If you read Amazon's terms and conditions for publishing you'll realise quickly enough that despite the title of the agreement Amazon *isn't* the publisher, it's a distribution system and nothing more, with certain terms and conditions to allow them to retain enough control to prevent self-publishing authors from carrying out acts likely to put the system into disrepute i.e. stupid pricing. Amazon make it clear that all rights in the book where held by third parties must be cleared by the author first. There are indemnity clauses but no more than would be involved in a distribution contract.
When I first read this story I wondered if perhaps someone considered reporting this woman to child services. Calling a child a "thief" in public when the child clearly did everything legally (with the exception of breaching Netflix's terms and conditions as to geographical boundaries for content) can hardly be said to be a rational response... more child abuse.
Having read the various articles it's clear that there's something going on here, but it doesn't seem quite as clearcut as it first seems that Prince is the responsible party.
Hill was signed to Cherry (the agent). Hill claims she asked Cherry for permission to work with Prince, and was refused.
Hill then claims that subsequently Cherry repudiated her contract by saying she was having nothing more to do with the music business. Cherry had first tried to release a purported (love?)song by Hill to Korea, presumably to tie in with "The Interview" leak. Hill states she never gave her agreement to that and that it damaged her reputation.
Hill treated Cherry's repudiation as the end of her contract with Cherry and then went on to make the album with Prince, which was then released as a free download.
Cherry then re-appears on the scene, claiming that Hill had breached her contract with her (the contract Hill alleges Cherry repudiated.)
The only real allegation of wrongdoing I see that involves Prince is Cherry alleging that Prince persuaded Hill to work with him in breach of her contract (the tortious interference). Serious if true, but there's a very real dispute as to events. Prince is certainly jealous of his rights, and is happy to use litigation in enforcing them, making him quite disliked by many. However, I don't really see him (knowingly) getting involved in such a dispute.
This seems little more than a spat between an artist and her agent, with one alleging there is an existing contract and the other saying there was a contract but it was later repudiated by the agent (and further, that the agent damaged her reputation by releasing a song that the agent changed without her permission).
However, as one of the parties involved (Prince) has money, I can see this one running on for quite a while
If memory serves me didn't the guy who devised the standard shipping containers let anyone use the designs for free. When he started there were all sorts of proprietary standards which no-one would use because they had to pay, and goods were transported on pallets or anything else to hand, taking days to unload a ship. Now those container designs are used everywhere and he is rather rich.....
I don't know what the law is in the US but I was always taught that before you could arrest someone for resisting arrest you had to be arrested for something first (I mean other than the charge of "resisting arrest") and then, only when you resisted arrest on that charge, could you be arrested for resisting arrest. Later on, even if the original charge was dropped, the charge of resisting arrest could still be pursued as a separate offence.
So, what was she actually arrested for in the first place?
The trouble is that the report given above of the incident just refers to a garbage truck driving over a hundred people. It doesn't mention that the truck, though moving slowly, crushed 6 people to death.
From other reports the young man presumably realised afterwards just how offensive the tweet was as he deleted it very shortly after making it. Did he know people had died when he originally made it? I don't know. No doubt the facts will come out in due course.
As for the "malicious" communication I suspect it's a reference to the Malicious Communications Act of 1988 which covers 1)Any person who sends to another person—
(a)a [F1letter, electronic communication or article of any description] which conveys— (i)a message which is indecent or grossly offensive; (ii)a threat; or (iii)information which is false and known or believed to be false by the sender; or (b)any [F2article or electronic communication] which is, in whole or part, of an indecent or grossly offensive nature,
is guilty of an offence if his purpose, or one of his purposes, in sending it is that it should, so far as falling within paragraph (a) or (b) above, cause distress or anxiety to the recipient or to any other person to whom he intends that it or its contents or nature should be communicated.
Of course the beauty of this scheme is that by singing up for it you immediately go on Verizon's records as someone who appears to have something to hide. Sounds rather like the scheme some years ago when the UK government arranged for an article / book to publicly suggest that terrorists didn't bother with life insurance when taking a plane trip. Needless to say, having suggested a way for terrorists to hide their tracks by signing up for life insurance, anyone who then signed up for life insurance when booking a plane trip promptly became someone of interest to the security services....
I rather think that's the Daily Telegraph's "take" on trying to make something into a news story. Contrary to the general public's view (or what the papers would have us believe is their view) is that judges certainly have a sense of humour (and yes, I do happen to know a number) but it's hardly politic for them to exercise humour in court. I really do doubt any judge would expect, or wish, to set themselves up as humour critics. I rather think the only issue they would be prepared to decide would be one of whether or not humour was the intent of the mashup / parody / etc
Could this by any chance be linked to recent comments by the government about having smaller suppliers included in the next round of government contracts (since contracting with major suppliers has proven such a resounding success in the past)?
There have certainly been reports of such but from a cursory search they would seem to all emanate from one party. When I attended to vote the ballot paper for the European election was certainly folded. But it was of such a size I can't see how on earth anyone could mark their vote without first unfolding it fully (otherwise it wouldn't open at all)
Not a bad point but the article is still a misreading of the statute. It refers to "persons", not the voter himself/herself publishing how they voted. Though personally I think it's extremely bad manners to do so.
Precisely. The key bit is "any information obtained in a polling station". The information wasn't obtained in a polling station. You (presumably? Hopefully?) knew who you were going to vote for before and after the fact. The clear inference in s66(3)(c) is that it refers to you tweeting information about someone else's vote. You can go outside and broadcast the information as to how *you* voted as much or as little as you like. Mind you, I'd be more than a little irritated at some clown taking photos in a polling station...
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Retsibsi.