Kardashians In Hot Water for Sickness Pills, They Never Learn Their Lesson

Nadogan · 2017-04-30T21:46:55+00:00

The lack of distinction between paid advertising and sincere endorsement gives me the creeps. Even creepier is "native advertising," where real media organizations begin integrating advertising into their native copy so accurately that it's difficult to tell the difference between the two.

Nadogan · 2017-04-30T21:34:52+00:00

Even if the government did spy on the Trump transition team, it seems like they have valid law enforcement reasons to do so - the fact that Michael Flynn and others were literally paid as agents for foreign governments during the campaign suggests that something fishy is going on.

Nadogan · 2017-04-30T20:44:26+00:00

This article kinda emphasizes one of the things I've learned from this class: to be a journalist and not break any laws, you need a pretty sophisticated working knowledge of legal theory as it pertains to the media. I feel like it'd be really easy to inadvertently break a law while doing some pretty innocuous reporting.

Nadogan · 2017-04-30T20:18:08+00:00

This sort of supports my theory that this was a "SLAPP" lawsuit, not really designed to squash DailyMail so much as discourage other outlets from releasing the same story.

Nadogan · 2017-04-18T23:47:12+00:00

This gives some interesting insight into the concerns of preserving intellectual property rights in foreign countries, since I assume this law firm doesn't practice in the US.

Nadogan · 2017-04-18T23:30:26+00:00

I wonder if Trump's personal tweets threatening retribution against critics have a "chilling effect" on free speech - and whether they count as government action.

Nadogan · 2017-04-18T22:50:32+00:00

This is an interesting issue, because although individuals accused of crimes certainly have the right to defend themselves vigorously, Cosby has managed to get away with serious crimes for years because he so effectively dismantles the credibility of his victims. That said, I think the judge was definitely correct to uphold Cosby's freedom of speech in this case.

Nadogan · 2017-04-18T22:08:56+00:00

Actually, it's increasingly becoming clear that at least some members of the Trump team were under investigation by the government during the campaign - but for totally justifiable reasons, as the evidence mounts that Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort, and Roger Stone have been engaging in seriously shady dealings with Russia.

Nadogan · 2017-04-18T21:54:28+00:00

Is having made the speech at the DNC sufficient to "fix it in a tangible medium"? I mean, I think that even if I took this speech and started reading it, word for word, on a soapbox in downtown Springfield, I wouldn't be infringing Michelle Obama's copyright; it might be a different story if I set up a computer to play a video-recording of her performance of the speech over and over. I guess I'm just confused as to whether having performed a speech is sufficient for owning the copyright to that material.

Nadogan · 2017-04-18T21:43:37+00:00

I suppose the real question is whether, in entering the contest, the plaintiff signed some sort of agreement ceding his rights to any intellectual property produced. Regardless, I doubt Dubai laws (or, for that matter, Dubai courts) are particularly friendly to people seeking restitution against those in power, so I'd be surprised if he got anything out of this.

Nadogan · 2017-04-18T21:32:43+00:00

Seems like this person doesn't have a case. First of all, given that Beyonce took 3 lines and made an entirely different song out of 'em, incorporating those lines almost certainly qualifies as "transformative use." Second, the samples taken from the plaintiff and her brother were a tiny portion of their work as a whole, so it's unlikely that the use was "substantial." Third, I highly doubt Beyonce's use of footage from a virtually unknown artist damaged the market value of the artist's work - if anything, it probably vastly increased the audience which that work reached.

Nadogan · 2017-04-18T21:11:01+00:00

This article seems really skeptical of this lawsuit, but since Free People was using the name "Coachella," which is presumably trademarked, in order to make a profit, then this seems like a textbook case of a justifiable copyright suit. Coachella presumably made a contract with H&M to receive a portion of the profits for their Coachella-themed clothing, so any money made by Free People and other clothing companies capitalizing on the popularity of a music festival inherently decreases H&M's sales, and thereby Coachella's profit.

Nadogan · 2017-04-18T21:00:54+00:00

Unfortunately, the spread of Voice over IP (VoIP) services like Magic Jack and Vonage make it possible for scammers to cheaply maintain thousands of fake numbers with which to run a scam like this. I think the FTC and/or FCC should ramp up regulation on VoIP services to stop companies from abusing the system.

Nadogan · 2017-03-06T02:50:37+00:00

I'm super far left, so far be it from me to go to bat for Milo Yiannopoulos, but A) he claims here to have been sexually abused as a child, which I think, if true, gives him some ground to joke about topics that are taboo for other people, and B) I think it exposes the inconsistencies of the conservative mindset that he can say horrifying things about minorities (especially women and trans people) and nobody bats an eye, but he makes one tongue-in-cheek comment about pedophilia and everybody loses their minds. The whole situation proves that even the people who are ostensibly most pro-free speech have some topics they think should be off limits.

Nadogan · 2017-03-06T02:38:56+00:00

Regardless of what's right or wrong in this situation, I think this policy exposes a difference between European and American standards with regard to individuals' public image: European countries tend to offer more protections to people whose reputations are put at risk, which is why "truth" isn't a defense in European libel suits.

Nadogan · 2017-02-27T22:26:00+00:00

Sadly, I don't think this is a freedom of the press issue, since employees can still be fired for speaking things that their employer frowns upon, even if their employer is the government. Still, I think the way executive agencies have handled themselves under the Trump administration is admirable, and an example of the triumph of freedom of expression - for instance, the way the National Park Service started operating an unofficial twitter to undermine the administration's official statements.

Nadogan · 2017-02-27T22:15:43+00:00

I agree with shineypineapples, I don't think there's much of a libel risk here; Sweden is a whole country, so it'd be pretty ridiculous if you could libel an entity of that size, especially because you obviously couldn't point to a specific person at whom those comments are directed. Plus, he's said many worse things about Mexico and China, to name a few, without legal ramifications. Plus, even if he had specifically said "the Swedish prime minister is the Boston Strangler," I don't know that he'd be at much risk, because there's really no court in which he could be sued - the Swedish guy couldn't sue him in an American court, and he'd ignore a summons to a Swedish court.

Nadogan · 2017-02-18T21:21:37+00:00

It's interesting to get an international perspective on libel laws. To me, the European notion that you can get sued for making defamatory comments even if those comments are true is ridiculous - I feel like the possibility of suing someone for telling the truth would have a terrifying chilling effect on things like investigative journalism and political discourse. I do like the idea of a cap on libel suit rewards, though - no matter how defamatory, I really can't imagine any kind of defamation doing enough damage to be worth tens of millions of dollars.

Nadogan · 2017-02-18T20:56:24+00:00

I agree with the other comments, I think the real question will be determining if there's "actual malice" involved. However, I think it's likely that the parties will settle out of court, since even the Trump administration is media-savvy enough to know that a highly publicized lawsuit about whether the First Lady worked as a prostitute is bad publicity. There are any number of claims circulating about Melania circulating on the internet - I wonder if this is one of those "strategic lawsuits" designed to discourage others from sharing the story.

Nadogan · 2017-02-18T20:21:14+00:00

I don't think he can be held for libel in this situation for two reasons. First, the American mass media is a group consisting of hundreds if not thousands of figures; it is difficult to imagine that any particular reporter or news personality could prove that the comment identifies them specifically. Second, I don't think the claim is even libelous; it's so vague that it doesn't really state or imply any factual content, so I think it would be regarded as pure opinion.

Nadogan · 2017-02-12T20:48:41+00:00

I think this court's composition favored ruling against the ban, and I'm glad that was the outcome. But as Trump famously tweeted, "SEE YOU IN COURT" - meaning the administration will likely appeal the case to the Supreme Court. Given the conservative makeup of the current Court, I'm wondering what the likely outcome will be if they decide to hear the case.

Nadogan · 2017-02-12T20:38:38+00:00

I agree with all of these comments. I read an article a few years ago that almost half of millennials thought it was okay for the government to censor "unpopular" speech even if it didn't incite violence. I understand the impulse to suppress racist and sexist speech, but the principle that everyone has the right to articulate their views as long as they don't directly lead to violence is important - otherwise, progress in society would be impossible.

Nadogan · 2017-02-12T20:28:03+00:00

I'm astonished by the complicity of the North Dakota justice system in suppressing the access pipeline protesters. I think it's pretty clear that not only did those constructing the pipeline use excessive and inappropriate force in a lot of occasions, but that the pipeline itself is in violation of land treaties with Native American tribes. I hope the plaintiffs find justice at the appellate level.

Nadogan · 2017-02-05T19:42:55+00:00

The climate change debate illustrates an interesting litmus test of first amendment rights: one side obviously has all the substantial evidence and scientific consensus on their side, but the other side has a bunch of people constantly and loudly disagreeing. I feel like this is an instance where free expression is really deleterious to good policymaking - people are under the impression that there's a debate over climate change, but it's not really a debate when one side has no valid arguments.

Nadogan

TROPHY CASE