that would, at this point, take mroe effort than it's worth.
plus it's not my laptop, it's my eldest's (I don't like laptops), its just the one I use when I'm on-site on a video job, to dump camera footage onto
A tip you might want to bear in mind.
If you don't know what you're talking about, DON'T TALK!
"British law does not allow truth as a defense for libel."
Defamation Act 2013 chapter 26, Defences Section 2
Truth
(1)It is a defence to an action for defamation for the defendant to show that the imputation conveyed by the statement complained of is substantially true.
(2)Subsection (3) applies in an action for defamation if the statement complained of conveys two or more distinct imputations.
(3)If one or more of the imputations is not shown to be substantially true, the defence under this section does not fail if, having regard to the imputations which are shown to be substantially true, the imputations which are not shown to be substantially true do not seriously harm the claimant's reputation.
(4)The common law defence of justification is abolished and, accordingly, section 5 of the Defamation Act 1952 (justification) is repealed.
Oh, and that section 5 that was repealed said "Justification
In an action for libel or slander in respect of words containing two or more distinct charges against the plaintiff, a defence of justification shall not fail by reason only that the truth of every charge is not proved if the words not proved to be true do not materially injure the plaintiff's reputation having regard to the truth of the remaining charges."
In other words, even under hte 52 act, if it was true, it wasn't defamation.
See, I know this, because I literally fought a Government department who claimed libel in a consultation submission. They had a bunch of lawyers (both in house, and at the collecting societies) to consult with, I had just myself. They admitted they overreached.
And that was under the 1952 rules.
So, stop repeating any old crap you once heard someone say, eh? Because odds are, it's not true.
I have an acer, and it's control center seems to be almost unkillable. Every time I disable it, or remove the process or disable the service, it restarts.
I remember hearing a few weeks ago from the BBC that the kings daughter running that it was "because the king is so adored and respected"
bollocks.
If that lay SOB and his corrupt Junta were respected, they wouldn't need the lese majeste law, or criminalized fake news stuff, because they wouldn't be such insecure cowards.
Petty tyrants with insecurities have lese majeste laws. the Thai king (the cowardly lion) can join Trump the scarecrow and a Whinny-the-pooh-shaped tin man in fear of criticism.
Last week, I basically had to publicaly shame my kids school district when they posted a UK government infographic hyping up with 'momo challenge'.
really sad thing? All those at the school district not only know me, but know I'm probably someone to check with on this first.
Worse, while I was chaperoning yesterday, at last two kids in the High school were talking about it as if it were real, based on what they'd seen others share elsewhere, including the school district.
Well, I could always sing it for you (I need the practice for a production of mama Mia later this month, we were going to do To Kill a Mockingbird, but not any more...
instead they're weaponizing my voice to use against people who displease us, like an "Andrew Lloyd Webber who says Ni!"
Also mike, last month they took on Nathan White from AccessNow to be their privacy policy manager (disclaimer, I've done a bunch of panels with him on the annual lecture series I used to run in Atlanta, on everything from Journalism and freedom of the press, to Net Neutrality - TOP bloke)
There's a lot of questions here that may bring a latches rebuttal.
They've apparently been in negotiations since 2016. However, the trademark application (serial #87422202) was made on 24 April 2017, and only got the publication for opposition in February 2018. Now, another made at the same time (concurrent serial numbers) for board games was published for opposition in September 2018, and granted Jan 8 2019 (yes, during the shutdown!, and is the mark referenced in 16) while one for online magazines is also not yet granted. Thus we can assume there's oppositions filed.
Word Mark CHOOSE YOUR OWN ADVENTURE Goods and Services IC 041. US 100 101 107. G & S: Production of television programs, live-action comedy shows, drama films, interactive films, comedy films, animated films, and films featuring multiple choice and multiple ending fiction stories; entertainment services in the nature of live theatrical performances Standard Characters Claimed Mark Drawing Code (4) STANDARD CHARACTER MARK Serial Number 87422202 Filing Date April 24, 2017 Current Basis 1B Original Filing Basis 1B Published for Opposition February 13, 2018 Owner (APPLICANT) Chooseco LLC LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VERMONT P.O. Box 46 Waitsfield VERMONT 05673 Attorney of Record Catherine M.C. Farrelly Prior Registrations 2807473;2905158;3234147 Type of Mark SERVICE MARK Register PRINCIPAL Live/Dead Indicator LIVE
So they've been aware of it for 2+ years, but only applied for a trademark 4 months before suing, with an applied, but not granted trademark.
Now, they do reference a trademark in there, and that was applied for July 1 2003, and granded December 21 2004. HOWEVER, that is for "Goods and Services IC 009. US 021 023 026 036 038. G & S: Books, [ graphic novels and comic books featuring multiple choice, multiple ending fiction stories that are recorded on CD's, DVD's or are downloaded from global computer networks; prerecorded vinyl records, audio tapes, audio-video tapes, audio video cassettes, ] audio video discs, and digital versatile discs [ featuring music, comedy, drama, action, events, and/or animation; audio cassette players, CD players, DVD players, mini-disk players; CD ROM games; CD-ROM, DVD and internet game consoles; short motion picture film cassettes featuring comedy, drama, action, events and/or animation to be used with hand-held viewers or projectors; video cassette recorders and players, compact disc players, digital audio tape recorders and players; audio tapes, video tapes, CD's, DVD's and books, booklets, pamphlets, and newsletters sold as a unit featuring multiple choice, multiple ending fiction stories; computer programs, namely, software linking digitized video and audio media to a global computer information network; game equipment sold as a unit for playing a computer game; video and computer game programs; video game cartridges and cassettes; ] electronic games, and serialized publications, namely, interactive multiple choice, multiple ending stories and games delivered on optical discs, DVD, and CD-ROM; [ Motion picture films featuring comedy, drama, action, events or animation ]. FIRST USE: 20031216. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20031216" Ooh, that's books that can be downloaded, everything else is distributed on physical media, which is why they made the other application.
If they put off applying for the new (and correct) trademark because of the negotiations, then I guess they fell through in April at which point why didn't they sue then? In fact, why was the relevant trademark not filed in 2016? Or the suit filed when the negotiations failed, so as to prevent damages beforehand (perhaps with an injunction on the infringing term), rather than wait until it was somewhat successful?
So, there's certainly a case to be argued that the timing of the trademark applications (and the suit based on it) are extremely suspicious in terms of maximising revenue stream and claimed injury.
I'd offer to be his intermediary, but for some odd reason, he's not only ignoring my emails, he's blocked me on Twitter. Kinda odd, that he doesn't seem to want to communicate with the wider Georgia community on this.
political parties are not quite the same as businesses.
Ultimately, he becomes the publisher, when he was contacted about it, and stood by it and stated he continued to let it be published in the party name.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How to get rich quick in the UK in four
Actually, having faced claims of defamation in the UK (by the UK intellectual property office, in a consultation response - there is a story here about it) I've had to look into the topic deeply.
Even under the pre-reform statutes for defamation, truth is still an absolute defense. By definition, if it's true, it's not defamatory.
Every time I'm reminded I go check out a few places on the map.
I check the area around my local windstream offices - everywhere in the county has 50Mbit DSL (yeah right) except for a 2 block area around the windstream offices/central hub in the area (which is also the downtown exchange) where they list no windstream service at all.
Then I check a few of my old homes, two of which have magical ultra-fast DSL that has never actually been available in the area (when I research, I do DETAILED damned research, including everything like cable-run sizes for the locations in the area).
Another has 3 different entries for the same company - one with the ultrafast fantasy, and two with realistic 6/0.5 and 1.5/0.25 connections listed. It's like someone submitted a bullshit answer, not knowing that someone submitted a real one too
A lot of people still don't understand what net neutrality is and why it's important though.
I still see people going on about 'government takeover', or 'what about facebook and google', but my biggest peeve is those that think this is only a 'since 2015' thing.
it's not, and it's a 'since 1956' thing, when the basis was established in the hush-a-phone case, where hte Supreme Court said that phone companies couldn't dictate how you used the equipment connected to the line, and reiterated in 1968 with the carterfone decision where they said they can't control the data sent over the line or its source, as long as it doesn't harm the line and uses it how it was intended.
Those two rulings litereally gave us dialup modems.
until June, over the last 50 years, we've had net neutrality rules in place for all but 9 months or so of that time. Should tell you something about how 'harmful' it is.
"His actions aren't covered by that authority in this case, he should be treated just as you or I would be in his place."
No, he shouldn't.
The fact he was off duty means he should get no special treatment, as you say. The fact he was at the time employed as an officer means he should get zero 'breaks', wiggle-room or leeway, because he knows the law, and the requirements to follow the law. The fact he was in uniform at the time despite not conducting official police business means that he was attempting to use his uniform for extra leverage, and to intimidate/infer that his actions were legitimate law enforcement actions sanctioned by the city. As such he should be dealt with far more harshly than you or I. To then attempt to use an exception created by the courts to permit officers on the job to have discretion in doing that, while not on the job at all.
In short, he attempted to use his uniform to justify (and then excuse) his actions. He should be held to a far higher standard, and have the book thrown at him.
On the post: Asus Goes Mute As Hackers Covertly Install Backdoors Using Company Software Update
Re: Re:
that would, at this point, take mroe effort than it's worth.
plus it's not my laptop, it's my eldest's (I don't like laptops), its just the one I use when I'm on-site on a video job, to dump camera footage onto
On the post: New Zealand Censors Declare Christchurch Shooting Footage Illegal; Start Rounding Up Violators
Re: Re: Re:
A tip you might want to bear in mind.
If you don't know what you're talking about, DON'T TALK!
"British law does not allow truth as a defense for libel."
Defamation Act 2013 chapter 26, Defences Section 2
Truth
(1)It is a defence to an action for defamation for the defendant to show that the imputation conveyed by the statement complained of is substantially true.
(2)Subsection (3) applies in an action for defamation if the statement complained of conveys two or more distinct imputations.
(3)If one or more of the imputations is not shown to be substantially true, the defence under this section does not fail if, having regard to the imputations which are shown to be substantially true, the imputations which are not shown to be substantially true do not seriously harm the claimant's reputation.
(4)The common law defence of justification is abolished and, accordingly, section 5 of the Defamation Act 1952 (justification) is repealed.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/26/section/2
Oh, and that section 5 that was repealed said "Justification
In an action for libel or slander in respect of words containing two or more distinct charges against the plaintiff, a defence of justification shall not fail by reason only that the truth of every charge is not proved if the words not proved to be true do not materially injure the plaintiff's reputation having regard to the truth of the remaining charges."
In other words, even under hte 52 act, if it was true, it wasn't defamation.
See, I know this, because I literally fought a Government department who claimed libel in a consultation submission. They had a bunch of lawyers (both in house, and at the collecting societies) to consult with, I had just myself. They admitted they overreached.
And that was under the 1952 rules.
So, stop repeating any old crap you once heard someone say, eh? Because odds are, it's not true.
On the post: Asus Goes Mute As Hackers Covertly Install Backdoors Using Company Software Update
I hate all that damned crapware.
I have an acer, and it's control center seems to be almost unkillable. Every time I disable it, or remove the process or disable the service, it restarts.
On the post: Thai Government Uses Fake News Law To Lock Up Opposing Party Leaders
I remember hearing a few weeks ago from the BBC that the kings daughter running that it was "because the king is so adored and respected"
bollocks.
If that lay SOB and his corrupt Junta were respected, they wouldn't need the lese majeste law, or criminalized fake news stuff, because they wouldn't be such insecure cowards.
Petty tyrants with insecurities have lese majeste laws. the Thai king (the cowardly lion) can join Trump the scarecrow and a Whinny-the-pooh-shaped tin man in fear of criticism.
On the post: Momo Hoax Shows America's Susceptibility To Bullshit Goes Well Beyond Social Media
Last week, I basically had to publicaly shame my kids school district when they posted a UK government infographic hyping up with 'momo challenge'.
really sad thing? All those at the school district not only know me, but know I'm probably someone to check with on this first.
Worse, while I was chaperoning yesterday, at last two kids in the High school were talking about it as if it were real, based on what they'd seen others share elsewhere, including the school district.
just utter facepalm.
On the post: Producer Scott Rudin Going Around Killing Off Licensed Community Theater Shows Of To Kill A Mockingbird
Someone mentioned Abbas Money money Money in another story, and since I'm doing Mama mia later this month...
"I Sue all night, I sue all day
I threaten to sue so they will pay
Ain't it sad
And still there always seems to be
another original licensee
That's too bad!
In my dreams, I had a plan
To keep me a wealthy man
I'd walk and talk around the hall
with Harper Lee's racial scrawl...
Money money money
broadways funny
it's a richman's world
money money money
being scummy
it's a richman's world!"
On the post: Don't Celebrate Copyright Being Used For Political Censorship Just Because You Don't Like The President
Re: Re: Re:
Well, I could always sing it for you (I need the practice for a production of mama Mia later this month, we were going to do To Kill a Mockingbird, but not any more...
instead they're weaponizing my voice to use against people who displease us, like an "Andrew Lloyd Webber who says Ni!"
On the post: Facebook's Privacy Problems Are Piling Up Too Quickly To Chronicle
not just Nate and Robyn
On the post: The 'Choose Your Own Adventure' People Are Suing Netflix Over 'Bandersnatch'
Re: Questionable timing
On the post: The 'Choose Your Own Adventure' People Are Suing Netflix Over 'Bandersnatch'
Questionable timing
They've apparently been in negotiations since 2016. However, the trademark application (serial #87422202) was made on 24 April 2017, and only got the publication for opposition in February 2018. Now, another made at the same time (concurrent serial numbers) for board games was published for opposition in September 2018, and granted Jan 8 2019 (yes, during the shutdown!, and is the mark referenced in 16) while one for online magazines is also not yet granted. Thus we can assume there's oppositions filed.
Word Mark CHOOSE YOUR OWN ADVENTURE
Goods and Services IC 041. US 100 101 107. G & S: Production of television programs, live-action comedy shows, drama films, interactive films, comedy films, animated films, and films featuring multiple choice and multiple ending fiction stories; entertainment services in the nature of live theatrical performances
Standard Characters Claimed
Mark Drawing Code (4) STANDARD CHARACTER MARK
Serial Number 87422202
Filing Date April 24, 2017
Current Basis 1B
Original Filing Basis 1B
Published for Opposition February 13, 2018
Owner (APPLICANT) Chooseco LLC LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VERMONT P.O. Box 46 Waitsfield VERMONT 05673
Attorney of Record Catherine M.C. Farrelly
Prior Registrations 2807473;2905158;3234147
Type of Mark SERVICE MARK
Register PRINCIPAL
Live/Dead Indicator LIVE
So they've been aware of it for 2+ years, but only applied for a trademark 4 months before suing, with an applied, but not granted trademark.
Now, they do reference a trademark in there, and that was applied for July 1 2003, and granded December 21 2004.
HOWEVER, that is for "Goods and Services IC 009. US 021 023 026 036 038. G & S: Books, [ graphic novels and comic books featuring multiple choice, multiple ending fiction stories that are recorded on CD's, DVD's or are downloaded from global computer networks; prerecorded vinyl records, audio tapes, audio-video tapes, audio video cassettes, ] audio video discs, and digital versatile discs [ featuring music, comedy, drama, action, events, and/or animation; audio cassette players, CD players, DVD players, mini-disk players; CD ROM games; CD-ROM, DVD and internet game consoles; short motion picture film cassettes featuring comedy, drama, action, events and/or animation to be used with hand-held viewers or projectors; video cassette recorders and players, compact disc players, digital audio tape recorders and players; audio tapes, video tapes, CD's, DVD's and books, booklets, pamphlets, and newsletters sold as a unit featuring multiple choice, multiple ending fiction stories; computer programs, namely, software linking digitized video and audio media to a global computer information network; game equipment sold as a unit for playing a computer game; video and computer game programs; video game cartridges and cassettes; ] electronic games, and serialized publications, namely, interactive multiple choice, multiple ending stories and games delivered on optical discs, DVD, and CD-ROM; [ Motion picture films featuring comedy, drama, action, events or animation ]. FIRST USE: 20031216. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20031216"
Ooh, that's books that can be downloaded, everything else is distributed on physical media, which is why they made the other application.
If they put off applying for the new (and correct) trademark because of the negotiations, then I guess they fell through in April at which point why didn't they sue then? In fact, why was the relevant trademark not filed in 2016? Or the suit filed when the negotiations failed, so as to prevent damages beforehand (perhaps with an injunction on the infringing term), rather than wait until it was somewhat successful?
So, there's certainly a case to be argued that the timing of the trademark applications (and the suit based on it) are extremely suspicious in terms of maximising revenue stream and claimed injury.
On the post: Despite Losing Its Copyright Case, The State Of Georgia Still Trying To Stop Carl Malamud From Posting Its Laws
On the post: Despite Losing Its Copyright Case, The State Of Georgia Still Trying To Stop Carl Malamud From Posting Its Laws
Re: Optics
On the post: UK Court: Guy Who Didn't Write Defamatory Tweet Needs To Pay $50,000 In Damages Because The Guy Who Did Doesn't Have Any Money
Re: Re: Re: Look, he was chairman
Ultimately, he becomes the publisher, when he was contacted about it, and stood by it and stated he continued to let it be published in the party name.
On the post: UK Court: Guy Who Didn't Write Defamatory Tweet Needs To Pay $50,000 In Damages Because The Guy Who Did Doesn't Have Any Money
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How to get rich quick in the UK in four
Even under the pre-reform statutes for defamation, truth is still an absolute defense. By definition, if it's true, it's not defamatory.
On the post: Broadband ISP CenturyLink Is Blocking Users' Internet Access Just To Show An Ad
Re: Re:
https://twitter.com/ktetch/status/1075442986455052294
On the post: Senators Continue To Point Out Our Broadband Maps Suck
I always laugh
I check the area around my local windstream offices - everywhere in the county has 50Mbit DSL (yeah right) except for a 2 block area around the windstream offices/central hub in the area (which is also the downtown exchange) where they list no windstream service at all.
Then I check a few of my old homes, two of which have magical ultra-fast DSL that has never actually been available in the area (when I research, I do DETAILED damned research, including everything like cable-run sizes for the locations in the area).
Another has 3 different entries for the same company - one with the ultrafast fantasy, and two with realistic 6/0.5 and 1.5/0.25 connections listed. It's like someone submitted a bullshit answer, not knowing that someone submitted a real one too
On the post: Activists Make One Last Push To Restore Net Neutrality Via Congressional Review Act
for those that want a bit more background
I still see people going on about 'government takeover', or 'what about facebook and google', but my biggest peeve is those that think this is only a 'since 2015' thing.
it's not, and it's a 'since 1956' thing, when the basis was established in the hush-a-phone case, where hte Supreme Court said that phone companies couldn't dictate how you used the equipment connected to the line, and reiterated in 1968 with the carterfone decision where they said they can't control the data sent over the line or its source, as long as it doesn't harm the line and uses it how it was intended.
Those two rulings litereally gave us dialup modems.
until June, over the last 50 years, we've had net neutrality rules in place for all but 9 months or so of that time. Should tell you something about how 'harmful' it is.
(for more details on the history, you can be bored with the talk I gave a few months back where I go over it in detail, with people from the EFF, AccessNow, and Public Knowledge here http://eff.dragoncon.org/2018/08/11/restoring-net-neutrality-regulation-legislation-or-litigation/)
On the post: But Her Emails: Ivanka Trump Also Used A Private Email Account For Official Government Business
Re: Who else?
On the post: Appeals Court: No Immunity For Shooting A Man Who Had His Hands Up And Twice Said He Surrendered
Re: Re: Re:
No, he shouldn't.
The fact he was off duty means he should get no special treatment, as you say.
The fact he was at the time employed as an officer means he should get zero 'breaks', wiggle-room or leeway, because he knows the law, and the requirements to follow the law.
The fact he was in uniform at the time despite not conducting official police business means that he was attempting to use his uniform for extra leverage, and to intimidate/infer that his actions were legitimate law enforcement actions sanctioned by the city. As such he should be dealt with far more harshly than you or I.
To then attempt to use an exception created by the courts to permit officers on the job to have discretion in doing that, while not on the job at all.
In short, he attempted to use his uniform to justify (and then excuse) his actions. He should be held to a far higher standard, and have the book thrown at him.
On the post: The Girl Scouts Sues The Boy Scouts Over Trademark
Re: Re:
important point there.
Next >>