thanks to the court order cause any damages at all?
It's utterly logically inconsistent to both demand that something be kept from happening due to the harm it would cause, and demanding that the harm that didn't happen thanks to the injunction that was filed be treated as though it had when it comes to handing out monetary fines.
More likely they'd quietly 'settle' with them by paying the troll to go away, since most companies are too stupid to realize that doing so just hangs a giant 'FREE MONEY HERE!' sign on their businesses for other trolls.
American slavery literally bore zero resemblance to Biblical indentured servitude.
Yeah, no, it was absolutely slavery, you were very much allowed to split families up and use them as 'hostages' in order to force a man to choose between slavery with his family and freedom without them, and the book only said you weren't allowed to beat them to death, you could absolutely beat them as long as they died later from your actions.
The trick I see attempted often is that the bible mentions two types of slavery, the enslavement of Hebrews, which get the 'nice' treatment(but are still property), and the enslavement of non-Hebrews, which are absolutely considered property, and can be dealt with as such.
Exodus 21:2-6 21:2 If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. 21:3 If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. 21:4 If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself. 21:5 And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free: 21:6 Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.
(Want to stay with your wife and kids? No problem, all it will cost is your freedom for the rest of your life)
Exodus 21:20-21 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.
(You can beat your property, as long as they don't die immediately from it. If they last a week and then die, you're fine.)
Leviticus 25:44-46 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever.
(As long as the people you enslave are from another tribe, if they're living in your area, they're fair game, whether adult of child. And once enslaved, they are to be treated as just another piece of property, and can be passed down to your children or sold as such.)
So you don't 'attack' him with the hose, just tell him if he's not gone in 2 minutes you'll be turning the sprinklers on. Somehow I doubt 'He attacked me with the sprinklers when I wouldn't leave his property!' would go over very well in court.
You can practically taste the desperation they have got to be feeling over the idea of some real competition entering the market.
"You don't need gig connections, no-one needs gig connections! And who would want those anyway, that's way more than you could possibly use! And even if you did want it, we've already got the connections needed, you just need to pay us approximately all your money and we'll consider maybe hooking you up!"
And yet, amazingly, the USTR's Special 301 report says nothing about this abuse of copyright law in a manner that clearly impacts human rights and civil liberties (not to mention the chilling effects on education and research).
They say nothing about those things because to them, and the ones adding entries to the list, they are inconsequential at best, if not desired. I have no doubt at all that if a country eliminated even the idea of Fair Use in their laws, the USTR would be holding them up as an example of how other countries should act, and praising them for their 'dedication to protecting the IP of companies and creators'.