Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 8911256" data-attributes="member: 71699">Regarding the moral clause, I think you will not be arguing that the clause is illegitimate, but that it has been illegitimately applied. You might be silent or you might respond in a letter laying that out, and you will carry on publishing. Hasbro will need to spend the first few thousand dollars to seek an injunction.The court will read the clause, and ultimately they will decide whether your content makes it rightly applicable. If it is used frivolously, a court is more likely to refuse the injunction. Especially if there is a pattern of behaviour by Hasbro to try and wield that clause anti-competitively.[SPOILER=&quot;Here is that clause f for reference&quot;]No Hateful Content or Conduct. You will not include content in Your Licensed Works that is harmful, discriminatory, illegal, obscene, or harassing, or engage in conduct that is harmful, discriminatory, illegal, obscene, or harassing. We have the sole right to decide what conduct or content is hateful, and you covenant that you will not contest any such determination via any suit or other legal action.[/SPOILER]Perhaps what is being supposed is that Hasbro can simply make a party stop publishing their content? That is the case only for distribution channels that Hasbro controls. Otherwise, they need to take legal action against that party to stop them. I don't see how f prevents you being party to such action once initiated by Hasbro. It does give them stronger power over what they distribute on channels they control.[EDIT: I should clarify that while I can appreciate motives for Hasbro wanting the wording I have, and as explained above can see constraints on its abuse, I don't believe they are taking the right approach. Other posters have suggested better approaches.]</blockquote>

[QUOTE="clearstream, post: 8911256, member: 71699"] Regarding the moral clause, I think you will not be arguing that the clause is illegitimate, but that it has been illegitimately applied. You might be silent or you might respond in a letter laying that out, and you will carry on publishing. Hasbro will need to spend the first few thousand dollars to seek an injunction. The court will read the clause, and ultimately they will decide whether your content makes it rightly applicable. If it is used frivolously, a court is more likely to refuse the injunction. Especially if there is a pattern of behaviour by Hasbro to try and wield that clause anti-competitively. [SPOILER="Here is that clause f for reference"]No Hateful Content or Conduct. You will not include content in Your Licensed Works that is harmful, discriminatory, illegal, obscene, or harassing, or engage in conduct that is harmful, discriminatory, illegal, obscene, or harassing. We have the sole right to decide what conduct or content is hateful, and you covenant that you will not contest any such determination via any suit or other legal action.[/SPOILER] Perhaps what is being supposed is that Hasbro can simply make a party stop publishing their content? That is the case only for distribution channels that Hasbro controls. Otherwise, they need to take legal action against that party to stop them. I don't see how f prevents you being party to such action once initiated by Hasbro. It does give them stronger power over what they distribute on channels they control. [EDIT: I should clarify that while I can appreciate motives for Hasbro wanting the wording I have, and as explained above can see constraints on its abuse, I don't believe they are taking the right approach. Other posters have suggested better approaches.] [/QUOTE]

Verification