• The Onion just bought Alex Jones' Infowars

    From JAB@21:1/5 to All on Thu Nov 14 20:27:15 2024
    The Onion has won the bid for Infowars' assets

    Satirical news site The Onion won the auction to acquire conspiracy
    theorist Alex Jones' Infowars, which was sold off as part of a
    defamation settlement after he falsely called the Sandy Hook
    Elementary School massacre a hoax.

    The Onion's bid was backed by the families of eight victims of the
    school shooting and one first responder. It also will have an
    exclusive advertising deal with the gun control group Everytown for
    Gun Safety. CNN was first to report the humor web site had entered the
    bidding.

    But a federal judge in Texas ordered a hearing into how the Onion -
    known for bite - won the bidding, after Jones and his lawyers raised
    questions about how the auction was conducted.

    https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/14/business/onion-alex-jones-infowars-auction/index.html

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Michael Trew@21:1/5 to JAB on Fri Nov 15 23:51:02 2024
    On 11/14/2024 9:27 PM, JAB wrote:
    The Onion has won the bid for Infowars' assets

    Satirical news site The Onion won the auction to acquire conspiracy
    theorist Alex Jones' Infowars, which was sold off as part of a
    defamation settlement after he falsely called the Sandy Hook
    Elementary School massacre a hoax.

    The Onion? That's great, they don't even have to change the content.
    At least advertising it as satire would be the ethical thing to do.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JAB@21:1/5 to michael.trew@att.net on Sat Nov 16 19:58:23 2024
    On Fri, 15 Nov 2024 23:51:02 -0500, Michael Trew
    <michael.trew@att.net> wrote:

    The Onion?

    Judge blocks Onion's purchase of Infowars over auction concerns

    A federal bankruptcy judge paused the satirical news outlet The
    Onion's winning bid of Infowars' media platform to review the auction
    after owner Alex Jones and his lawyers complained about how the
    process was handled.

    Judge Christopher Lopez on Friday said he also had concerns about how
    that process played out and ordered a hearing to review the
    proceedings slated for next week.

    "We're all going to an evidentiary hearing, and I'm going to figure
    out exactly what happened," he said. "No one should feel comfortable
    with the results of this auction."

    https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2024/nov/16/judge-blocks-onions-purchase-infowars-auction-conc/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Michael Trew@21:1/5 to JAB on Sun Nov 17 02:33:24 2024
    On 11/16/2024 8:58 PM, JAB wrote:

    Judge blocks Onion's purchase of Infowars over auction concerns

    A federal bankruptcy judge paused the satirical news outlet The
    Onion's winning bid of Infowars' media platform to review the auction
    after owner Alex Jones and his lawyers complained about how the
    process was handled.
    LOL he's so salty that still no one takes his site seriously.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JAB@21:1/5 to All on Sun Dec 1 11:06:18 2024
    Elon Musk's X is stepping into the legal fight over Alex Jones'
    Infowars. Experts say it's unprecedented

    Elon Musk's X is intervening in the bankruptcy sale of conspiracy
    theorist Alex Jones' Infowars, in what is believed to be the first
    time a social media platform has stepped in to a legal dispute over
    account ownership.
    ...
    ...
    The sale includes Infowars' website, studio equipment, online dietary supplement store and social media accounts, which are followed by
    millions of users.

    In past legal disputes over account ownership, social media companies
    have left it to the courts and parties involved to work it out. But in
    this case, X is stepping in, objecting to Jones and Infowars' X
    accounts being part of the sale
    ...
    ...
    In a filing this week with the Texas bankruptcy court, attorneys for X
    said the company does not object to the overall sale of Infowars'
    parent company, but "objects to any proposed sale or other purported
    transfer of any account used by Jones or FSS that is maintained on the
    X platform ("X")."
    ...
    ...
    That's because X says its terms of service make it clear that accounts
    cannot be sold, and are ultimately owned by X. While that's not
    unusual for a social media platform's terms of service, technology
    companies usually enforce those terms quietly and do not step in to
    public court battles, said Eric Goldman, an associate dean and
    professor of tech law at Santa Clara University School of Law.

    "Social media services approach this topic gingerly because they want
    to encourage their users to invest heavily in their accounts," Goldman
    said. "If users fear that the services can moot those investments by
    taking back or exercising control over the handle, power users will be reluctant to make the desired investments."

    Two things can be true at once, both experts said: Musk may be getting
    involved because of his political leanings and to set a legal
    precedent in a high-profile case involving well-known X accounts.

    By intervening in the case, X is further showing how the platform is ultimately Musk's domain, where he can do as he pleases. Musk has
    shown a willingness to take over accounts in the past, threatening NPR
    after the public broadcaster stopped posting to its account and
    seizing the @America handle for his political action committee that
    supported President-elect Donald Trump during the campaign.

    "What conceivable motivation does a company have for destroying the
    value in their users' accounts, and implicitly threatening all other
    users?" Butterfield said. "It becomes an individual person's
    playground, rather than a functioning marketplace of ideas."

    https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/29/media/alex-jones-elon-musk-x-infowars-accounts/index.html

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From W. Greenhouse@21:1/5 to JAB on Sun Dec 1 20:56:08 2024
    JAB <here@is.invalid> writes:

    Elon Musk's X is stepping into the legal fight over Alex Jones'
    Infowars. Experts say it's unprecedented

    Elon Musk's X is intervening in the bankruptcy sale of conspiracy
    theorist Alex Jones' Infowars, in what is believed to be the first
    time a social media platform has stepped in to a legal dispute over
    account ownership.

    The X filing is here: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txsb.459750/gov.uscourts.txsb.459750.937.0.pdf

    I don't think it's the first time, because X's attorneys cite some prior examples of TOSes being interpreted this way.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JAB@21:1/5 to wgreenhouse@tilde.club on Sun Dec 1 16:07:30 2024
    On Sun, 01 Dec 24 20:56:08 UTC, "W. Greenhouse"
    <wgreenhouse@tilde.club> wrote:

    The X filing is here: >https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txsb.459750/gov.uscourts.txsb.459750.937.0.pdf

    I don't think it's the first time, because X's attorneys cite some prior >examples of TOSes being interpreted this way.

    If I was a lawyer, I would scratch on this...bankruptcy law....X wants
    to have absolute control....but unknown about bankruptcy cases.

    2. The License to Use The X Accounts Are Intellectual Property
    Licenses

    36. In addition to being a personal license, the license X Corp.
    grants to account holders is an intellectual property license, and
    pursuant to applicable non-bankruptcy law, in order to assign or
    transfer such license, the licensor's (X Corp.) consent is required. X
    Corp. has no consented to the assignment, sale, or transfer of the X
    Accounts and the Current TOS explicitly states that X Corp.'s consent
    is required for any assignment, sale or transfer of an account.

    I did notice this CYA (Cover Your Ass clause): "While the TOS make
    clear that the Content belongs to the account holder"
    =======================

    He lost in a previous court case

    US Supreme Court sidesteps case tied to probe of Trump social media
    account
    By John Kruzel
    October 7, 2024

    WASHINGTON, Oct 7 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court declined on
    Monday to hear a challenge by Elon Musk's social media platform X on
    free speech grounds of a judge's order that barred the company from
    telling Donald Trump about a prosecutor's seizure of direct messages
    and other data associated with the former president's Twitter account.

    The justices turned away the company's appeal of U.S. District Judge
    Beryl Howell's order that prohibited it from informing Trump about the
    warrant from Special Counsel Jack Smith and required the handover of information without the judge first hearing X's objections. X had
    called the order a violation of the U.S. Constitution's First
    Amendment, which limits the government's ability to restrict speech.

    https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-supreme-court-sidesteps-case-tied-probe-trump-social-media-account-2024-10-07/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JAB@21:1/5 to wgreenhouse@tilde.club on Sun Dec 1 16:19:33 2024
    On Sun, 01 Dec 24 20:56:08 UTC, "W. Greenhouse"
    <wgreenhouse@tilde.club> wrote:

    The X filing is here:

    Do note his lawyer(s) screwed the English pooch with the "X Corp. has
    no [not] consented"


    ... the licensor's (X Corp.) consent is required. X Corp. has no
    consented to the assignment, sale, or transfer of the X
    Accounts and the Current TOS explicitly states that X Corp.'s consent
    is required for any assignment, sale or transfer of an account.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JAB@21:1/5 to wgreenhouse@tilde.club on Sun Dec 1 20:04:26 2024
    On Sun, 01 Dec 24 20:56:08 UTC, "W. Greenhouse"
    <wgreenhouse@tilde.club> wrote:

    X's attorneys

    In a defamation lawsuit, whoever has to make good on what the court
    decides. Intellectual property (copyrighted material) has a value,
    and "a judge can transfer intellectual property in a lawsuit..."

    The fine X print suggests Jones has an intellectual property license,
    and X's "consent is required for any assignment, sale or transfer of
    an account."

    I would say X's suit is frivolous...I don't believe X has a right to
    control "assignment, sale or transfer of an account" when bankruptcy
    is involved. I suspect X put that stipulation there for making a buck ==================================================
    Footnote

    He has repeatedly warned that he is about to be taken off the
    airwaves, although US free speech laws mean he would be free to set up
    a new company and continue broadcasting even if his company were to be liquidated.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj55v57v2z2o

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From W. Greenhouse@21:1/5 to JAB on Tue Dec 3 02:16:17 2024
    JAB <here@is.invalid> writes:

    On Sun, 01 Dec 24 20:56:08 UTC, "W. Greenhouse"
    <wgreenhouse@tilde.club> wrote:

    X's attorneys

    In a defamation lawsuit, whoever has to make good on what the court
    decides. Intellectual property (copyrighted material) has a value,
    and "a judge can transfer intellectual property in a lawsuit..."

    The fine X print suggests Jones has an intellectual property license,
    and X's "consent is required for any assignment, sale or transfer of
    an account."

    I would say X's suit is frivolous...I don't believe X has a right to
    control "assignment, sale or transfer of an account" when bankruptcy
    is involved. I suspect X put that stipulation there for making a buck ==================================================
    Footnote

    He has repeatedly warned that he is about to be taken off the
    airwaves, although US free speech laws mean he would be free to set up
    a new company and continue broadcasting even if his company were to be liquidated.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj55v57v2z2o

    X is not "suing" anyone, just objecting to the compelled sale of the
    accounts (on the grounds that Jones never owned them, so they're not
    part of the bankruptcy case ["estate" to use the bankruptcy term]).

    If all Jones owned was a license, that's all the bankruptcy case can
    dispose of. So what's the correct way for the bankruptcy court to handle
    the "sale" of a license Musk can immediately revoke from the new owners
    for any reason or no reason?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JAB@21:1/5 to wgreenhouse@tilde.club on Mon Dec 2 22:58:06 2024
    On Tue, 03 Dec 24 02:16:17 UTC, "W. Greenhouse"
    <wgreenhouse@tilde.club> wrote:

    X is not "suing" anyone, just objecting to the compelled sale of the
    accounts (on the grounds that Jones never owned them, so they're not
    part of the bankruptcy case ["estate" to use the bankruptcy term]).

    Relevant Question - I follow your comments, but does state/federal
    laws "trump" X In other words, was X's contract inline with known precedents/etc.

    X is claiming their "Intellectual Property Licenses" are above
    bankruptcy's domain....only they will decide, not the state.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JAB@21:1/5 to wgreenhouse@tilde.club on Tue Dec 3 06:24:02 2024
    On Tue, 03 Dec 24 02:16:17 UTC, "W. Greenhouse"
    <wgreenhouse@tilde.club> wrote:

    So what's the correct way for the bankruptcy court

    This below is referring to "executory contracts," which by definition
    is not related. Kirkland & Ellis law firm could address this matter
    (URL's base address: https://www.kirkland.com )

    SEE: III. Assignment of Intellectual Property Licenses in Bankruptcy Proceedings
    ================================================

    Bankruptcy law is clear that many executory contracts can be assumed
    and assigned by a debtor without the consent of the nondebtor party
    (e.g., equipment leases, real property leases, a wide variety of
    customer, dealer and other agreements) even if the agreement expressly prohibits assignment or is silent on the issue of assignment.

    Less clear is whether executory contracts involving the licensing of intellectual property (e.g., patent, copyright, trademark, software,
    knowhow) that either expressly prohibit assignment or are silent on
    the issue can be assumed or assumed and assigned by a debtor without
    first obtaining the consent of the non debtor party

    <https://www.kirkland.com/-/media/publications/article/2002/10/assignability-of-intellectual-property-licenses-in/iplfall02.pdf>

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JAB@21:1/5 to wgreenhouse@tilde.club on Tue Dec 3 11:24:13 2024
    On Tue, 03 Dec 24 02:16:17 UTC, "W. Greenhouse"
    <wgreenhouse@tilde.club> wrote:

    Musk

    On a different note, not related to this topic...

    Published Aug. 1, 2024

    Former CNN anchor sues Elon Musk and X over collapsed partnership
    ...
    ...
    Musk ended the agreement in March following a contentious interview
    with Lemon, in which the host posed questions about Musk's drug use
    and Musk's views about immigration and diversity, equity and inclusion
    (DEI).
    ...
    ...
    Musk was the first guest on Lemon's new X show, an interview in which
    the billionaire grew tense over questions about his use of ketamine to
    treat depression and other issues on which Musk has courted
    controversy.

    https://www.legaldive.com/news/former-cnn-anchor-sues-elon-musk-and-x-over-collapsed-partnership/723085/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JAB@21:1/5 to JAB on Tue Dec 3 13:10:33 2024
    On Tue, 03 Dec 2024 06:24:02 -0600, JAB <here@is.invalid> wrote:

    executory contracts

    What is an executory contract? The Code does not define "executory
    contract", but most courts have adopted this definition: "a contract
    under which the obligation of both the bankrupt and the other party to
    the contract are so far unperformed that the failure of either to
    complete performance would constitute a material breach excusing the performance of the other."

    https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/civil-resource-manual-59-executory-contracts-bankruptcy

    Musk can immediately revoke from the new owners
    for any reason or no reason

    I saw that....for any reason or no reason....Musk seems more like a
    redneck who wants to control the 'show.'

    I do like to read more news on this topic below...

    Tesla sales plunge again in November: Is this the Elon Musk effect

    Sales of Tesla electric cars plunged again in the month of November,
    with the brand suffering a fall of 35.5 per cent compared to the same
    month a year ago, despite a range of new incentives designed to boost
    sales.

    https://thedriven.io/2024/12/03/tesla-sales-plunge-again-in-november-is-this-the-elon-musk-effect/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From W. Greenhouse@21:1/5 to JAB on Wed Dec 4 01:32:05 2024
    JAB <here@is.invalid> writes:

    On Tue, 03 Dec 24 02:16:17 UTC, "W. Greenhouse"
    <wgreenhouse@tilde.club> wrote:

    X is not "suing" anyone, just objecting to the compelled sale of the >>accounts (on the grounds that Jones never owned them, so they're not
    part of the bankruptcy case ["estate" to use the bankruptcy term]).

    Relevant Question - I follow your comments, but does state/federal
    laws "trump" X In other words, was X's contract inline with known precedents/etc.

    X is claiming their "Intellectual Property Licenses" are above
    bankruptcy's domain....only they will decide, not the state.


    My understanding is that a bankruptcy court (this being one of those interesting federal courts issues re jurisdiction and source of law)
    applies the bankruptcy code, which is federal, but questions about
    things like the validity of contracts the business or person applying
    for bankruptcy supposedly entered into, or the enforceability of
    judgment debts trying to get their nose into the bankruptcy, are
    State-law questions, that the bankruptcy court will have to analyze
    according to the law of the state where it sits. The bankruptcy court
    won't help enforce debts that, for example, are outside the relevant
    State statute of limitations--those don't get allowed into the feeding
    frenzy.

    As Jones's bankruptcies (both personal and corporate) are being heard in
    a bankrtuptcy court in Texas, I quite fully believe that X's
    interpretation of its shrinkwrap EULA that nobody reads might actually
    pass muster.

    Also, for a techbro running one of these free (because you pay with your
    ~soul~ data) services, Musk's interpretation here is completely in the
    norm: the EULA is not something you the user can enforce (for example,
    to enable you to transfer your valuable comedy account and its followers
    to someone who wants to take it over), it's just something that enforces
    the site owner's right to extract data from you.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JAB@21:1/5 to wgreenhouse@tilde.club on Tue Dec 3 20:25:03 2024
    On Wed, 04 Dec 24 01:32:05 UTC, "W. Greenhouse"
    <wgreenhouse@tilde.club> wrote:

    X's interpretation of its shrinkwrap EULA that nobody reads
    might actually pass muster.

    "But the precedent this case sets could expand the power of social
    media companies, or hurt them." Ben Bentzin with the University of
    Texas at Austin

    // social media accounts, which Musk argues isn't Infowars' to sell.
    // TOS explicitly states that X Corp.'s consent
    //is required for any assignment, sale or transfer of an account.

    Previous court cases, Yes: "even if the agreement expressly prohibits assignment or is silent on the issue of assignment. "

    SCOTUS - The Supreme Court usually only hears cases that are
    considered to have national significance, or that could harmonize
    conflicting decisions from lower courts.

    Stay tuned....historically, the state is supreme....

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JAB@21:1/5 to wgreenhouse@tilde.club on Wed Dec 4 22:36:40 2024
    On Wed, 04 Dec 24 01:32:05 UTC, "W. Greenhouse"
    <wgreenhouse@tilde.club> wrote:

    I quite fully believe that X's interpretation of its
    shrinkwrap EULA that nobody reads might actually
    pass muster.

    Keep in mind the state (federal) is attempting to make a good faith
    effort for obtaining revenue.


    Previous court cases, Yes: "even if the agreement expressly prohibits assignment or is silent on the issue of assignment. "

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JAB@21:1/5 to wgreenhouse@tilde.club on Thu Dec 5 18:48:09 2024
    On Tue, 03 Dec 24 02:16:17 UTC, "W. Greenhouse"
    <wgreenhouse@tilde.club> wrote:

    Musk can immediately revoke from the new owners
    for any reason or no reason

    Sidebar - A former Twitter poster I followed was "summarily banned"
    for no reason last year in October. A lawyer who did post some news
    bytes on Israel/Hamas conflict, but this person was softly spoken.

    Months later, this female lawyer was posting on Bluesky, and today she
    is "...now glad I wasn't even given the opportunity to close my
    Twitter account." Just another poster, with about 1.5K followers.

    I have no idea if Musk's banning is done via program or a human, but
    he seems to be like a Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde. An alpha jerk at best...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From D@21:1/5 to JAB on Fri Dec 6 10:17:19 2024
    On Thu, 5 Dec 2024, JAB wrote:

    On Tue, 03 Dec 24 02:16:17 UTC, "W. Greenhouse"
    <wgreenhouse@tilde.club> wrote:

    Musk can immediately revoke from the new owners
    for any reason or no reason

    Sidebar - A former Twitter poster I followed was "summarily banned"
    for no reason last year in October. A lawyer who did post some news
    bytes on Israel/Hamas conflict, but this person was softly spoken.

    Months later, this female lawyer was posting on Bluesky, and today she
    is "...now glad I wasn't even given the opportunity to close my
    Twitter account." Just another poster, with about 1.5K followers.

    I have no idea if Musk's banning is done via program or a human, but
    he seems to be like a Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde. An alpha jerk at best...


    Nah... I'd say the Musk is crushing it! If he doesn't do that, then at
    least he "grabs em by the pussy"!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JAB@21:1/5 to wgreenhouse@tilde.club on Wed Dec 11 06:59:59 2024
    On Wed, 04 Dec 24 01:32:05 UTC, "W. Greenhouse"
    <wgreenhouse@tilde.club> wrote:

    My understanding

    I'm not seeing tidbits on Musk's "assignment" viewpoint...


    Judge Rejects Sale of Infowars to The Onion

    The Onion's bid for the conspiracy website was supported by the
    families of victims of the Sandy Hook shooting and a nonprofit focused
    on ending gun violence.
    ...
    ..
    Judge Lopez said that the bankruptcy auction failed to maximize the
    amount of money that the sale of Infowars should provide to Mr.
    Jones's creditors, including the Sandy Hook families, in part because
    the bids were submitted in secret.
    ...
    ...
    Judge Lopez's ruling put the fate of Infowars in limbo. He instructed
    a court-appointed trustee, Christopher Murray, to come up with an
    alternative resolution, though it was not immediately clear what
    approach Mr. Murray would take. He did not immediately respond to a
    request for comment

    https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/10/business/media/the-onion-infowars-alex-jones.html

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)