Summit Entertainment Claims To Own The Date November 20, 2009; Issues Takedown On Art Created On That Day

from the hello-ip-fraud dept

Mon, Mar 19th 2012 12:38pm — Mike Masnick

Summit Entertainment, the movie studio behind the Twilight films, is no stranger to ridiculous-to-insane overreaches of intellectual property law. In fact, the studio seems to make a habit out of it. The company has sued Zazzle because some of its users made fan art inspired by Twilight. It's shut down a Twilight fanzine. It's said that only it can make a documentary about the real town where the fictional Twilight story is based. It's sued to stop a fashion designer from factually stating that a character in one of the movies wore its jacket. It shut down a silly 8-bit YouTube game. It issued a takedown on a song that was written years before the Twilight movies. It went after Bath & Bodyworks for daring to to sell a body lotion called Twilight Woods, which had nothing to do with the movies. It aggressively sued a fan and pressed criminal charges for tweeting some behind the scenes photos of a Twilight movie. It also sued the guy who registered twilight.com back in 1994.

This is a company that thinks that the world revolves around its trademarks, and it appears to have little concern for what the law actually says.

Its latest move is particularly asinine. The company came across the following lovely image created by artist Kelly Howlett and posted to Zazzle, and issued a takedown.

If you're thinking that image has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Twilight, or any other Summit property, you're entirely correct. But it turns out that Summit Entertainment has decided it owns the date 11-20-09 (that's Kelly's Facebook explanation of what happened, found via Bleeding Cool), which was the date the sketch was created, and what it was tagged with. It also happens to be the date that the Twilight movie New Moon was released.

Summit has no legitimate claim here. At all. And yet it took the artwork down anyway, because that's the kind of IP abusers they are.

Zazzle eventually came to its senses and restored the image, and Howlett is offering it on Society 6 as well. If Summit Entertainment had anyone with a soul working for them, they'd buy a few hundred prints to apologize.

Either way, the company has such a long and consistent history of abusing intellectual property law, isn't there a point at which we just say that the company no longer deserves any such power? If you regularly abuse monopoly privileges, shouldn't they be taken away?

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: dates, ip abuse, ip fraud, kelly howlett, november 20th, painting, takedowns, trademark
Companies: summit entertainment, zazzle

66 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Robert Doyle (profile), 19 Mar 2012 @ 12:44pm

Just remove their trademarks and any copyright they should legally have - they are not responsible enough to have any.

It's like not getting your kid a pet until they can prove they are responsible enough. Clearly their goldfish died and enough innocent lives have been lost.

Never mind the damage their movies have done...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
George R Perry, 19 Mar 2012 @ 12:46pm

Hey...that's my...
So wait, Summit Entertainment tried to trademark my 20th birthday?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Traveller800 (profile), 19 Mar 2012 @ 12:52pm

Re: Hey...that's my...
Warning: This human being appears to contain infringing content according to a complant by Summit entertainment.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Torg (profile), 19 Mar 2012 @ 12:54pm

That's terrible and all, but what we need to do now is determine if Twilight Sparkle is at risk.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hulser (profile), 19 Mar 2012 @ 12:55pm

Perhaps?
From the Zazzle "Content Review" notice...

"Perhaps your product contained search tags or descriptions that references elements from The Twighlight Saga, for example titles, character names, etc."

Perhaps? So, Zazzle removed content based on a claim and there isn't even an explanation as to what is infringing? Shouldn't this be a mandatory part of any takedown request? Unless you're a Twilight fan -- and I hope you're not -- how in the world would you connect that particular date with anything owned by Summit Entertainment?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2012 @ 12:55pm

Not "steak"
I seem to recall reading (perhaps in a Wiki?) that one of the traditional methods used to dispatch a traditional vampire was to pass a stake through the cardiac region of said vampire's thorax. Perhaps this method, applied to the apparent vampires that run Summit Entertainment, would encourage them to climb back into their coffins and trouble us no more. For a while.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[citation needed or GTFO], 19 Mar 2012 @ 12:56pm

Wait, what?
Let me get this straight. A movie studio that created a fangirl-oriented film based on a fangirl-oriented book series written by an author that never used the words "sexual intercourse" is actually trying to take down anything that involves that teenage girl paranormal romanticism bullcrap or that has the name "Twilight?"

What's next, they sue My Little Pony for Twilight Sparkle because it's a combination of their movie franchise's name and what overly emo vampires do in sunlight?

Someone bring back scummy politicians again. At least they won't eradicate braincells...

Wait, no! I take it back!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Colin, 19 Mar 2012 @ 12:59pm

Dibs on 01-20-xxxx. Inauguration Day is mine! Maybe that will convince those fools in office of this ridiculousness.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Poster, 19 Mar 2012 @ 12:59pm

Re:
I'm pretty sure even Summit wouldn't dare anger the Bronies.

Even the principles of Love and Tolerance have their limits.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Traveller800 (profile), 19 Mar 2012 @ 12:59pm

Re:
hah...Hasbro's lawyers pick bigger threats then summit out of of their teeth each morning.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Poster, 19 Mar 2012 @ 1:01pm

Re: Perhaps?
Zazzle removed content based on a claim and there isn't even an explanation as to what is infringing? Shouldn't this be a mandatory part of any takedown request?

You'd think so, wouldn't you? This is more proof of the DMCA's status as a horseshit law.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
fogbugzd (profile), 19 Mar 2012 @ 1:01pm

There is effectively no penalty for false takedowns. If in doubt, or if it would take any effort to check the facts, then it is easier to just issue the takedown. An entire cottage industry has grown up with businesses created for the sole purpose of issuing takedowns for IP holders. These companies get paid and impress their masters by issuing takedowns in bulk; there is no incentive to avoid bad takedowns.

Rights holders should recognize that the takedowns are not helping their cause. Takedowns do not produce a penny of revenue. They only look good in internal performance reports. Rights holders could make the problem of DCMA abuse go away if they only issued notices for major infringement, such as posting a full copy of the movie. Stockholders would be better served if most of the cases of "infringement" were treated as marketing opportunities rather than kills on monthly reports.

Ridiculous and bogus takedowns are only fueling the demand to apply penalties to false DCMA, copyright, and trademark claims. The IP rights holders could derail that whole movement by just making responsible DCMA claims.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dixon Steele (profile), 19 Mar 2012 @ 1:02pm

A note from Summit Entertainment
It is now also expressly forbidden to take photos within an hour of either sunrise or sunset, or within the first two days of a lunar month.
Also forbidden: photos or drawings of people who may be thinking about the Twilight films, or any elements thereof, including (but not limited to) vampires, werewolves, the concept of sparkling, unrequited love, destiny, improvised caesareans, requited love, uncomfortable subtext, and melodrama.
We feel this is an entirely reasonable interpretation of our rights.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Coward (Anon), 19 Mar 2012 @ 1:04pm

Re: 01-20-xxxx
Sorry, that's my birthday. It is mine by eminent domain. And the fact that I was born before Summit Entertainment.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2012 @ 1:04pm

So, for the heck of it, I went to wikipedia to check what else happens in November 20. See it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_20

Startling discovery: Windows 1.0 was released November 20 1985. I guess the twilight people should expect a takedown notice soon.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Traveller800 (profile), 19 Mar 2012 @ 1:04pm

Re: Not "steak"
I like that plan...I'll start sharpening the stakes
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Keroberos (profile), 19 Mar 2012 @ 1:05pm

They should institute a three strikes policy for copyright and trademark abuse, get three strikes lose your copyright/trademark. IP holders are so fond of three strikes laws when it's protecting them, they shouldn't have a problem with similar laws protecting us from them, now should they.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2012 @ 1:06pm

Disgusting
Summit's abuse of trademark is almost as offensive as the fact they ever made Twilight in the first place.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
TtfnJohn (profile), 19 Mar 2012 @ 1:08pm

The positioning of this post just above the lawsuit against Samsung and RIM about emoticons/smilies is just a wonderful summary about what's wrong with IP laws these days and Hollywood's sense of entitlement surrounding them. To the extent that one of their number thinks it can claim ownership on a date!

Give the *AA's a couple more years and there won't be a public domain left. Or a calendar!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2012 @ 1:10pm

please explain the difference between this company and the entertainment industries in general and the way they abuse intellectual property law, including false take down notices, on an almost daily basis?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Zakida Paul (profile), 19 Mar 2012 @ 1:11pm

I drew a picture of a stick man chasing a stick dog on that date, have I done wrong here?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2012 @ 1:29pm

Re:
Yep. You stole their intellectual property. That'll cost you $150,000. Unless they can convince the judge that the two stick figures are seperate cases of infringement, then it'd be $300,000.
Of course, you might be able to successfully argue that you didn't intentionally infringe on their copyright. Then it'd only cost you $30,000. (Or $60,000.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ECA (profile), 19 Mar 2012 @ 1:30pm

I HAVE A SOLUTION..
MAny people that are sue/processed..
tend to NOT know their rights, or have much money to Fight back..

Lets deal with this problem...
IF the company that is SUING, LOOSES...THEY OWE the same amount to the person/company BEING SUE'D..

I could really, SEE, the RIAA/MPAA lowering the amounts, majorly. because if they LOOSE...they LOOSE the amounts Sue'd for..
======================
Also,
Dont you think that Twilight would be making more money, IF' they wernt paying the LAWYERS?? or are they doing this OUT OF HAND, where they foot the costs and if they WIN, they keep the money..(Twilight gets nothing)
wouldnt that be Against the law?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Torg (profile), 19 Mar 2012 @ 1:38pm

Re: I HAVE A SOLUTION..
Loser pays isn't a new concept, it's just one that is opposed by lawyers used to being able to with impunity. Unfortunately it's very difficult to get people out protesting for lawsuit reform, so the lawyers win.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2012 @ 1:39pm

1.Twilight Twilight Twilight Twilight Twilight Twilight Twilight Twilight Twilight Twilight Twilight Twilight Twilight Twilight Twilight Twilight Twilight Twilight Twilight Twilight Twilight Twilight Twilight Twilight
Fucking sucks.

2.Summit needs to go choke on something.

3.They will probably come after me for just typing twilight on here.

4.Did I mention twilight fucking sucks lawl..

5.Also twilight fucking sucks.

6.I have no clue how Kristen Stewart got into acting with the same monotone voice in every single thing. Plus twilight fucking sucks.

If anyone thinks I'm trolling well I am but it's directed at Summit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2012 @ 1:39pm

Re: A note from Summit Entertainment
You forgot pedophilia. If they want responsibility for everything in the movies, they might as well take responsibility for that.

http://twilightsaga.wikia.com/wiki/Imprinting

Give them exactly what they want and watch them squirm under the pressure.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2012 @ 1:41pm

Re:
and XKCD's
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Igor Ogre, 19 Mar 2012 @ 1:41pm

The "Entertainment" Industry
Forget 'Content'. Blogs are *way* more fun.
I get all my entertainment needs abundantly met by the newsfeeds.
And, I don't have to fret and worry about 'downloading' vs
'streaming'; maybe getting flak over an on-line purchase, which necessarily exposes my personal data.

--
Igor
[ link to this | view in thread ]
timmaguire42 (profile), 19 Mar 2012 @ 1:48pm

Re: Re: Perhaps?
Bingo! It all goes back (as so much of this crap does) to the DMCA Safe Harbor provisions.

All of the incentives are on the side of "take it down," there are no incentives at all for getting it right.

Why would any online company spend extra time and resources investigating the claims in the take down notice when the only possible outcomes are:

1. They increase their risk of getting sued; or

2. They take down the material.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
weneedhelp (profile), 19 Mar 2012 @ 1:49pm

Re: Not "steak"
No no no. Summit are zombies. Mindless bodies running about repeating Trademark.... Copyright.... Must litigate.
Here is some help in getting rid of them:
http://waynet.hubpages.com/hub/Zombie-Survival-How-To-Kill-A-Zombie
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2012 @ 1:55pm

" If you regularly abuse monopoly privileges, shouldn't they be taken away?"

You wish.

Did you spank off when you wrote that? I suspect this is your true fantasy, the ability to randomly, based on your own criteria, to decide who does and does not merit something.

You make HADOPI look totally democratic!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Glaze (profile), 19 Mar 2012 @ 1:55pm

With all this talk... I see a DMCA take down notice on this blog post in 5, 4, 3, 2...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DOlz (profile), 19 Mar 2012 @ 1:57pm

Re: A note from Summit Entertainment
Plus I understand they're going after Bram Stoker next.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pjerky (profile), 19 Mar 2012 @ 1:58pm

They Don't Deserve any Trademark/Patent/Copyright Rights
This is insane and another example of one of the biggest failings of the law around trademarks, patents, and copyrights. There are no significant punishments for tyrants such as Summit Entertainment. The punishment should be graded into levels.

- First abuse offense should result in a warning (because people and companies make mistakes, all of us know that).

- The second should be a fine of $10,000.

- The third should be fine of $500,000.

- The fourth should be a temporary block on all legal action from the company lasting a minimum of 6 months as well as a fine of $10 million.

- The fifth should be a fine of $250 million, a 2 year ban on legal action from the company, and a 2 year disbarment of all the involved lawyers and law firms from the legal action end.

- Finally the sixth should be a fine of $500 million, a complete forfeiture of all trademarks, patents, and copyrights currently owned by the company/individual, AND permanent disbarment of all the lawyers involved.

The idea is to make them absolutely radioactive to continue to do business with as a lawyer or legal institution and to prevent others from doing the same thing in the future.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2012 @ 2:00pm

Re:
I do hope this is sarcastic, if not I am going to have to completely redo my moron scale because you just busted out the bottom.

But just in case:
" I suspect this is your true fantasy, the ability to randomly, based on your own criteria, to decide who does and does not merit something."

No I will design a bot to do it for me so it's fair...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2012 @ 2:00pm

"But here's the problem... I doubt that anyone at Summit Entertainment even saw my image. I'm sure they just have a bot trolling Google Marketplace to issue threats. All these anti-piracy laws are scaring me because it's just assumed that these companies are right, and if not, their army of lawyers can certainly outlast my bank account. If someone like Summit wanted to claim my artwork was infringing their intellectual property simply because it was created the same day as the release date of a movie... I couldn't fight it if I wanted to. I'm hating the idea of a company being able to call up my website host and have my content removed simply because they objected to it."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Pjerky (profile), 19 Mar 2012 @ 2:02pm

Re:
Probably has something to do with being reasonably attractive and giving it up to any director that requested it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Torg (profile), 19 Mar 2012 @ 2:06pm

Re:
Do you really feel that taking down content for being released at the same time as your product is responsible behavior, or do you just think that it's not possible to make objective criteria for copyright revocation?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
GMacGuffin (profile), 19 Mar 2012 @ 2:43pm

Re: Hey...that's my...
I suppose they'll have to take you down now. That sucks for you. Hopefully you're not on Flickr, where they just delete you rather than disable you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2012 @ 2:52pm

When your target audience is 13 year olds, expect them to act like it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
MahaliaShere (profile), 19 Mar 2012 @ 3:53pm

Response to: Glaze on Mar 19th, 2012 @ 1:55pm
Seconded. Jeez, you guys. Now who's going to keep an eye on Google's cache?

(I almost hope they do just to see Scummit Nontertainment receive a very righteous beatdown from Mike.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
AJ, 19 Mar 2012 @ 4:17pm

Re: Perhaps?
Zazzle doesn't really check this stuff. They get a copyright complaint, they take the product down. Someone filed a copyright complaint against a product of mine that contained an image I drew myself (not of a copyrighted character or anything) and they didn't even bother verifying.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dave, 19 Mar 2012 @ 4:22pm

Twilight of freedom
Everything is fitting nicely into place to really clamp down on free speech. Full censorship here we come � all in the name of protecting copyright.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That Anonymous Coward (profile), 19 Mar 2012 @ 4:31pm

Summit is good at one thing.
Providing even more cases and examples of why this system is completely screwed.

I wonder if all of their targets got together if they could file a class action lawsuit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rekrul, 19 Mar 2012 @ 4:36pm

I'm surprised they haven't tried to sue Rod Serling's estate yet.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
art guerrilla (profile), 19 Mar 2012 @ 5:10pm

gee, where did Mad (copy)Max go ? ? ?
notice that slimeball (*obviously* a lawyer) is nowhere to be found on stories like this...
hee hee hee
not that it matters...
ho ho ho
he simply talks past the salient, cogent points...
ha ha ha
"blah blah blah pirate freetards are insulting me, dimwitted assnoses..."
"blah blah blah entitled gatekeepers are entitled..."
(insert endless litany of circular 'logic' here)
ak ak ak
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2012 @ 6:02pm

Re: Re: Not "steak"
Bah! Everyone knows that zombies are fictional. Get a grip!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2012 @ 6:51pm

"If Summit Entertainment had anyone with a soul working for them"
Vampires don't have souls.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Colin, 19 Mar 2012 @ 6:54pm

Re: Re: 01-20-xxxx
Hmmm, strange. Wikipedia has lots of birthdays listed on that day. How did anyone have incentive to be born after Gordian III?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Devil's Coachman (profile), 19 Mar 2012 @ 7:45pm

Re:
I think it would be better if all their targets got together and had their entire legal team and all their executives whacked. And not in a quick and painless way, either. No, I'm talking about the naked, upside-down crucifixions slowly lowered into huge vats of boiling oil, with the victims controlling the rate of descent. George Carlin once suggested that as an appropriate sentence for the money-laundering banksters who have ruined the country, so I think it is entirely appropriate for these subhuman sacks of monkey shit. I will make sure the oil is just hot enough to burst their skins on contact, but not too hot to char it. No, they need to suffer.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Devil's Coachman (profile), 19 Mar 2012 @ 7:47pm

Re: Twilight of freedom
We can then be morally justified in murdering them all, and burning down their fancy houses. I will bring the matches.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Devil's Coachman (profile), 19 Mar 2012 @ 7:49pm

Re:
Summit doesn't have vampires, but they do suck something, if you know what I mean. Wink wink. Nudge nudge. Say no more.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
G Thompson (profile), 19 Mar 2012 @ 8:16pm

Re: Re: A note from Summit Entertainment
and beastiality, necrophilia and subtle hints of sadism.

It seems that the morons at Summit Entertainment just love flogging a dead horse
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Torg (profile), 19 Mar 2012 @ 8:23pm

Re:
Gingers don't have souls either, and I know these guys are idiots.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lauriel (profile), 20 Mar 2012 @ 3:11am

Re:
Three strikes is a little harsh, don't you think? Better make it six strikes. And maybe give them a limited list of defences? Just so we don't seem too aggressive? That might work...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Marcel de Jong (profile), 20 Mar 2012 @ 4:50am

Re: Re: Re: A note from Summit Entertainment
Alas, I can only vote Funny once for this. This is my vote for funniest comment of the week.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Michael, 20 Mar 2012 @ 5:58am

Control Freak: using copyright/IP/patents to monopolize content/ideas and dictate what others are allowed to do.

News flash -- Summit Entertainment doesn't own the word 'twilight.' Using their own control freak mentality against them, they shouldn't be allowed to utilize: colors, the moon, trees/forests, humans and vampires, mist, day/night, any form of living quarter (e.g. houses, manors, cabins, et al.), clothing, music, cameras, oxygen, wind and elements, nor anything else they themselves didn't create in order to make their 'motion picture' (which, again, is not their idea to be used for profit).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Davey, 20 Mar 2012 @ 9:55am

How to contact Summit's copyright agent
From the TOS on their web site:

Summit's Copyright Agent for notice of claims of copyright or other intellectual property infringement can be reached as follows:

By e-mail: copyrightagent@summit-ent.com (with subject "Copyright Complaints");

By phone: (310) 309-8400 (ask for General Counsel�s Office);

By postal mail:

Summit Entertainment, LLC
1601 Cloverfield Boulevard
Suite 200, South Tower
Santa Monica, CA 90404
Attn: General Counsel � DMCA Agent
(with subject "Copyright Complaints")

I'm willing to send them a letter regarding "copyright complaints"!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
anonymous, 20 Mar 2012 @ 11:28am

Re: Not "steak"
as a vampire, I take offense to this comment. Clearly, vampires aren't running Summit entertainment. We have dignity. No REAL vampire would willingly associate themselves with the Twilight franchise. Now, a couple of evil, blood-drinking pixies on the other hand...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
TaCktiX (profile), 20 Mar 2012 @ 12:51pm

Re: Hey...that's my...
How about my 22nd? And a really crappy day at that. They somehow made it WORSE.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John85851 (profile), 20 Mar 2012 @ 3:29pm

Why not?
Like other people are saying, if there's no penalty for a false takedown notice, why not send out as many as possible.
Unfortunately, too many content providers will simply take down "offending" material so the copyright holder won't take the next step and sue. Yes, everyone knows the copyright holder doesn't have any legal ground to stand on, but as usual, it takes time and money to fight these issues. And as we should expect, sites like Zazzle probably aren't going to spend their money defending a user, even if the copyright holder is 100% wrong.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
hmm (profile), 20 Mar 2012 @ 3:49pm

give it away!
I say we GIVE them the entire day to own in it's entirety.

On an unrelated note, if anyone had an accident, or a favorite pet died, or they lost their job / ate a particularly bad sandwich (etc) on November 20,2009 then I heartily recommend suing the living hell out of Summit and their crappy franchise.

If several thousand of us ALL do this we can bankrupt them within 6months easy......
[ link to this | view in thread ]
hmm (profile), 20 Mar 2012 @ 3:53pm

Re: Re: Not "steak"
You're a vampire?

Problem being the twilight franchise doesn't HAVE vampires in it....it has blood-sucking paedophile monsters but those ain't vamps....

If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck it's still a deranged hobo only CLAIMING to be a duck....no matter how many bread crumbs he eats...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
hmm (profile), 20 Mar 2012 @ 3:59pm

Re:
what makes you think they haven't already started the ball rolling there too?

they are THAT stupid.

And the fact that they market paedophilia to young girls as being "romantic" is kind of the icing on their cake of evilness.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
arahman81 (profile), 23 Mar 2012 @ 7:53am

I Would like them to try Twillight Zone
They are going to get back-slapped hard, and might just lose some control.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nile, 24 Mar 2012 @ 7:18am

Owning the date? That's so Yesterday.
How is this News? How is this even surprising?

They are wealthy and powerful and they have an unlimited legal budget, and you're nobody.

Enforcing your obedience to your betters is what the courts are *for*.

Get over it. They can buy the whole of Congress and the Senate if the law doesn't work as it's intended to.

And it's not like anyone's actually going to vote for a politician who's against personal enrichment and campain funds: there aren't any. At least, none who matter.

Meanwhile, look for your freedoms elsewhere... And don't test them in London this year by starting a business or publishing an image or running an event with '2012' in or on it: not only can you be sued into oblivion, but warrantless raids by orivate contractors have been authorised to secure all infringeing material. 'Authorised' as in as in: this is the law and the Police will intervene, on request, to beat down resistance and obstruction.

...Oh, and the owner of any property so raided is legally ibliged to reimburse the costs.

Owning the date? That's so Yesterday.

Someone owns everything you say that intersects a published quote, and probably your genes, your name, and the sound of your breathing. You are infringeing their copyright by existing. And if you can prove that you don't, you can still go bankrupt defending your 'rights' at law.
[ link to this | view in thread ]