Harry and Megan: How long will it last?

How long


  • Total voters
    169
  • Poll closed .
The Times:

Harry criticises ‘corporate greed and political failure’ for prolonging the pandemic

The Duke of Sussex compared coronavirus to HIV as he blamed “corporate greed and political failure” for prolonging the pandemic and urged pharmaceutical firms to waive intellectual property rights on vaccines.

In a YouTube video released yesterday to coincide with World Aids Day, Prince Harry renewed his plea for firms to share their jab technology so that a “people’s vaccine” can be delivered to poorer countries.
Not one once did you see Meghan’s (shut up Meg!) lips move when working him on camera. Boy she’s good.
 
Just breaking. The Mail on Sunday has lost its appeal, resulting in off the scale levels of smugness and verbal excretement gushing out of California.
Meghan:
“This is a victory not just for me, but for anyone who has ever felt scared to stand up for what’s right. While this win is precedent setting, what matters most is that we are now collectively brave enough to reshape a tabloid industry that conditions people to be cruel, and profits from the lies and pain that they create”.

Pass the bucket!
 

kimmi851

War Hero
Just breaking. The Mail on Sunday has lost its appeal, resulting in off the scale levels of smugness and verbal excretement gushing out of California.
Meghan:
“This is a victory not just for me, but for anyone who has ever felt scared to stand up for what’s right. While this win is precedent setting, what matters most is that we are now collectively brave enough to reshape a tabloid industry that conditions people to be cruel, and profits from the lies and pain that they create”.

Pass the bucket!

What she doesn't mention is that this was just a box ticking exercise - in front of the same judge who virtually coo'd "I want a knighthood and a pony and a place in the HoL for being nice to a member of the Royal Family" the whole time last time. It needed to be got through by the papers to get to a separate judge who might actually listen to any evidence at all. By which point I rather hope the papers have got all the evidence together (I am not normally vindictive - but she published and briefed many people about the letter herself in selected snippets and then cried shame on her father, who had kept it quiet when he thought it was private, released the whole thing thinking it was safe to do now part of it was in the public domain).
 

Dwarf

LE
Book Reviewer
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
You mean like some of the stuff in the BBC documentary covering William and Harry....

I imagine that the Palace's legal team will be issuing statements along the lines that 'the precedent clearly established by the ruling in favour of the Duchess of Sussex...'

The problem there, of course, is that the reporting of private conversations about the skin tone of baby Sussexes suddenly becomes one where the RF can have a reasonable expectation of a right to privacy, along with lots of other things which might have appeared in Netflix dramas, books and newspaper articles...

I imagine it'll also make things much, much worse for the Sussexes, because the Mail is likely to go for them - every little negative thing (the staff bullying will, I suspect, become a much bigger thing in the coming weeks) and it'll be plastered over the Mail's front page, gawd help us...
It's interesting, isn't it?

Two people demanding ultimate privacy on their own terms whilst being about as indiscrete as it's possible to be.
 
Just breaking. The Mail on Sunday has lost its appeal, resulting in off the scale levels of smugness and verbal excretement gushing out of California.
Meghan:
“This is a victory not just for me, but for anyone who has ever felt scared to stand up for what’s right. While this win is precedent setting, what matters most is that we are now collectively brave enough to reshape a tabloid industry that conditions people to be cruel, and profits from the lies and pain that they create”.

Pass the bucket!
So then liars prosper, how could the Judge possibly accept that she could misremember something as important as helping with the writing of the book? I have to admit being gobsmacked.
 
The Times:

Harry criticises ‘corporate greed and political failure’ for prolonging the pandemic

The Duke of Sussex compared coronavirus to HIV as he blamed “corporate greed and political failure” for prolonging the pandemic and urged pharmaceutical firms to waive intellectual property rights on vaccines.

In a YouTube video released yesterday to coincide with World Aids Day, Prince Harry renewed his plea for firms to share their jab technology so that a “people’s vaccine” can be delivered to poorer countries.

Why yes, we're going to invest tens, if not hundreds of millions of pounds in creating a world wide vaccine against something that's really, really nasty.

Then we will give it away for free, instead of ensuring we make our money back first.

What a chod!
 

anglo

LE
I was under the impression that if you're accused of something you could have your day in court,
if not pleading guilty to put your side of the story, more so when a new witness for the defendants
turn up, and the accuser sudden says "sorry I forgot about that"
It seems the judge is going out of his way to ensure this case does not go to trial.

Edit, how the hell can a judge award someone £450,000 without hearing the defendants
evidence in court
 
Last edited:
I was under the impression that if you're accused of something you could have your day in court,
if not pleading guilty to put your side of the story, more so when a new witness for the defendants
turn up, and the accuser sudden says "sorry I forgot about that"
It seems the judge is going out of his way to ensure this case does not go to trial.

Edit, how the hell can a judge award someone £450,000 without hearing the defendants
evidence in court
Reasonable sort of payday for having a faulty memory
 

bentobox

War Hero
I was under the impression that if you're accused of something you could have your day in court,
if not pleading guilty to put your side of the story, more so when a new witness for the defendants
turn up, and the accuser sudden says "sorry I forgot about that"
It seems the judge is going out of his way to ensure this case does not go to trial.

Edit, how the hell can a judge award someone £450,000 without hearing the defendants
evidence in court
Maybe the judge got awarded something?
 
I was under the impression that if you're accused of something you could have your day in court,
if not pleading guilty to put your side of the story, more so when a new witness for the defendants
turn up, and the accuser sudden says "sorry I forgot about that"
It seems the judge is going out of his way to ensure this case does not go to trial.

Edit, how the hell can a judge award someone £450,000 without hearing the defendants
evidence in court
If you are referring to the letter copyright case (which I haven't read), then it's a civil case, not criminal.

When looked at in broad terms copyright law is pretty straightforward. If you put something down in material form (e.g. write a book), then nobody is allowed to reproduce it without your permission (getting a license). This apparently applies to things like personal letters, not just books, movies, music CDs, etc.

That the Daily Mail reproduced the letter isn't in doubt.

The Daily Mail) must present a defence based on one of several different exceptions which are defined under copyright law. If they can't fit their defence into that, then they don't have a defence against copyright violation.

It would be a real struggle to fit a letter between two private citizens about nothing of any real importance into one of those exceptions. Once the precedent has been set that any personal letter meets the criteria of falling under copyright law there's not a lot of room for a judge to rule in favour of the Daily Mail.

If the Daily Mail had just paraphrased the letter instead of reproducing it exactly then there probably wouldn't be much that anyone could have done to touch them. If they simply copy it, then they have no real defence to present in court.

I suspect the Daily Mail knew they couldn't win a copyright case but decided that they would make enough money off the story to make it worth while doing it anyway.
 

Dwarf

LE
Book Reviewer
The Times:

Harry criticises ‘corporate greed and political failure’ for prolonging the pandemic

The Duke of Sussex compared coronavirus to HIV as he blamed “corporate greed and political failure” for prolonging the pandemic and urged pharmaceutical firms to waive intellectual property rights on vaccines.

In a YouTube video released yesterday to coincide with World Aids Day, Prince Harry renewed his plea for firms to share their jab technology so that a “people’s vaccine” can be delivered to poorer countries.
I haven't read or watched the interview and have no intention of doing so. However, while the pandemic is on a country can use existing exceptions in medicines patent law to reproduce any COVID-19 vaccine legally. The IP rights were already waived as a matter of law and were before the pandemic even started.

The real problems are first, that having the right to reproduce a vaccine doesn't give you the knowledge of how to make any vaccine. While vaccines are straightforward to explain in a broad sense there is a lot of knowledge involved which can't be acquired by reading the patents. It's like having a copy of the sheet music to a pop song doesn't make me a talented musician.

The people behind this campaign already tried to set up shop making Moderna's vaccine in South Africa, based on Modern'a patents using the above exception. They found out they didn't know how to make vaccines.

The second problem is that there are loads of vaccines out there which can be made, the Oxford vaccine being a good example. The root of the problem though is lack of manufacturing capacity for vaccines. Writing a tweet doesn't make a vaccine manufacturing facility pop up out of thin air, complete with skilled people and all the regulatory approvals. Building such a plant on a greenfield site takes 18 months to 2 years.

Moderna are setting up production in Africa (probably Senegal, in partnership with the government), but it will be 2023 at the earliest before any vaccine rolls out the door of these new plants.

This campaign doesn't address any practical issues. It's really about raising the profile of people whose usual causes (e.g. the environment) have been overshadowed by the pandemic. They are struggling in this environment because they are finding that getting something done is a lot harder than their usual work of stopping anything from being done.

India expect to have their population jabbed by the end of the year. They have already re-started vaccine exports. Expect to see a flood of vaccine hit the international market early next year. Before we are well into the year expect to see stories of poor countries turning back vaccine supplies because they can't use what they've already got (something that is already happening in South Africa).

So this campaign is just more self-serving bandwagon jumping by the usual suspects.
 
If you are referring to the letter copyright case (which I haven't read), then it's a civil case, not criminal.

When looked at in broad terms copyright law is pretty straightforward. If you put something down in material form (e.g. write a book), then nobody is allowed to reproduce it without your permission (getting a license). This apparently applies to things like personal letters, not just books, movies, music CDs, etc.

That the Daily Mail reproduced the letter isn't in doubt.

The Daily Mail) must present a defence based on one of several different exceptions which are defined under copyright law. If they can't fit their defence into that, then they don't have a defence against copyright violation.

It would be a real struggle to fit a letter between two private citizens about nothing of any real importance into one of those exceptions. Once the precedent has been set that any personal letter meets the criteria of falling under copyright law there's not a lot of room for a judge to rule in favour of the Daily Mail.

If the Daily Mail had just paraphrased the letter instead of reproducing it exactly then there probably wouldn't be much that anyone could have done to touch them. If they simply copy it, then they have no real defence to present in court.

I suspect the Daily Mail knew they couldn't win a copyright case but decided that they would make enough money off the story to make it worth while doing it anyway.
Would it not make a difference that the recipient of the letter made it available to the Mail?

I think if I were making a case it would be against her father for making a private letter available to the press to publish
 

Latest Threads

Top