Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Meghan & Harry: WE QUIT

Options
1…4142444647…70

Comments

  • Options
    #1292
    cnocbui
    Registered Users Posts: 19,729 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui


    blinding wrote: »
    If something is your property can you not do with it what you wish ?

    Harry and Meghan are going to look a right pair of plonkers if this goes to public court. I’m guessing it won’t for that very reason.

    Are you f'n kidding me? You think you can buy a book, DVD, software, etc and just do what you like with them; make copies and sell them?

    It's already going to court and the media have done their best to portray them as plonkers at every turn, so nothing to loose there. Are you missing the point that the media already tried to make them look like plonkers by publishing her private correspondence to her father?


  • Options
    #1293
    MoonUnit75
    Registered Users Posts: 1,514 ✭✭✭MoonUnit75


    cnocbui wrote: »
    Yes, it becomes his property, but the copyright on it's contents remains Meghan's for at least 50 years.

    The legal quote you included didn’t include the defence of public interest. If the paper can show that publishing the extracts was a matter of public interest then that is a legitimate defence. The standoff between Meghan and her father was public knowledge before the letter was published so her father may be able to demonstrate that publishing the extracts vindicated him against widespread false or misleading accusations or put them into a more truthful context.

    Edited to add, I have a suspicion that Mr. Markle has text messages or other correspondence from Meghan that contradict the contents of the letter, he may therefore be able to show that the misleading information in the letter, if both knew it to be misleading, was really intended to paint her in a better light to a much wider audience than the person she sent it to. That might be considered an implicit licence to publish the contents.


  • Options
    #1294
    blinding
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,466 ✭✭✭blinding


    cnocbui wrote: »
    Are you f'n kidding me? You think you can buy a book, DVD, software, etc and just do what you like with them; make copies and sell them?

    It's already going to court and the media have done their best to portray them as plonkers at every turn, so nothing to loose there. Are you missing the point that the media already tried to make them look like plonkers by publishing her private correspondence to her father?
    A lettered delivered to you is none of the above . It is the recipients property .

    This court case will be fun . Imagine if receipts and the like are not your private property after receiving them by mail . I expect a humiliating climb down by the royal work dodgers soon .


  • Options
    #1295
    MoonUnit75
    Registered Users Posts: 1,514 ✭✭✭MoonUnit75


    I also think it is more likely the case will be dropped before it gets to court.


  • Options
    #1296
    blinding
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,466 ✭✭✭blinding


    MoonUnit75 wrote: »
    I also think it is more likely the case will be dropped before it gets to court.
    The royal work dodgers have too much to lose . This will never see the inside of a public court. They would make two complete clowns of themselves.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1297
    cnocbui
    Registered Users Posts: 19,729 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui


    MoonUnit75 wrote: »
    The legal quote you included didn’t include the defence of public interest. If the paper can show that publishing the extracts was a matter of public interest then that is a legitimate defence. The standoff between Meghan and her father was public knowledge before the letter was published so her father may be able to demonstrate that publishing the extracts vindicated him against widespread false or misleading accusations or put them into a more truthful context.

    Edited to add, I have a suspicion that Mr. Markle has text messages or other correspondence from Meghan that contradict the contents of the letter, he may therefore be able to show that the misleading information in the letter, if both knew it to be misleading, was really intended to paint her in a better light to a much wider audience than the person she sent it to. That might be considered an implicit licence to publish the contents.

    The public interest angle would only apply to the breach of privacy angle and, several legal experts point out that the level of public interest here is likely insufficient to override the right to privacy. Public interest has no bearing on breach of copyright and doesn't legitimise it..

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jan/15/meghan-duchess-sussex-mail-sunday--case-letter-thomas-father
    Hugh Tomlinson QC, chair of the privacy lobby group Hacked Off, who acted for Prince Charles in 2006 against the Mail on Sunday to halt the publication of his diaries, told the Guardian that the law accepts that even public figures are entitled to private lives. “If a newspaper is going to rely on [a] public interest [defence], then it must demonstrate that there’s something serious or substantial that needs to be exposed to the public,” he said.

    “Private lives need to be kept private and you have to have a very strong reason for [revealing details] which goes beyond the fact that they are quite well known figures.”

    Mark Stephens, a libel and privacy expert at the law firm Howard Kennedy, said Meghan would “undoubtedly win the case”


  • Options
    #1298
    cnocbui
    Registered Users Posts: 19,729 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui


    MoonUnit75 wrote: »
    I also think it is more likely the case will be dropped before it gets to court.
    blinding wrote: »
    The royal work dodgers have too much to lose . This will never see the inside of a public court. They would make two complete clowns of themselves.

    Oh yes, there is a very high likelihood of the case not proceeding, but not because of what you think. it's very likely the papers will settle out of court.


  • Options
    #1299
    blinding
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,466 ✭✭✭blinding


    cnocbui wrote: »
    Oh yes, there is a very high likelihood of the case not proceeding, but not because of what you think. it's very likely the papers will settle out of court.
    Newspapers seldom do that . The sight of newspapers being publicly cowed is not a good look for newspapers.


  • Options
    #1300
    MoonUnit75
    Registered Users Posts: 1,514 ✭✭✭MoonUnit75


    cnocbui wrote: »
    The public interest angle would only apply to the breach of privacy angle and, several legal experts point out that the level of public interest here is likely insufficient to override the right to privacy. Public interest has no bearing on breach of copyright and doesn't legitimise it..

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jan/15/meghan-duchess-sussex-mail-sunday--case-letter-thomas-father

    I’m not sure that’s true, limited publishing of copyright material is permissable for purposes of criticism or review and that falls under public interest.

    The problem with the publication of the diaries is that the published material is the story itself, therefore public interest in the contents of that specific material didn’t exist until after it was published. If the subject of the private correspondence was already a matter of public interest then the comparison to the publication of Charles or Andrews diaries is not comparable to this case at all.


  • Options
    #1301
    cnocbui
    Registered Users Posts: 19,729 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui


    blinding wrote: »
    Newspapers seldom do that . The sight of newspapers being publicly cowed is not a good look for newspapers.

    My bad, yes, they 'seldom' do that, how silly of me...
    Daily Mail Reportedly Pays Melania Trump $2.9 Million Settlement in Libel Suit
    Daily Mail settles Ryanair libel claim out of court
    Noel Edmonds has settled out of court on a libel action he took against the Daily Mail over an article published in March.

    Schillings, the media law firm that acted for the Deal or No Deal presenter, confirmed that the action had been settled, but declined to reveal any details of the deal with the Daily Mail.

    "Noel is happy that the matter has been settled and happy with the settlement,
    Elizabeth Hurley, Elton John, and Heather Mills have settled their phone-hacking claims against The Sun’s parent company at the last minute, avoiding a potentially embarrassing trial for Rupert Murdoch’s media empire


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1302
    cnocbui
    Registered Users Posts: 19,729 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui


    MoonUnit75 wrote: »
    I’m not sure that’s true, limited publishing of copyright material is permissable for purposes of criticism or review and that falls under public interest.

    The problem with the publication of the diaries is that the published material is the story itself, therefore public interest in the contents of that specific material didn’t exist until after it was published. If the subject of the private correspondence was already a matter of public interest then the comparison to the publication of Charles or Andrews diaries is not comparable to this case at all.

    It's not poem or novel she wrote. It wasn't intended for public release so there is no valid reason to engage in literary criticism or review.

    You think there would have been no public interest in the contents of Prince Charles' diaries before them being published?


  • Options
    #1303
    MoonUnit75
    Registered Users Posts: 1,514 ✭✭✭MoonUnit75


    cnocbui wrote: »
    It's not poem or novel she wrote. It wasn't intended for public release so there is no valid reason to engage in literary criticism or review.

    It doesn’t have to be for criticism or review for its literary or aesthetic value. A newspaper can publish a reproduction of a painting while only reporting how much it sold for.


  • Options
    #1304
    blinding
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,466 ✭✭✭blinding


    cnocbui wrote: »
    My bad, yes, they 'seldom' do that, how silly of me...
    Those are still seldom !


  • Options
    #1305
    cnocbui
    Registered Users Posts: 19,729 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui


    blinding wrote: »
    Those are still seldom !

    No they aren't, your parrot is dead.
    'E's not pinin'! 'E's passed on! This parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker! 'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed 'im to the perch 'e'd be pushing up the daisies! 'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory! 'E's off the twig! 'E's kicked the bucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisible!! THIS IS AN EX-PARROT!!


  • Options
    #1306
    blinding
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,466 ✭✭✭blinding


    cnocbui wrote: »
    No they aren't, your parrot is dead.
    Lets see how this court case progress’s and let us see who withdraws , if either does. This at least will be interesting !


  • Options
    #1307
    MoonUnit75
    Registered Users Posts: 1,514 ✭✭✭MoonUnit75


    Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »
    Personally nothing I’ve read about it all has come from Buzzfeed. Various publications compared the headlines relating to Kate and Meghan.

    Sorry, missed your post. Yes, many reposted the Buzzfeed article and some added a couple more examples. I don’t think many of them stand up to scrutiny.

    For example, the headlines about William and Kate getting trademarks compared to Harry and Meghan getting trademarks fails to mention that William and Kate, as full members of the royal family, are prohibited from profiting from commercial ventures like this. Since Harry and Meghan have stepped outside that arrangement, they are now able to profit from these trademarks. That difference is critical to the headlines they compare but Buzzfeed don’t explain to their readers.


  • Options
    #1308
    Muahahaha
    Registered Users Posts: 19,613 ✭✭✭✭Muahahaha


    blinding wrote: »
    Lets see how this court case progress’s and let us see who withdraws , if either does. This at least will be interesting !

    I think without doubt it is going to be Harry and Meghan who withdraw from the court case. Theres no way they are stupid enough to find themselves in a witness box getting grilled by a high level QC in front of a public gallery mobbed with the media. It would turn into a complete and utter circus.

    The Daily Mail will want this case to go ahead and onto full trial and I cant see them making any pre settlement offer. Even if they lose (which they likely will) and have to pay a million in damages that isnt in the ha'penny place compared to the increased newspaper circulation they would get from Harry and Megan testifying in an open court. The Mails editors would be thinking all their Christmases and birthdays came at once to get the opportunity to send their best attack dog of a QC to grill them on their private life in public.

    If Harry and Meghan do go through with it they had better be prepared to open a huge can of worms. Aside from the circus of Thomas Markle testifying against his daughter you can be certain that the Mail will produce other witnesses who formerly worked for the couple to defend their stories based on their leaks. Theres no upside in the case for Harry and Meghan, even if they win they will suffer massive collateral damage in doing so.


  • Options
    #1309
    Assetbacked
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,969 ✭✭✭Assetbacked


    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/mar/29/donald-trump-refuses-to-pay-security-bill-for-harry-and-meghan

    In some unsurprising news, Harry and Megan are reportedly in California quarantining rather than Canada as they had intended. Presumably it offers a safer space for champagne liberal, Hollywood elites than boring old Canada.


  • Options
    #1310
    MakingMovies2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 199 ✭✭MakingMovies2


    Assetbacked wrote: »
    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/mar/29/donald-trump-refuses-to-pay-security-bill-for-harry-and-meghan

    In some unsurprising news, Harry and Megan are reportedly in California quarantining rather than Canada as they had intended. Presumably it offers a safer space for champagne liberal, Hollywood elites than boring old Canada.

    They also get to dodge paying taxes in two places at once. But remember they're stunning and brave and principled for leaving the royal family. Anyone who can't see this is just a cash in for them is blind, they don't give a damn about what the daily mail say about them all they wanted to do was seek other opportunities. This can be seen by Harry unsubtly flogging his wife's alleged voice acting skills to the former Disney CEO. Pathetic.


  • Options
    #1311
    Stateofyou
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,431 ✭✭✭Stateofyou


    MakingMovies2 wrote: »
    They also get to dodge paying taxes in two places at once. But remember they're stunning and brave and principled for leaving the royal family. Anyone who can't see this is just a cash in for them is blind, they don't give a damn about what the daily mail say about them all they wanted to do was seek other opportunities. This can be seen by Harry unsubtly flogging his wife's alleged voice acting skills to the former Disney CEO. Pathetic.

    Bitter & jealous much? :rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1312
    cnocbui
    Registered Users Posts: 19,729 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui


    Assetbacked wrote: »
    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/mar/29/donald-trump-refuses-to-pay-security-bill-for-harry-and-meghan

    In some unsurprising news, Harry and Megan are reportedly in California quarantining rather than Canada as they had intended. Presumably it offers a safer space for champagne liberal, Hollywood elites than boring old Canada.

    So? Would you like me to tell you where to live and what to do?


  • Options
    #1313
    cnocbui
    Registered Users Posts: 19,729 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui


    MakingMovies2 wrote: »
    They also get to dodge paying taxes in two places at once. But remember they're stunning and brave and principled for leaving the royal family. Anyone who can't see this is just a cash in for them is blind, they don't give a damn about what the daily mail say about them all they wanted to do was seek other opportunities. This can be seen by Harry unsubtly flogging his wife's alleged voice acting skills to the former Disney CEO. Pathetic.

    Meghan is an American citizen, she doesn't get to dodge taxes based on where she lives. Are you Piers Morgan, by any chance?


  • Options
    #1314
    KiKi III
    Registered Users Posts: 2,653 ✭✭✭KiKi III


    MakingMovies2 wrote: »
    They also get to dodge paying taxes in two places at once. But remember they're stunning and brave and principled for leaving the royal family. Anyone who can't see this is just a cash in for them is blind, they don't give a damn about what the daily mail say about them all they wanted to do was seek other opportunities. This can be seen by Harry unsubtly flogging his wife's alleged voice acting skills to the former Disney CEO. Pathetic.

    How can you possibly still give a sh1t about this in the current climate?


  • Options
    #1315
    MakingMovies2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 199 ✭✭MakingMovies2


    cnocbui wrote: »
    Meghan is an American citizen, she doesn't get to dodge taxes based on where she lives. Are you Piers Morgan, by any chance?

    No but she's hardly moving to America to avoid paying her taxes as an American citizen. There are words there. Read them and stop licking the multimillionaires boots like a pleb.


  • Options
    #1316
    MakingMovies2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 199 ✭✭MakingMovies2


    KiKi III wrote: »
    How can you possibly still give a sh1t about this in the current climate?

    It's a discussion thread. What are you doing here in the first place if the current climate is too serious to give a ****?


  • Options
    #1317
    KiKi III
    Registered Users Posts: 2,653 ✭✭✭KiKi III


    MakingMovies2 wrote: »
    No but she's hardly moving to America to avoid paying her taxes as an American citizen. There are words there. Read them and stop licking the multimillionaires boots like a pleb.

    Might be time for some fresh air. Have you considered a walk within a 2km radius? It’s good for your head.


  • Options
    #1318
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,159 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    MakingMovies2 wrote: »
    They also get to dodge paying taxes in two places at once. But remember they're stunning and brave and principled for leaving the royal family. Anyone who can't see this is just a cash in for them is blind, they don't give a damn about what the daily mail say about them all they wanted to do was seek other opportunities. This can be seen by Harry unsubtly flogging his wife's alleged voice acting skills to the former Disney CEO. Pathetic.

    what two places are they dodging taxes in?


  • Options
    #1319
    MakingMovies2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 199 ✭✭MakingMovies2


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    what two places are they dodging taxes in?

    They'd have to pay taxes in the US and Canada, now only in the us. That's what I meant.


  • Options
    #1320
    MakingMovies2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 199 ✭✭MakingMovies2


    KiKi III wrote: »
    Might be time for some fresh air. Have you considered a walk within a 2km radius? It’s good for your head.

    You keep licking those multimillionaires boots there. I'm sure they appreciate it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1321
    Harry Palmr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 40,061 ✭✭✭✭Harry Palmr


    I would like it to be known that I have refused to pay for the costs of Harry and Megan's personal protection.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement