I don't follow the second part of your reply. Can you explain which guys you mean?
On the first part, I'm trying to listen actively: do you mean to say that if Peter-Blair makes original content that they should (1) not care or (2) do nothing when others copy it and sell it for profit?
Sadly, this story doesn't have the happiest of endings. If you thought Fowles and Ackerly had taken the lesson from all of this to be the burden and dangers of jealous IP enforcement, think again. Missy Snyder, commenting below, is Peter-Blair's COO.
> “(Dunlap and Pike) made us realize how damaging it was to not copyright some of our designs. There are companies that have copied (our designs), like Vineyard Vines, who’s much bigger than us. Bernie and Tricia have sent cease-and-desist letters on our behalf,” Snyder said.
What's the problem with a mom & pop shop suing other retailers for copyright infringement, assuming for the sake of argument that the other retailers actually did copy Peter-Blair's content? That's hardly trolling or "jealous IP enforcement."
Just for fun, let's assume GDPR applies to them in full.
If a person's request to a government agency necessarily requires processing, there is a basis for this in the GDPR already: to perform under a contract.
The government could probably use this basis for all processing that is actually necessary to fulfill the constituent's request.
Legitimate interests might justify some analysis thereof. Sharing... I don't know if legitimate interests justifies sharing information among agencies.
At any rate, even if you could just infer consent, you'd have a new problem: your basis for processing is now consent, which is very inconvenient. Consent under GDPR is always revocable and cannot be made contingent on providing the service, which means all the government agencies sharing information on the basis of consent would need to tag all such data with some identifier which allows them to find and delete it later if the constituent revokes!
Good thing they don't subject themselves to the GDPR rules that they think are so great when applied to everyone else! ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
There are 45 states with sales and use tax. For most of those states, individual counties and cities within those counties may add additional sales tax on top of the state (or county) rate.
And states define goods differently, or have different exemptions (e.g., prepared foods are often taxed while unprepared foods are not taxed).
The result is that there are over 10,000 sales tax jurisdictions in the United States.
Not that this case limits its effect to United States businesses. Technically anyone selling anything from anywhere that is shipped into a state would have to worry about this ruling and the 10,000 tax jurisdictions mentioned above.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by tdlawyer.
Re: Re: What exactly is the problem here?
On the first part, I'm trying to listen actively: do you mean to say that if Peter-Blair makes original content that they should (1) not care or (2) do nothing when others copy it and sell it for profit?
What exactly is the problem here?
What's the problem with a mom & pop shop suing other retailers for copyright infringement, assuming for the sake of argument that the other retailers actually did copy Peter-Blair's content? That's hardly trolling or "jealous IP enforcement."
Same Scam from "Black Mirror"
Season 3, episode 3 contains essentially this exact scam, plus a bunch of other dystopian tech stuff (of course).
Contractual Basis?
Just for fun, let's assume GDPR applies to them in full.
If a person's request to a government agency necessarily requires processing, there is a basis for this in the GDPR already: to perform under a contract.
The government could probably use this basis for all processing that is actually necessary to fulfill the constituent's request.
Legitimate interests might justify some analysis thereof. Sharing... I don't know if legitimate interests justifies sharing information among agencies.
At any rate, even if you could just infer consent, you'd have a new problem: your basis for processing is now consent, which is very inconvenient. Consent under GDPR is always revocable and cannot be made contingent on providing the service, which means all the government agencies sharing information on the basis of consent would need to tag all such data with some identifier which allows them to find and delete it later if the constituent revokes!
Good thing they don't subject themselves to the GDPR rules that they think are so great when applied to everyone else! ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
Re:
There are 45 states with sales and use tax. For most of those states, individual counties and cities within those counties may add additional sales tax on top of the state (or county) rate.
And states define goods differently, or have different exemptions (e.g., prepared foods are often taxed while unprepared foods are not taxed).
The result is that there are over 10,000 sales tax jurisdictions in the United States.
Not that this case limits its effect to United States businesses. Technically anyone selling anything from anywhere that is shipped into a state would have to worry about this ruling and the 10,000 tax jurisdictions mentioned above.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by tdlawyer.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt