Demandan al Pato Donald por tocar...y no a Daisy.

Agencia EFE

FILADELFIA - Una mujer que alega que un hombre con un disfraz del Pato Donald le tocó un seno cuando visitaba el parque temático Epcot de Disney, en la Florida, podrá continuar con su demanda.

Un juez federal en Filadelfia determinó que los abogados de Disney deberán ir a la corte para defenderse de la demanda que presentó April Magolon, argumentando que sufre estrés postraumático.

La mujer de 27 años de Pensilvania alega que estaba caminando con su hijo en el parque de Walt Disney World cuando un integrante del personal le agarró un seno y luego bromeó sobre ello.

Magolon dijo que el incidente, ocurrido en mayo de 2008, le ocasionó pesadillas, problemas digestivos y otras lesiones permanentes.

La mujer también alega que los parques de Disney tienen un historial de quejas por toques inapropiados.

La defensa de Disney argumentaba que Magolon demandó a la rama equivocada de la empresa y le pidió al juez que descartara el caso o lo trasladara a Florida, pero el juez determinó que el proceso judicial podía continuar en Pensilvania.

Bueno...¿Que esperan de alguien que no se entiende lo que habla, esta siempre de mal humor y no lleva pantalones? El Pato Donald es el Mel Gibson del mundo animado.

Woman sues Starbucks in NYC over hot tea!

It has happened again!

Starbucks Corp has been sued by a customer who allegedly suffered second-degree burns after being served tea that was too hot.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff Zeynep Inanli was served tea that was "unreasonably hot, in containers which were not safe," at a Starbucks store at 685 Third Avenue in Manhattan.

As a result of Starbucks' negligence, the plaintiff suffered "great physical pain and mental anguish," including the burns, the complaint said.

The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages. Starbucks, based in Seattle, did not immediately return requests for comment.

The plaintiff's lawyer did not immediately return a call for comment. Retailers periodically face lawsuits for serving beverages at temperatures that customers say are too high.

In one well-known case, a jury in 1994 ordered McDonald's Corp to pay $2.86 million to Stella Liebeck, an Albuquerque, New Mexico woman who claimed she scalded herself with the restaurant's coffee.

The parties later settled.

In the cup, there's a warning label that says; "Careful, the contents you are about to enjoy could be extremely hot!

What part of "Extremely hot!" didn't she understand?

Images via Getty Images

J.K. Rowlings hit with plagarism suit!

She's being hitting everybody with one, it's refreshing to see that somebody has recognized what she is; a hack!

SYDNEY – J.K. Rowling has been named in a lawsuit alleging she stole ideas for her wildly popular and lucrative "Harry Potter" books from another British author.

The estate of the late Adrian Jacobs on Wednesday added Rowling as a defendant in a lawsuit it filed in June against Bloomsbury Publishing PLC for alleged copyright infringement, according to a statement released by the estate's representatives, who are based in Australia.

The lawsuit, filed in a London court, claims Rowling's book "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire" copied substantial parts of Jacobs' 1987 book, "The Adventures of Willy the Wizard — No. 1 Livid Land." Jacobs' estate also claims that many other ideas from "Willy the Wizard" were copied into the "Harry Potter" books. Jacobs died in London in 1997.

"Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire" is the fourth book in Rowling's series and was published in July 2000.

Sydney agent Max Markson, who is representing the trustee of Jacobs' estate, Paul Allen, said Rowling was added to the lawsuit after Allen learned that the statute of limitations to sue her had not run out, as previously thought.

"I estimate it's a billion-dollar case," Markson said Thursday. "That'll be the decision of the courts, obviously."

There was no immediate comment from Rowling. In June, Bloomsbury said the allegation that Rowling lifted from Jacobs' work was "unfounded, unsubstantiated and untrue." Bloomsbury said Jacobs' estate first approached the company in 2004 with its claims, but was unable to identify any text in the "Harry Potter" books that was copied from "Willy the Wizard."

In a statement, Allen said the estate is also seeking legal advice on whether the Harry Potter films and soon-to-be-opened Harry Potter theme park breach copyright law.

I'm still waiting for Alan Moore to file one against her for lifting the character from his "Book of Magic" series of comics.

New York court snubs a "Star Trek" fan's memorabilia lawsuit.

All we can say is "Caveat Emptor"

NEW YORK – A "Star Trek" fan isn't entitled to millions of dollars in damages for buying memorabilia that he says wasn't as out-of-this-world as it seemed, a court said Tuesday.

Ted Moustakis wasn't promised he was getting a one-of-a-kind plum when he paid $11,400 for a uniform for "Star Trek: The Next Generation" character Data at a 2006 auction, an appeals court said.

The court also said Moustakis is due at most a refund for two other purchases he says were fakes: a $6,000 poker visor supposedly worn by Data and a $6,600 table from the show's set.

Auction house Christie's and CBS Consumer Products, which oversees "Star Trek" merchandise, praised the ruling. Moustakis' lawyer didn't immediately return a telephone call.

The longtime Trekkie from Towaco, N.J., has said he was thrilled to get the items — until he showed the visor to the actor who played the android Data, Brent Spiner, at a 2007 fan convention.

Spiner told him the visor wasn't genuine, according to Moustakis' lawsuit. Moustakis said he later found the table also was inauthentic, and the uniform was one of several made for the program. Christie's had led him to believe it was unique, he said.

The state Supreme Court's Appellate Division said the auction catalog didn't represent the costume as one-of-a-kind, and even if the other items weren't as advertised, Moustakis isn't entitled to "the massive recovery he now demands" in his $7 million lawsuit.

Christie's has said it stood behind the authenticity of the auction, tied to the hit show's 40th anniversary.

"The sale was and remains a fantastic highlight in the memorabilia market," Christie's lawyer Sandra L. Cobden said Tuesday.

As we said, "Buyer Beware!"

Does Harry Potter equals plagiarism?

Well, the estate of one author says so...

LONDON (Reuters) – Bloomsbury Publishing Plc on Monday denied allegations that author J.K. Rowling copied "substantial parts" of a book by another children's author when she wrote "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire."
The book, published in 2000, was the fourth installment of the hugely successful boy wizard Harry Potter series that has sold more than 400 million copies worldwide and been turned into a multi-billion-dollar film franchise.
"The allegations of plagiarism made today, Monday 15 June 2009, by the Estate of Adrian Jacobs are unfounded, unsubstantiated and untrue," said a statement from Bloomsbury, which publishes Harry Potter in Britain.
"This claim is without merit and will be defended vigorously."
In an earlier statement, Jacobs' estate said that it had issued proceedings at London's High Court against Bloomsbury Publishing Plc for copyright infringement.
"The Estate is also seeking a court order against J.K. Rowling herself for pre-action disclosure in order to determine whether to join her as a defendant to the ... action," the statement read.
It named the estate's trustee as Paul Allen, and said that Rowling had copied "substantial parts" of "The Adventures of Willy the Wizard -- No 1 Livid Land" written by Jacobs in 1987.
It added that the plot of Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire copied elements of the plot of Willy the Wizard, including a wizard contest, and that the Potter series borrowed the idea of wizards traveling on trains.
"Both Willy and Harry are required to work out the exact nature of the main task of the contest which they both achieve in a bathroom assisted by clues from helpers, in order to discover how to rescue human hostages imprisoned by a community of half-human, half-animal fantasy creatures," the estate statement said.
"It is alleged that all of these are concepts first created by Adrian Jacobs in Willy the Wizard, some 10 years before J.K. Rowling first published any of the Harry Potter novels and 13 years before Goblet of Fire was published."
According to the statement, Jacobs had sought the services of literary agent Christopher Little who later became Rowling's agent. Jacobs died "penniless" in a London hospice in 1997, it said.
In its response, Bloomsbury said Rowling "had never heard of Adrian Jacobs nor seen, read or heard of his book Willy the Wizard until this claim was first made in 2004, almost seven years after the publication of the first book in the highly publicized Harry Potter series.

It's refreshing to see somebody as litigious as J.K. Rowling, being accused of the same thing she had sued people for! And we haven't heard from author Alan Moore, the creator of "Watchmen" and "V for Vendetta" yet. He wrote a comic book series named "The Books of Magic" in which a bespectacled 12 year old kid in England learns that he is a wizard and it's trained in it's use. Sounds familiar? Well it was written in 1985, a full 12 years before JK Rowlings opus.
I know, because I read it!
Better than that Harry Potter crap!!!!

"Family Guy" wins one over Disney!

This lawsuit has finally settled! The mouse got trampled!

NEW YORK (Reuters) – Creators of the U.S. television show "Family Guy" did not infringe copyright when they transformed the song "When You Wish Upon a Star" for comical use in an episode, a U.S. judge ruled on Monday.
Music Publisher Bourne Co., the U.S. copyright owner of the song made famous in Walt Disney's "Pinocchio," sued Fox Broadcasting Co., creator Seth MacFarlane and producers in October 2007 for copyright breach.
The lawsuit said the song "I Need a Jew," featured in one of the animated show's episodes, was a thinly veiled copy of the music from 'When You Wish Upon a Star' coupled with "new anti-Semitic lyrics" and had done damage to the original.
But U.S. District Judge Deborah Batts ruled that the lyrics and tone of the song used in "Family Guy" were "strikingly different."
The judge also said it was fair for it to be imitated for humorous effect since the music publisher had benefited from the song's association with other more "wholesome" shows like "Pinocchio."
"It is precisely that beneficial association that opens the song up for ridicule by parodists seeking to take the wind out of such lofty, magical, or pure associations," she said.
The song, by composer Leigh Harline and lyricist Ned Washington, was introduced in 1940 in the movie "Pinocchio" and won an Academy Award for Best Original Song that same year. It has been recorded by more than 100 artists and orchestras.
Fox, owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp, initially did not distribute the controversial "Family Guy" episode in recognition of how offensive it was, the suit claimed.
It was eventually broadcast on the Cartoon Network in 2003 and has run at least 36 times in syndication and reruns.
Bourne Co. did not return a call seeking comment.

It's good to see that the big "D" can be taught a lesson every once in a while! They don't own the world! Just a piece of it!

RIAA gives up on music piracy!

A sign of the times...

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) – The Recording Industry Association of America said on Friday it had abandoned mass lawsuits against Internet users who steal music, and instead would work with Internet service providers to discourage piracy.
The RIAA, which represents major U.S. record labels, will have the ISPs send warning notices to users who illegally download music files.
Since 2003, the music industry has sued about 35,000 Internet users for music piracy.
"We think this is going to be a different form of stick, but we absolutely think this will be a meaningful alternative approach that will have a significant impact," said Cara Duckworth, a spokeswoman for the RIAA.
Other measures will be taken against Internet users who ignore their first warning notice to stop illegally downloading music, and if those users continue they could find their Internet connections disconnected, the RIAA said.
The RIAA declined to say which ISPs had signed on for the initiative, and it said it reserved the right to sue Internet users who ignored the warning notices.
The RIAA said it would pursue lawsuits already pending against Internet users accused of illegal downloads.
The RIAA's change in strategy comes as Internet users have become increasingly aware that downloading pirated songs is illegal.
The group Arts+Labs, a collaborative between technology companies and creative artists, said in a statement that it was "encouraged by this new effort by the record companies."
Major record labels include Warner Music Group Corp, Universal Music Group owned by Vivendi SA, EMI and Sony Music Entertainment, part of Sony Corp.

RIAA are the greediest bastards in the world! They have sued old ladies and single moms. They haven't won a case, and the one they won (against the single mom) they lost on appeals at a higher court.

Simply put, lawsuits and DRM (Digital Rights Management) are not the solution to piracy. Tech pirates are going to their stuff don't matter what. But if you prohibit stuff to law abiding citizens, they'll become pirates! The solution, make everything easier so people will find that buying is better than pirating.