Boards.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more x
Post Reply  
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
24-01-2020, 20:40   #1276
MoonUnit75
Registered User
 
MoonUnit75's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Posts: 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stateofyou View Post
And you get your information from sources such as the Daily Mail, The Sun, etc who have been running the garbage you're repeating here, which are so bad they're not even ranked.
You're not concerned with accurate news sources, come off it.
I’m quoting the articles from the red tops and the Mail because that’s what the illiterates at Buzzfeed quote.
MoonUnit75 is offline  
Advertisement
24-01-2020, 20:53   #1277
Stateofyou
Registered User
 
Stateofyou's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2019
Posts: 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoonUnit75 View Post
Ironically enough, they are suing the papers for publishing something completely true, a letter she doesn’t deny writing.
That's not why she's suing. Its nothing to do with whether or not she wrote it. You're being deliberately obtuse.
Stateofyou is offline  
(3) thanks from:
24-01-2020, 20:54   #1278
Stateofyou
Registered User
 
Stateofyou's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2019
Posts: 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoonUnit75 View Post
I’m quoting the articles from the red tops and the Mail because that’s what the illiterates at Buzzfeed quote.
Word salad... what does that statement even mean.
Stateofyou is offline  
Thanks from:
24-01-2020, 20:55   #1279
end of the road
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 23,692
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wojtek the Bear View Post
Shocking to see the BBC and Guardian listed so highly considering they are just 'Orange Man Bad' propaganda outlets these days.
you mean they are outlets that report facts and don't tell you what you want to hear?
the bbc is ranked highly because while it is not perfect, it is a reliable broadcaster.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wojtek the Bear View Post
The Guardian know the majority of people disagree with most of the nonsense opinion articles which is why they barely ever publish comments anymore.
really? i have no doubt some don't agree with the pieces, but whether that is a majority of people i could not say with any certainty, and i suspect neither could you, more that it is wishful thinking on your part, i suspect.
end of the road is offline  
24-01-2020, 21:09   #1280
MoonUnit75
Registered User
 
MoonUnit75's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Posts: 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stateofyou View Post
Word salad... what does that statement even mean.
I’m (that’s me) quoting the articles from the red tops and the Mail (have referred to the tabloids) because that’s what the illiterates at Buzzfeed quote (because in order to discuss the ridiculous buzzfeed article I have to quote the tabloids that they quote, then you blame me for quoting the tabloids).
MoonUnit75 is offline  
Advertisement
24-01-2020, 21:11   #1281
MoonUnit75
Registered User
 
MoonUnit75's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Posts: 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stateofyou View Post
That's not why she's suing. Its nothing to do with whether or not she wrote it. You're being deliberately obtuse.
I (that’s me) am pointing out (illustrating an observation) that she (Meghan) is suing for something they printed that is true (ie. breach of privacy and copyright).
MoonUnit75 is offline  
Thanks from:
24-01-2020, 21:29   #1282
Stateofyou
Registered User
 
Stateofyou's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2019
Posts: 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoonUnit75 View Post
I’m (that’s me) quoting the articles from the red tops and the Mail (have referred to the tabloids) because that’s what the illiterates at Buzzfeed quote (because in order to discuss the ridiculous buzzfeed article I have to quote the tabloids that they quote, then you blame me for quoting the tabloids).
Are you drunk? You're out in space on a moon unit alright. Throughout this trainwreck topic, you've shared false information and baseless smears that you've pulled from all the trashy tabloids. You've talked about these stories as if they were fact. So yeah, you'll own that one I'm afraid. You're spinning around in stupid circles now.
Stateofyou is offline  
(2) thanks from:
24-01-2020, 21:34   #1283
cnocbui
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,359
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoonUnit75 View Post
I (that’s me) am pointing out (illustrating an observation) that she (Meghan) is suing for something they printed that is true (ie. breach of privacy and copyright).
I believe you are deliberately missing the point. The truth is irrelevant here. She's not accusing them of lying, she's accusing them of breaching the law on copyright. If she took a photo over which the paper had copyright and started using that photo in a way that was intended to bring her financial gain, they could sue her for breach of copyright. If a thief broke into J.K Rowling's house and stole a manuscript of a story she was working on, and a paper then publishes any part of it verbatim, they would be breaching her copyright.

It's got nothing to do with truth; just because Rowling's manuscript is the real deal and therefore true, in the sense of being genuine, the paper still has no right to breach copyright. Her father doesn't own the copyright on the letter either, he can't give it to the paper and say 'here, publish this, and where's my cheque?'

On the copyright question, it's as clear as day they breached her copyright on the letter. They could have commented on the letter and described what it said, but no, they published it in full, verbatim.
cnocbui is offline  
24-01-2020, 21:47   #1284
blinding
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 5,926
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui View Post
I believe you are deliberately missing the point. The truth is irrelevant here. She's not accusing them of lying, she's accusing them of breaching the law on copyright. If she took a photo over which the paper had copyright and started using that photo in a way that was intended to bring her financial gain, they could sue her for breach of copyright. If a thief broke into J.K Rowling's house and stole a manuscript of a story she was working on, and a paper then publishes any part of it verbatim, they would be breaching her copyright.

It's got nothing to do with truth; just because Rowling's manuscript is the real deal and therefore true, in the sense of being genuine, the paper still has no right to breach copyright. Her father doesn't own the copyright on the letter either, he can't give it to the paper and say 'here, publish this, and where's my cheque?'

On the copyright question, it's as clear as day they breached her copyright on the letter. They could have commented on the letter and described what it said, but no, they published it in full, verbatim.
Was the letter not Thomas Markle's property as soon as it reached him by post. I believe the legal situation is that as soon as the letter reach's the recipient then it is their legal property.
blinding is offline  
Advertisement
24-01-2020, 21:55   #1285
MoonUnit75
Registered User
 
MoonUnit75's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Posts: 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui View Post
I believe you are deliberately missing the point. The truth is irrelevant here. She's not accusing them of lying, she's accusing them of breaching the law on copyright. If she took a photo over which the paper had copyright and started using that photo in a way that was intended to bring her financial gain, they could sue her for breach of copyright. If a thief broke into J.K Rowling's house and stole a manuscript of a story she was working on, and a paper then publishes any part of it verbatim, they would be breaching her copyright.

It's got nothing to do with truth; just because Rowling's manuscript is the real deal and therefore true, in the sense of being genuine, the paper still has no right to breach copyright. Her father doesn't own the copyright on the letter either, he can't give it to the paper and say 'here, publish this, and where's my cheque?'

On the copyright question, it's as clear as day they breached her copyright on the letter. They could have commented on the letter and described what it said, but no, they published it in full, verbatim.
This thread moves fast so I’ll have to repeat how the conversation went.

Wotjek said “they know they can get taken to court for blatant lies or libel etc.”
Retro:electro replies to this “and that they are. Lol”
I replied to electro that it is ironic that they are in fact suing because of a story that is completely true.

Then the pack comes up with this bizarre argument that I am misrepresenting why they are suing. That. Is. Not. Even. Close. To. The. Point. I. Was. Making.
MoonUnit75 is offline  
Thanks from:
24-01-2020, 21:57   #1286
cnocbui
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,359
Quote:
Originally Posted by blinding View Post
Was the letter not Thomas Markle's property as soon as it reached him by post. I believe the legal situation is that as soon as the letter reach's the recipient then it is their legal property.
Yes, it becomes his property, but the copyright on it's contents remains Meghan's for at least 50 years.

Quote:
Mark Stephens, a libel and privacy expert at the law firm Howard Kennedy, said Meghan would “undoubtedly win the case”, but wondered whether it would ultimately be worth the “enormous price”. While she would win what he described as a “tiny legal battle”, he warned that she and her husband would comprehensively lose the “much broader war”.

He added: “The point about copyright is that it gives control to the person who has the copyright – in this case Meghan – and in those circumstances she can allow people to use the copyright or not use the copyright.

“What can’t happen is that Thomas Markle cannot unilaterally decide, nor indeed can the Mail on Sunday unilaterally decide, that they want to publish this material,”
cnocbui is offline  
Thanks from:
24-01-2020, 21:58   #1287
MoonUnit75
Registered User
 
MoonUnit75's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Posts: 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stateofyou View Post
Are you drunk? You're out in space on a moon unit alright. Throughout this trainwreck topic, you've shared false information and baseless smears that you've pulled from all the trashy tabloids. You've talked about these stories as if they were fact. So yeah, you'll own that one I'm afraid. You're spinning around in stupid circles now.
Can you be more specific please? I can’t respond to such a generalised accusation.
MoonUnit75 is offline  
24-01-2020, 22:01   #1288
cnocbui
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,359
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoonUnit75 View Post
This thread moves fast so I’ll have to repeat how the conversation went.

Wotjek said “they know they can get taken to court for blatant lies or libel etc.”
Retro:electro replies to this “and that they are. Lol”
I replied to electro that it is ironic that they are in fact suing because of a story that is completely true.

Then the pack comes up with this bizarre argument that I am misrepresenting why they are suing. That. Is. Not. Even. Close. To. The. Point. I. Was. Making.
You were wrong, don't whinge to me about the circumstances of your error. Meghan is not suing about lies vs truth, she's suing for breach of copyright and invasion of privacy.
cnocbui is offline  
24-01-2020, 22:07   #1289
Wojtek the Bear
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,556
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui View Post
You were wrong, don't whinge to me about the circumstances of your error. Meghan is not suing about lies vs truth, she's suing for breach of copyright and invasion of privacy.
Strange. To read some posts here it would seem she is suing because of their campaign of lies and vitriol. Or some nonsense like that.
Wojtek the Bear is offline  
Thanks from:
24-01-2020, 22:07   #1290
blinding
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 5,926
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui View Post
Yes, it becomes his property, but the copyright on it's contents remains Meghan's for at least 50 years.
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.
blinding is offline  
Post Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Remove Text Formatting
Bold
Italic
Underline

Insert Image
Wrap [QUOTE] tags around selected text
 
Decrease Size
Increase Size
Please sign up or log in to join the discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



Share Tweet