|
|
Currently no members online:)
You are an anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here |
We have 70 guests online !
|
|
|
|
|
Articles: Court refuses pooh case |
Posted by
feralucce on Tuesday, June 27, 2006 - 03:44 PM PST
FUCK!
FUCK, FUCK , FUCK!
As I age, I feel that I am beginning to mellow – or, perhaps – I am becoming so jaded that the sense of outrage is just harder to raise... Maybe I've almost burned it out... I dunno... but today, damn do I have a doozy...
I read... a lot. books, magazines, newspapers, online news. Sometimes, just sometimes, as I log on, (since windows has www.msn.com as the default in the xp environment and I am too lazy to change it) i see a headline and follow the link.
I'll be damned if I didn't see Supreme Court refuses Pooh appeal as a link on the top stories section. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13561401/ for the story. Before I knew what was happening, my fingers had done the walking and took me to it.
At this point I have to say it again. FUCK. After reading this story, I am too shocked to even be outraged.
1)the grand daughter of the man who wrote Winnie the Pooh wants royalties from the property.
2)She was not born when the property was written and sold
3)a district court tells her that this is a greedy and pretty dumb move on her part
4)she appeals
This, in and of itself is nothing bad...a little fucking stupid, but not bad. Upon doing some research (because of a comment in the story), you will find that the contract involving the property was written specifically to keep his family from reclaiming the rights, and it is implied that was HIS idea.
The courts agreed with the contract, but she wasted money and continued to appeal. Eventually, this case was appealed to the supreme court – the highest court in the land. Ecery case is brought before the court and they decide whether to hear the case. This, considering contracts, and the fact that she wasn't even alive when it was sold should be a no brainer. LET THE DECISION STAND.
It has been estimated that each case the supreme court hears and presides over costs the tax payers between $150,000 to $600,000. I want my money back. There was nothing in this case that had anything to do with constitutional issues or human rights or religious rights violations! WHAT THE FUCK?!? Why am I paying for this greedy bitch to sue disney for something that isn't hers – even in spirit?
My father used to say “When ever they make something fool proof, someone has to go and make a better idiot.” Weren't our old ones good enough?
And one more, because it bears repeating... FUCK!
|
|
| |
|
|
Average Rating : 3.5
Total ratings : 4
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court refuses pooh case | Login/Create an account | 10 Comments |
| Comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content. |
Re: Court refuses pooh case
by Sardonic-Pain (SarieOwnsGod@hotmail.com)
on Jun 27, 2006 - 05:00 PM
(User info | Send a Message)
http://myspace.com/sarietastic
|
What the fuck is more like it..........amazing how greedy people are...and its nothing new that Taxpayers dollars are wasted, shit most of the people sitting in jail right now have it better than me, and I'm paying for it lol......Truely amazing at the greediness of people, she should be inspired that grandfather wrote that and then aspire to make her own fortune with her own creativity....*shakes head* Its a shame
|
Re: Court refuses pooh case by feralucce (feralucce@wayoutonthecorner.com) on Jun 27, 2006 - 05:27 PM (User info | Send a Message) http://www.wayoutonthecorner.com/feralucce | and what's really sad is... if disney had been REALLY smart..they would have offered her a 1% back royalty settlement, that way when she appealed it would have stopped art teh state level... and she would have been told "they made a good faith attempt to pay... now piss off? |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Court refuses pooh case
by gothicmorman (litty_klj@hotmail.com)
on Jun 28, 2006 - 07:13 AM
(User info | Send a Message)
http://www.freewebs.com/gothicmorman
|
wow, just.. wow. (I can say it backwards- wow)
I can only imagine that A.A. Milne must be turning in his grave.
I swear the people are getting stupider and greedier by the day - but there is hope for the future! The Internet! Free spread of information and media. Eventually it will eradicate money and then there will be nothing to profit from. Haha, or so I would hope, in some sense. Unfortunately stupidity is not easily eradicated - at least not as long as they keep putting warning labels on things.
|
Re: Court refuses pooh case by dead-cell (freaksworth01@netscape.net) on Jun 30, 2006 - 04:12 PM (User info | Send a Message) | Speaking of the Internet; Popular Science published this article recently:
“What if the Internet were like cable television, with Web sites grouped like channels into either basic or premium offerings? What if a few big companies decided which sites loaded quickly and which ones slowly, or not at all, on your computer? Welcome to the brave new Web, brought to you by Verizon, Bell South, AT&T and the other telecommunications giants (including PopSci’s parent company, Time Warner) that are now lobbying Congress to block laws that would prevent a two-tiered Internet, with a fast lane for Web sites able to afford it and a slow lane for everyone else.
Specifically, such companies want to charge Web sites for the speedy delivery of streaming video, television, movies and other high-bandwidth data to their customers. If they get their way (Congress may vote on the matter before the year is out), the days of wide-open cyberspace are numbered.
As things stand now, the telecoms provide the lines—copper, cable or fiber-optic—and the other hardware that connects Web sites to consumers. But they don’t influence, or profit from, the content that flows to you from, say, cinemanow.com; they simply supply the pipelines. In effect, they are impartial middlemen, leaving you free to browse the entire Internet without worrying about connection speeds to your favorite sites.
That looks set to change. In April a House subcommittee rejected a measure by Representative Edward Markey of Massachusetts that would have prevented telecoms from charging Web sites extra fees based on bandwidth usage. The telecom industry sees such remuneration as fair compensation for the substantial cost of maintaining and upgrading the infrastructure that makes high-bandwidth services, such as streaming video, possible. Christopher Yoo, a professor at Vanderbilt University Law School, argues that consumers should be willing to pay for faster delivery of content on the Internet, just as many FedEx customers willingly shell out extra for overnight delivery. “A regulatory approach that allows companies to pursue a strategy like FedEx’s makes sense,” he says.
On a technical level, creating this so-called Internet fast lane is easy. In the current system, network devices called differentiated service routers prioritize data, assigning more bandwidth to, for example, an Internet telephone call or streaming video than to an e-mail message. With a tiered Internet, such routing technology could be used preferentially to deliver either the telecoms’ own services or those of companies who had paid the requisite fees.
What does this mean for the rest of us? A stealth Web tax, for one thing. “Google and Amazon and Yahoo are not going to slice those payments out of their profit margins and eat them,” says Ben Scott, policy director for Free Press, a nonprofit group that monitors media-related legislation. “They’re going to pass them on to the consumer. So I’ll end up paying twice. I’m going to pay my $29.99 a month for access, and then I’m going to pay higher prices for consumer goods all across the economy because these Internet companies will charge more for online advertising.”
Worse still, Scott argues, the plan stands to sour your Web experience. If, for instance, your favorite blogger refused to ante up, her pages would load more slowly on your computer than would content from Web sites that had paid the fees. Which brings up another sticking point: A tiered system would give established companies with deep pockets a huge competitive edge over cash-strapped start-ups consigned to slow lanes. “We have to remember that some of the companies that we now consider to be titans of the Internet started literally as guys in a garage,” Scott says.”That’s the beauty and the brilliance of the Internet, yet we’re cavalierly talking about tossing it out the window.’’“By Tim Folger
AND~ a link on the Popsci.com home page
"You may have read about the threat to the open Internet here on P
Read the rest of this comment... |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Court refuses pooh case by gothicmorman (litty_klj@hotmail.com) on Jul 02, 2006 - 09:46 AM (User info | Send a Message) http://www.freewebs.com/gothicmorman | Actiually yeah! I have heard of that!
Save The Internet Website
Save The Internet Myspace
They have an ad with Moby sitting on a guy making him call congress to tell them to save the internet. ^.^
Personally I think that entire thing is total bullshit - do they really think they can get away with letting internet companies bar peoples access? YEAH RIGHT! Nobody is going to stand for that! I hope to god it doesn't pass, and if it does I really hope it doesn't pass in any other countries! But if it does - there will probably be people who will make a new ISP offering unbarred access and get lots of business off it because everyone will switch to them.
Of course if people are not AWARE of the whole thing they won't know and it will end up being like TV (read: spoonfed).
Awareness is key to being less stupid. Or should I say stoopid, s2pid, and stewpid. |
[ No anonymous comments ]
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Court refuses pooh case
by Dolorosa (SixOfSwords@IU.zzn.com)
on Jun 29, 2006 - 11:59 AM
(User info | Send a Message)
|
I second your FUCK!
FUCK,FUCK,FUCK!
Wanna hunt her down? It'd be awesome, dude you could dress up like Tigger or Christopher Robin...I get dibs on Eeyore. It'd be like Quentin Tarantino meets the Hundred Acre Wood. Resevoir Pooh!
I understand what you mean about the sense of outrage getting jaded, it's happening to me too and is damn disturbing. I think we're getting lazy dude...we must not let the hateflow trickle to a stream of soft discontent! We must FROTH!
FROTH DAMMIT!
|
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Court refuses pooh case by Dolorosa (SixOfSwords@IU.zzn.com) on Jul 06, 2006 - 09:30 PM (User info | Send a Message) | Alright, but you know, the more I look at him the more I think he might actually be some sort of Armadillo, I mean...LOOK at him.
but yeah.
fuckfuckfuck |
[ No anonymous comments ]
POOH CORRECTION
by feralucce (feralucce@wayoutonthecorner.com)
on Jul 05, 2006 - 07:39 AM
(User info | Send a Message)
http://www.wayoutonthecorner.com/feralucce
|
FUCKING MSN
Pooh Lawsuit Ends
The U.S. Supreme Court on June 26 ended an attempt by
the granddaughter of Winnie-the-Pooh author A.A.
Milne, backed by the Walt Disney Co., to strip rights
to the popular children's books from the estate of
longtime Pooh licensee Stephen Slesinger, the Reuters
news service reported.
The case was filed in 2002 by Clare Milne to terminate
the Slesingers' rights to the character and reassign
them to Disney, starting in 2004.
Slesinger's widow and daughter have been battling
Disney for more than a decade over what they claim are
at least $700 million in unpaid royalties from Pooh.
Disney was not a party to Clare Milne's case, but the
company paid her legal expenses, according to an
appeals court opinion in December.
The Supreme Court declined to hear the case and let
stand decisions by two lower courts that Clare Milne
could not void a 1983 agreement renewing the
Slesingers' license, the news service reported.
|
|
|