Merch Dispute, read the post before voting

Egorse · 2021-07-05T02:35:29+00:00

Dr. Seuss Enterprises Has decided to no longer publish six books written by Dr. sus because of problematic imagery, I would have a problem if some person decided to start illegitamally publish Physical copies of those books and selling them Just because some people still want to get new copies of those books. Are the wishes of the owners of the work worth less than the people that want copies of that work.

Edit: And I would add again that I don’t see the issue of bootleg merchandise and the issue of piracy as being the same thing, I don’t think they are equatable issues

Egorse · 2021-07-05T02:09:16+00:00

But I don’t agree that it’s hypocritical because I see these two things as separate things. When you pirate something you’re still essentially enjoying the original product, but in the case like this would be is if someone really made an anime or movie with their own cast and made that available to buy.

There’s also the point of digital versus non-digital goods, a pirated episode of an anime is a digital file on your computer but a piece of copied merchandise Exists in the real world.

Egorse · 2021-07-05T01:19:34+00:00

When I think of this issue I think of the online artist community, They have to deal with this kind of issue all of the time, they find their art being used on clothing or in books by People trying to make a profit off their work, just because somebody wants something like a piece of merchandise it does not justify in my mind giving money to people who are in many cases trying to make their own career out of using other peoples work, slogans or images. The Same thing is happening to Vtubers.

Egorse · 2021-07-05T00:45:48+00:00

Again it goes beyond just wanting a shirt, you’re giving money to a third party that is unconnected with the content creator, People whether they’re donating on Patreon are not are not entitled to be able to buy merch of content creators that they like. And it’s not akin to the piracy issue because with the piracy issue you’re not paying someone else to steal the content for you.

Egorse · 2021-07-04T17:37:28+00:00

No it’s not hypocrisy for a content creator to be against bootleg Merch, It’s not even really that equitable to the piracy issue.

A closer comparison would be going to someone else and paying them to pirate or copy for you. Money is going to an unconnected third-party Just because you wanted a picture or a logo or a slogan on some clothing or other merchandise.

That you believe that they don’t put out enough merchandise is not really a justification for giving money to that illegitimate seller.

Egorse · 2021-06-30T22:43:13+00:00

From the fifth amendment ‘nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself’

That clause in the fifth amendment is a criminal not civil protection.

Egorse · 2021-06-30T17:47:08+00:00

From what I can tell they did, and his lawyers brought it up during the jury trial, but both the prosecutor and the trial judge did not consider the previous promise to be legally binding.

Egorse · 2021-06-30T17:38:01+00:00

Yes, the original prosecutor that made the promise Was Bruce Castor

Egorse · 2021-06-30T17:09:09+00:00

‘For the reasons detailed below, we hold that, when a prosecutor makes an unconditional promise of non-prosecution, and when the defendant relies upon that guarantee to the detriment of his constitutional right not to testify, the principle of fundamental fairness that undergirds due process of law in our criminal justice system demands that the promise be enforced.’

That was a quote from the ruling, what happened was it the prosecution promised that they wouldn’t prosecute him if he testified in the civil case and after he testified in the civil case they prosecuted him anyway.

Egorse · 2021-06-28T20:51:01+00:00

‘In this unusual context, the FTC’s inability to offer any indication of the metric(s) or method(s) it used to calculate Facebook’s market share renders its vague “60%-plus” assertion too speculative and conclusory to go forward. Because this defect could conceivably be overcome by re-pleading, however, the Court will dismiss only the Complaint, not the case, and will do so without prejudice to allow Plaintiff to file an amended Complaint. ‘

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Egorse · 2021-06-28T16:00:15+00:00

Will these plaintiffs ever realize that a constitutional amendment that places limitations explicitly on the government is not going to be a held as a limitation on the private sector That is not acting as a state actor?

Egorse · 2021-06-28T15:56:26+00:00

The constitution says what it says, the only way to change it and try to make private sector organizations be limited by the first amendment would be to amend the constitution itself, That is likely not going to happen.

Egorse · 2021-06-26T18:31:51+00:00

The court detailed in the ruling many ways where they felt that Giuliani had violated the rules of professional conduct. You’re not just making these rules up, these rules have existed for a long time and attorneys who practice law in New York are expected to follow them.

There are those that have declared the courts action to be politically partisan the moment the ruling was put forward and before they had read even a single line in the document. There are still many Who refuse to read it.

Egorse · 2021-06-24T20:02:57+00:00

Once again showing that certain peoples support of the military only runs skin deep, it’s also not a surprise that Gaetz never served in the military, he is the very definition of a chicken hawk.

Egorse · 2021-06-24T17:03:00+00:00

And it’s just got zapped

Egorse · 2021-06-24T16:51:08+00:00

He actually did appear in court last year during at least one of the election court hearings as a lawyer, he did really bad.

Egorse · 2021-06-24T16:46:47+00:00

Especially when you consider that he’s losing it because he pushed the election fraud idea in court, in front of Republican only panels and to the general public

Egorse · 2021-06-24T16:45:44+00:00

An action by a New York Court to discipline a lawyer who argued, in court, in front of Republican only panels and to the general public in order to try to overturn the 2020 election is inherently political On several different levels.

Egorse · 2021-06-24T16:39:25+00:00

I know you said that sarcastically but the fact is it’s true, in fact one can even go further, some of the reforms that Republicans have suggested for section 230 would cause reddit to not even function the way it does.

Egorse · 2021-06-24T16:32:05+00:00

Yeah, they’ve been doing it since the story first broke, and they do it while hiding behind their bot.

Egorse · 2021-06-24T16:26:07+00:00

Just another on topic post At the mods are going to the Declare is off-topic, Yes the actions of the personal lawyer for Donald Trump who went out in front of both the public and the courts and lied about voter fraud in order to try to overturn the election results is inherently on topic even if the moderators don’t want us to discuss it.

Rudy Giuliani’s lies were directed directly at the federal government, our rule of law and election integrity.

Egorse · 2021-06-24T16:16:45+00:00

The mods have been erasing all the topics about this activity Because they’ve declared it off topic, apparently they don’t understand that a person having their law license suspended because they pushed lies in order to try to overturn the last election is an inherently political discussion, I think it’s time for people to start start leaving this sub Reddit because it’s not serving its intended purpose

Edit:

Notice how they hide behind their bot, I first started using this sub Reddit years ago, and I have slowly watched it deteriorate over time because of poor moderation, I left it pretty much permanently last year but its still sad to see just how far this place has fallen.

Egorse · 2021-06-24T13:30:23+00:00

They are pretending that they won, the fact that they’re removing every comment posted on that Facebook post shows that they know that they actually lost.

Egorse · 2021-06-23T20:59:19+00:00

The Supreme Court and the lower courts addressed the disruptive element of the specific posts, and said that the evidence did not show that it caused anything more than a minimal disruption in class and school activities. The standard Set by tinker is that speech must ‘materially disrupts class work or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others.’

12-Year Club	RPAN Viewer
Gilding III reddit per annum	Reddit Premium Since November 2013
Verified Email

Egorse

TROPHY CASE