(August 3, 2010 at 6:54 pm)Paul the Human Wrote: Well, I wouldn't say that it's no different, but I basically agree. She gave implied consent to have her image included in the film by dancing for the camera, but she did not give consent to have her shirt pulled down by someone else. I think that, legally, it is kind of a grey area, because she had already given implied consent and took no action to retract that consent once her bare nipple was exposed.Drunk people are certainly the model of memory, action and forethought.
It is a grey area of consent in contract law, leaning towards the black. It's a bad idea to loosen weak contracts in an already litigious society full of corporate entities given similar rights to individuals but with magnitudes more resources.
(August 3, 2010 at 6:54 pm)Paul the Human Wrote: I wouldn't defend what GGW did/does, but the high priced lawyers they have on retainer do a mighty fine job of it, I'm sure. This is just a case of a jury being convinced by the case they were presented with. It doesn't make them right, but it is the way the system works.
Then the system is corrupt when a team of high priced lawyers can redefine contract law to a jaded audience. But then again, Hollywood has been terrorizing the entirety of file sharing community regardless of their actions for years.
I've always hated the ability for corporations to buy verdicts through legal teams, jurisdiction shopping and pre-settlement letters.
