First, the protesters on trial aren't being charged with any specific crime but rather being charged as a group who attended the protest. They are charged with: conspiracy to riot, inciting a riot, and destruction of property. I agree with the one commentor above "spectating is a crime".
Second, in the world everyone else lives in, Antifa isn't a violent group and that the KKK should be classified as a Civil Rights organization and educational group. Get over yourself.
Fact is, when these protestors started attacking police officers, and destroying private property, they crossed the line and that police then had the right to arrest anyone and everyone who they thought participated in the destruction and riot. Police officers aren't lawyers so they aren't required to know every law on the books.
If an officer believes his life is in danger then I support his or her right to defend themselves by pepper spraying, shooting or arresting any individual or individuals involved in the violence.
She deserves to be prosecuted. Police didn't deliberately target her or the protestors. Alexi Wood was arrested with the other protestors en-masse because she was with the protestors. Protestors threw rocks and other items at police and that's when it was decided to arrest everybody and sort it out later.
I think it was smart of her to make it look like she was providing aid but news reporters and journalists have always displayed ignorance by protesting anything that involves Donald Trump.
I'm glad she was arrested. I'm glad she's being prosecuted. When you throw in with a mob, you own what they do.
This judge is a fucking idiot. While he may be able to set rules on what people can do in his courtroom, the moment they are out of the courtroom, they can say whatever the fuck they want to say.
YOU SEE, THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THE CONSTITUTION OF THE MOTHER FUCKING UNITED STATES SAYS.
Don't they hate it when people actually exercise their constitutional rights. LOLS. Simply put, judges cannot make up their own rules.
When it comes down to it, SDCC should have just left this well enough alone. Because I just don't see the SDCC coming out of this unscathed. If they lose, they could end up on the hook to paying the attorney's fees of the SLCC.
BTW, I remember how this all started. The SDCC demanded that the SLCC turn over the new car that had the Salt Lakes Comic Con advertisement on the side of the car. When they started with their C&D's, that's when this whole mess spiraled out of control.
I just think that the SDCC is going to lose and it's going to lose in a big way.
I should also note, as I forgot to above, the reason why you cannot trademark or copyright the term "sci-fi" or "scifi", like the SyFy channel once tried to do.
What makes this lawsuit ridiculous is that "comic con" is also used for conventions in Europe, Japan, Middle East, Brazil ... comic conventions used the generic term in many countries to describe their conventions.
I'm sure that SDCC trademarked "San Diego Comic Con". They did not trademark "Comic Con". When it comes down to it, not only is "Comic Con" a generic term but if they're sticking with their trademark, then it can be argued for "genericide".
I simply don't see the SDCC succeeding in this frivolous lawsuit. Plus, the fact that the SDCC is trying to bolster its claim by licensing out "Comic Con" to other conventions is only going to be seen by the jury for what it is, a veiled attempt to protect a trademark that is war too common with comic conventions. IN effect, the SDCC says it has a trademark on the descriptor "comic conventions", which it is not allowed to have.
Seriously? Rose City didn't affiliate with the word "Comic Con", it affiliated with the entity of San Diego Comic Con. Someone forgot to tell SDCC that you cannot trademark a generic term. I don't see any jury finding for SDCC.
I've been collecting comic books ever since the 1970's and everyone I know has referred to comic conventions as "comic cons". Just what the fuck does SDCC think "comic con" stands for? It stands for "comic convention". It's the same reason why you can't trademark "popcorn" and sue another company for having "popcorn" in the name of its business.
SDCC stands a good chance of not just losing their lawsuit but also losing their trademark on "comic con".
This would be a different story if the SDCC had simply called their event "Comic Con" and trademarked that, but they didn't, because they would never have been allowed to. Their event is called "San Diego Comic Con" NOT "Comic Con". lols
EPIC's excuse doesn't hold water. The reason, and this is routinely backed up by rules of evidence. Let's just say that a police officer was able to obtain evidence provided by an informant or another police officer and that the evidence was obtained illegally, judges routinely throw out evidence because the police officers failed to do their due diligence in investigating how that evidence came to be in their possession.
Claiming ignorance that they did not know the evidence was illegal is no excuse and the court was forced to not allow that evidence at trial.
EPIC claiming that they did not know that the videogamer wasn't 14 years old is not a valid excuse. EPIC has a responsibility to ensure that their games cannot use 'game cheats' and these are game functions where their developers allow such of their games to be used with cheats.
The thing, this is EPIC's own fault. First, they released a game that is free to download, free to install and free to play. Second, they didn't do anything to curb cheating. Many MMO games have employees that look for cheaters in their online games and they ban players accordingly. Third, EPIC decided they didn't want to keep playing 'whac-a-mole' with online cheaters so they file a copyright violation lawsuit against their players and don't even do their due diligence and figure out if 'the person they are suing is the same person who is cheating' and 'if the person is a minor or an adult'.
What EPIC did was find out the name of 'gamer', they printed his or her name on the lawsuit, and let it get filed. I don't see any judge allowing EPIC to get around what they obviously should have never been allowed to do in the first place.
We did not violate Rule 5.2(a) or Local Civil Rule 17.2 because we did not know when we filed the papers that Defendant was a minor.
Uh, isn't it your job, EPIC, to get your facts straight before you filed the lawsuit or do you just randomly file lawsuits against people you never looked into or investigate?
The one thing I noticed when I submitted this article was that DJI offered a bug bounty but that they didn't disclose the particulars for the bugs in the drones. That the researcher had submitted the bug before DJI set up the bounty program for the drones.
In a way, the researcher had beat DJI to the punch, and I thought it was hilarious when I read the original article before I submitted it. LOLS
These law enforcement goons must really hate the constitution. It prevents them from avoiding lawsuits and effectively arresting and convicting American citizens.
Tim, thanks for reporting on this. I didn't think techdirt would report on it after I sent in the link on it. But, when I heard about this ridiculous sheriff, my eyes were rolling at the ceiling.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Aerie.
(untitled comment)
First, the protesters on trial aren't being charged with any specific crime but rather being charged as a group who attended the protest. They are charged with: conspiracy to riot, inciting a riot, and destruction of property. I agree with the one commentor above "spectating is a crime".
Second, in the world everyone else lives in, Antifa isn't a violent group and that the KKK should be classified as a Civil Rights organization and educational group. Get over yourself.
Fact is, when these protestors started attacking police officers, and destroying private property, they crossed the line and that police then had the right to arrest anyone and everyone who they thought participated in the destruction and riot. Police officers aren't lawyers so they aren't required to know every law on the books.
If an officer believes his life is in danger then I support his or her right to defend themselves by pepper spraying, shooting or arresting any individual or individuals involved in the violence.
(untitled comment)
I think it was smart of her to make it look like she was providing aid but news reporters and journalists have always displayed ignorance by protesting anything that involves Donald Trump.
I'm glad she was arrested. I'm glad she's being prosecuted. When you throw in with a mob, you own what they do.
(untitled comment)
YOU SEE, THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THE CONSTITUTION OF THE MOTHER FUCKING UNITED STATES SAYS.
Don't they hate it when people actually exercise their constitutional rights. LOLS. Simply put, judges cannot make up their own rules.
(untitled comment)
BTW, I remember how this all started. The SDCC demanded that the SLCC turn over the new car that had the Salt Lakes Comic Con advertisement on the side of the car. When they started with their C&D's, that's when this whole mess spiraled out of control.
I just think that the SDCC is going to lose and it's going to lose in a big way.
(untitled comment)
(untitled comment)
I'm sure that SDCC trademarked "San Diego Comic Con". They did not trademark "Comic Con". When it comes down to it, not only is "Comic Con" a generic term but if they're sticking with their trademark, then it can be argued for "genericide".
I simply don't see the SDCC succeeding in this frivolous lawsuit. Plus, the fact that the SDCC is trying to bolster its claim by licensing out "Comic Con" to other conventions is only going to be seen by the jury for what it is, a veiled attempt to protect a trademark that is war too common with comic conventions. IN effect, the SDCC says it has a trademark on the descriptor "comic conventions", which it is not allowed to have.
(untitled comment)
I've been collecting comic books ever since the 1970's and everyone I know has referred to comic conventions as "comic cons". Just what the fuck does SDCC think "comic con" stands for? It stands for "comic convention". It's the same reason why you can't trademark "popcorn" and sue another company for having "popcorn" in the name of its business.
SDCC stands a good chance of not just losing their lawsuit but also losing their trademark on "comic con".
This would be a different story if the SDCC had simply called their event "Comic Con" and trademarked that, but they didn't, because they would never have been allowed to. Their event is called "San Diego Comic Con" NOT "Comic Con". lols
(untitled comment)
(untitled comment)
Claiming ignorance that they did not know the evidence was illegal is no excuse and the court was forced to not allow that evidence at trial.
EPIC claiming that they did not know that the videogamer wasn't 14 years old is not a valid excuse. EPIC has a responsibility to ensure that their games cannot use 'game cheats' and these are game functions where their developers allow such of their games to be used with cheats.
The thing, this is EPIC's own fault. First, they released a game that is free to download, free to install and free to play. Second, they didn't do anything to curb cheating. Many MMO games have employees that look for cheaters in their online games and they ban players accordingly. Third, EPIC decided they didn't want to keep playing 'whac-a-mole' with online cheaters so they file a copyright violation lawsuit against their players and don't even do their due diligence and figure out if 'the person they are suing is the same person who is cheating' and 'if the person is a minor or an adult'.
What EPIC did was find out the name of 'gamer', they printed his or her name on the lawsuit, and let it get filed. I don't see any judge allowing EPIC to get around what they obviously should have never been allowed to do in the first place.
(untitled comment)
We did not violate Rule 5.2(a) or Local Civil Rule 17.2 because we did not know when we filed the papers that Defendant was a minor.
Uh, isn't it your job, EPIC, to get your facts straight before you filed the lawsuit or do you just randomly file lawsuits against people you never looked into or investigate?
ROTFL
(untitled comment)
In a way, the researcher had beat DJI to the punch, and I thought it was hilarious when I read the original article before I submitted it. LOLS
(untitled comment)
(untitled comment)
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Aerie.
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