Even more reason to pirate.
this post was submitted on 17 Aug 2024
1120 points (99.3% liked)
Lemmy Shitpost
26862 readers
3036 users here now
Welcome to Lemmy Shitpost. Here you can shitpost to your hearts content.
Anything and everything goes. Memes, Jokes, Vents and Banter. Though we still have to comply with lemmy.world instance rules. So behave!
Rules:
1. Be Respectful
Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.
Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.
...
2. No Illegal Content
Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.
That means:
-No promoting violence/threats against any individuals
-No CSA content or Revenge Porn
-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)
...
3. No Spam
Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.
-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.
-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.
-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers
-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.
...
4. No Porn/Explicit
Content
-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.
-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.
...
5. No Enciting Harassment,
Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts
-Do not Brigade other Communities
-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.
-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.
-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.
...
6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.
...
If you see content that is a breach of the rules, please flag and report the comment and a moderator will take action where they can.
Also check out:
Partnered Communities:
1.Memes
10.LinuxMemes (Linux themed memes)
Reach out to
All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules. Striker
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Let's revolt. Let's burn down every store in town. Do it like the french.
/s
load more comments
(3 replies)
Hold on i just realised
Some arbitration clauses work both ways, meaning disney can't sue you just as much as you can't sue them
So in theory if you signed up for a free trial or something, pirating (and distributing) any disney content would be absolutely legal
Edit:
Ok i looked up their terms of use (which was slightly harder because of the pile of articles about the latest lawsuit), and they have their bums covered:
- BINDING ARBITRATION AND CLASS
(...)
You and Disney agree to resolve, by binding individual arbitration as provided below, all Disputes (...) except for: (...) (ii) any dispute relating to the ownership or enforcement of intellectual property rights. (...)
Source: https://disneytermsofuse.com/english/#BINDING-ARBITRATION-AND-CLASS-ACTION-WAIVER, accesed 2024-08-17
Edit 2: added formatting to the quote
Probably not, they say that you agree to settle your disputes with x corporation through arbitration, nothing about x corporation's disputes with you. Don't test the most expensive lawyers in the world, especially when they get to pick the arbitor.
I am not saying that's a good idea, but i know that for example discord's arbitration clauze explicitly states that it works both ways, so it's not impossible that disney's does too
That they have a specific exception for IP tells me all what they really think about their customers.
that's not how it works. the law does not exist to protect you; it exists to make you tolerate your exploitation and feel like it's fair.
edit: fixed one letter.
I wouldn't even say that. The law exists to protect the powerful and doesn't care if it feels fair to you or not.
load more comments
(1 replies)
That's why they pay the lawyers
So if you were to burn down a Disney resort, they'd have to arbitrate?
No, the terms forfeit your right to a judge/jury not theirs
Do not make me read their ToS...
A lady died after having an allergic reaction eating at a restaurant at Disneyland. Her husband sued Disney and their lawyers are arguing that her husband has no grounds to sue because he once signed up for a free trial of Disney+ and the TOS says you forfeit your right to sue Disney and must use binding arbitration instead.
Just want to point out that the allergic person seemed to have taken every precautions possible to avoid this. She asked the waiter and the chef multiple times to verify that the allergen wouldn't be there and they repeatedly said it was the case.
I think there were 4 times where they confirmed that the meal was safe. It wasn't at all.
So it looked like a really really bad mistake from the restaurant staff.
load more comments
(7 replies)
this is why you pirate, so it's still illegal for them to literally murder your wife.
satire is fucking dead. NEVER consume media legally. not if you have anyone you care about in your life. I wish this was a fucking joke,
like, when I read 'farenheit 451' and 'free culture' I thought I knew how fucking horrible and dystopian corporate control of culture could be. I had some pretty grim images in my mind, and got really into having my own copies of things outside the bounds of the various laws. then this shit happened.
NEVER consume media legally
Given our current economic system and supposing that you can't change it for now, how would you support a living for media creators (movies, shows, games, art, music, whatever)?
Genuine question. I find myself on the fence about this. Currently, I consume media legally due to several reasons:
- Supporting the creators and thereby incentivising them to produce more of stuff which I enjoyed.
- I can afford it.
- I would like to keep it legal.
Stuff like this (although not affected since I don't live in a country with that shitty laws), but also the decline of quality products as a result of companies trying to maximize their profit margins by producing a lot of cheap trash, as well as the criminalization of consumers and the fact that the profits are not shared equally among the creators but rather a few get the most while the rest gets some pennies (an issue present in virtually every business), make me really favour the idea of getting a pirate hat.
However:
If everyone would do this, this would lead to the death of the media industry, since no one would be able to pay for the productions and everyone involved anymore.
How would get those productions then?
Really, I think the only way to change this is to impose much better laws on the one hand and switch to a different, better, economic system on the other hand. But I don't see these things coming soon. Which leaves me with staying legal.
I would like to read your thoughts on that. (And those of everyone else who wants to chime in.)
The media industry, like several other industries in America, is never going to shed its yoke unless it is destroyed and rebuilt from the ground up. It's the unfortunate truth. The destruction of the media giants would be very bad for individual creators in the short term and potentially the only way to actually regain control of their industry in the long term.
I say, let 'em burn. You can't stop humans from making art, but we can stop working for Disney's bottom line. But that's easy for me to say as someone who doesn't make their living from that.
Given our current economic system and supposing that you can’t change it for now, how would you support a living for media creators (movies, shows, games, art, music, whatever)?
They don't deserve support if they stand behind a company that waives off liability of a death because of a completely unrealted EULA.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
Same's true if you sell something on Etsy
The FTC has really gotten off their ass this year and I hope they take action against this arbitration clause bullshit because it needs to be illegal. Considering this is the second time this week I've heard about a cooperation doing this I can only assume it's more common than we think. No fucking way a company should just be able to say "You can't sue us if we violate your rights."
I've been opting out of every single one, but some companies are assholes and make you send it in through a written letter (Meta) or worse, automatically accept it if you've even just used the app/site/product after they send an email to you regarding changes. The fact that massive corporations also say all matters must be resolved in small claims court and with mandatory arbitration with the company's arbitrator is incredibly illegal sounding. Fuck you AT&T. They were the company who fought for revoking arbitration rights in contracts. The Supreme Court decided it was legal.
Ah yes, our old friends the Supreme Court.
doing a hell of a lot worse than suing them needs to be normalized.
not just agents and property of corporations who piss you off, but their executives, and any corporate lawyer or judge.
edit: to remind them why they try to gaslight us with the courts. if you care about the law, break it. if you don't, also break it.
Putting myself in her husband's shoes, I can't tell how I'd feel about this meme. On one hand, it trivializes his tragedy a little bit, on the other hand, it's evidence that society is generally outraged about this.
I'm going with the outrage side here: the fact that they are even suggesting that this is legal footing is an affront to humanity
Difference between this and helium is helium follows rules of the universe, and this fucking contract law is human-enforced.
Not if you pirate it
I just watched this show for the first time while tripping with some friends... It's so fuckin good we finished the entire season lol
What show is this?
Ed, Edd, and Eddy. Apparently the show is back with a new animation style.
Edit: /s
Uh, "The Mandalorian"? Maybe you meant smt else idk
Just don't forget to tell your wife
Nvm im stupid, you meant the show with the guys talking, whoops
I did some digging and it seems like the family's suit should actually be against the pub that was renting the in-park space from Disney. It's just unfortunate that the prevalence of corporate propaganda in news media, especially in what would be a critical period for Disney to invest in damage control for their public image, makes it difficult to confidently believe one thing or the other in light of that finding.
I never cared much for Disney to begin with, so I won't waste any more time with verification. Regardless, the suit definitely shouldn't be dismissed on their argument of the arbitration agreement alone because it would set an awful precedent, even if the suit itself happens to be toothless. I wouldn't put it past Disney to try to take advantage of the situation to that end (They may be hoping the suit will be dismissed for arbitration because the judge already knows the suit is pointless so that future legitimate lawsuits against them for wrongful deaths in their park can be more easily dismissed on the same grounds).
I just don't get why Disney would go to that extent when the lawsuit should have easily been disregarded as not applicable to them. Digging up an old Disney+ membership to find some terms which could apply seems like a terrible PR move for their service.
It's an interesting legal test case (which I hope Disney would lose) but this is certainly the wrong time to try it out.
I did some digging and it seems like the family’s suit should actually be against the pub that was renting the in-park space from Disney. It’s just unfortunate that the prevalence of corporate propaganda in news media
He is suing both Disney and the pub. The pub obviously because they were negligent and Disney because it is in Disney World. It is up to the court to decide how much liability Disney should have vs. the pub, if any.
I doubt Disney would be able to successfully argue that just because the restaurant is leasing space in Disney World that they have zero liability but that's up to the court.
He is suing both Disney and the pub. The pub obviously because they were negligent and Disney because it is in Disney World. It is up to the court to decide how much liability Disney should have vs. the pub, if any.
It could very well be in the contract with the pub that Disney requires allergenic options to be available and the space doesn't have sufficient space to keep those ingredients separate. In such an instance Disney absolutely bare a significant amount of responsibility.
I read that in Charlie's voice! Honestly, sounds legit. But....I'm single. No wife here! hahahaha..ha..ha...cries
Hell yeah smiling friends meme format!!!
Arrrrrr!
view more: next ›