Artists, merch sellers, and journalists making and posting Luigi media have become the targets of bogus DMCA claims.
Wait the insurance company think it owns the likeness of the assassin that took out their ceo.
What the fuck?
So how about merch with ceo and board members’ names and addresses on it?
“We’re sorry to inform you that an intellectual property claim has been filed by UnitedHealth Group Inc against this design of yours on TeePublic”
If UnitedHealth really filed that claim, they’re even more tone-deaf than I thought.
‘There is no world in which the copyright of a watercolor painting of Luigi Mangione surveillance footage done by Kenaston is owned by United Health Group as it quite literally has nothing to do with anything that the company owns.’
wake up and smell the daisies United Health Group owns everything and everyone in North America
She got an email from TeePublic that said “We’re sorry to inform you that an intellectual property claim has been filed by UnitedHealth Group Inc against this design of yours on TeePublic,” and said “Unfortunately, we have no say in which designs stay or go” because of the DMCA. This is not true—platforms are able to assess the validity of any DMCA claim and can decide whether to take the supposedly infringing content down or not. But most platforms choose the path of least resistance and take down content that is obviously not infringing; Kenaston’s clearly violates no one’s copyright. Kenaston appealed the decision and TeePublic told her: “Unfortunately, this was a valid takedown notice sent to us by the proper rightsholder, so we are not allowed to dispute it,” which, again, is not true.
It’s time to boycott TeePublic.
Don’t go that far. Just ask someone to sign their name to the statement that they truly believe that UHG literally owns the likeness of the dude who (allegedly) shot one of their CEOs so you can call them a fucking moron by name online.
Done. TeePublic is dead to me.
I wonder who saw this coming?
Was it stallman again?
Yeah it really was. It’s annoying and terrifying how right Richard stallman always is.
I mean, I can’t say he’s the only or the first one to say anything similar
Was he right when he wrote “I think it is morally absurd to define ‘rape’ in a way that depends on minor details such as which country it was in or whether the victim was 18 years old or 17”?
Out of context, I see nothing wrong with that. Rape is rape. Location and age shouldn’t be a factor in deciding whether something qualifies as rape or merely sexual assault. And while we’re at it, can we also get rid of the ass-backwards criteria in some jurisdictions that make being penetrated a requirement?
Maybe so, but it’s also like “is this really the hill you want to die on?”
What “maturity” is is a complicated and nuanced subject. Hell, some 50 year olds are less mature than 16 years old, what implications might that have? Not to mention how to even quantitatively measure maturity. You’re getting out in the weeds in a similar way of how you would regarding intelligence
At some point you just have to pick your poison, and saying “18 years is the age of consent” and strong protections for victims is considered good enough for most.
Edit: on re-reading, you didn’t say what I thought you said, that’s my bad, either way, I’ll keep this comment up assuming that stallman was arguing for changing age of consent laws.
Wild to assume that and not the much more reasonable idea that he was pointing out how absolutely insane it is that a couple can be making love in one area and cross an imaginary line and suddenly it’s rape because one of them is 17 and the other 19.
Fine, look into the original https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman#Comments_about_Jeffrey_Epstein_scandal
The context was about Jeffrey Epstein
After reading the entire section I still don’t think I see your point of view. He says clearly that the girl was being harmed and doesn’t defend Epstein, in fact, criticizes him. It’s gross, but seems accurate to assume Epstein would have made his victims lie and act.
My point was that the context was about age of consent laws. I believe stallman backtracked afterwards a little, but he also has a history of skeevy behaviour, so I don’t know how much benefit of the doubt he should be given
Either way, the point was more regarding the whole “this is the hill you’re willing to die on?”, he could have just kept his mouth shut
I’m not really invested in the conversation regarding stallman, there are a couple of other additional reasons why I’m uncertain about him, but I leave this stuff to the organizations and the people affected. I just tried providing more context for the whole thing surrounding stallman, and why this stuff is not baseless
Saying one correct thing doesn’t mean everything else you say is right
So they claim copyright.
So that means they admitted to orchestrated the assasination?
I mean I hate them as much as everyone else but that’s a bit of a jump.
