Daily Fail and Duchess of Sussex

[JingleBeth]

Just saw this half way down the home page of the Daily Mail. Clearly it’s a part of the settlement agreed after Meghan’s success in the courts.

This isn’t a thread about Meghan, it’s more the Daily Mail trying to hide this in their homepage and so trying to bring attention to it!

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10340951/The-Duchess-Sussex.html

@Baggingarea

How is it terrifying?
It's copyright law. It was pretty clear cut from that start.

When you write something like that, you own it. Sending the letter doesnt transfer copyright.

Nothing terrifying or law changing or explosive about it. Just copyright law which has been enacted for a long time.

[quote JingleBeth]Just saw this half way down the home page of the Daily Mail. Clearly it’s a part of the settlement agreed after Meghan’s success in the courts.

This isn’t a thread about Meghan, it’s more the Daily Mail trying to hide this in their homepage and so trying to bring attention to it!

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10340951/The-Duchess-Sussex.html[/quote]
I hate to expose you to the grown up world but this is how all publications deal with awards against them, the main exception being Private Eye who usually set up a funding appeal!

Ok, this thread was clearly ill thought out. Wanted to highlight their attempts to hide the story, and instead I’ve made things better for them! Stupid moment! Would get it deleted but don’t think I can for the simple reason of it being a stupid thread!

You’re a daily Mail reader lmao no matter how you put it! Why would you read something only to complain about it?
Also knowing M&H they’re probably happy that they got more free publicity.
I used to feel sorry for all the hate Meghan got but all of it has evaporated now. It’s clear that no matter what she says about ‘wanting privacy’ it’s quite the opposite and she thrives on flogging her private life for money. She wasn’t half bad an actress either!

So it was on copyright grounds, not privacy?

@TractorAndHeadphones

You’re a daily Mail reader lmao no matter how you put it! Why would you read something only to complain about it? Also knowing M&H they’re probably happy that they got more free publicity. I used to feel sorry for all the hate Meghan got but all of it has evaporated now. It’s clear that no matter what she says about ‘wanting privacy’ it’s quite the opposite and she thrives on flogging her private life for money. She wasn’t half bad an actress either!

Where and when did they say they want privacy?

@JingleBeth

Oh I know! It’s more to highlight DM’s attempts to hide this on their page and so to ensure as many clicks as possible!

And yet you're reposting and slagging them off at the same time?

Ok, I think I should stop commenting on this to avoid it getting attention on MN!

What's worrying is the pick n mix selection of when her copyright has been breached. People mag publishing quotes is ok - but not the DM. Don't come crying when some dodgy politician uses copyright as an excuse to cover up bad behaviour. It's the new super injunction.

I think it’s good that people are commenting on this to ensure it gets attention.

Bump!

@DdraigGoch

It was a copyright infringement case. It was always about the ownership of the letter, but the case had a lot of witnesses and all the rest of it as they tried to defend it by saying it had been discussed by others, and H&M dont have privacy over certain things due to their status (public interest and all that).

But, at the end of the day, it was a copyright case and the law was upheld.

@JingleBeth

Oh I know! It’s more to highlight DM’s attempts to hide this on their page and so to ensure as many clicks as possible!

Which achieves what exactly ?

I still cannot understand why some people think it is ok to print private letters. It's an appallingly intrusive act and the dad is clearly an absolute arsehole, selling out his own daughter to the highest bidders.

You can justify infringing copyright when revealing illegal or seedy behaviour of someone like a politician, elected and working in a public office or attempting to be elected. You dont get to do it to someone to embarass them when writing about private, family matters.

The DM were not exposing a corrupt politician. The judgement went the way it should.

Which achieves what exactly

I stupidly thought clicking on the link would outdo DM’s attempts to hide it.

Right to privacy:
www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.theweek.co.uk/952126/are-harry-meghan-pushing-it-press-privacy-request%3famp

Go Meghan! Well done.

[quote TractorAndHeadphones]Right to privacy:
www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.theweek.co.uk/952126/are-harry-meghan-pushing-it-press-privacy-request%3famp[/quote]
But where did they say they want privacy?

@WorraLiberty

If you have nothing to pretend, then perhaps stop pretending you're not a DM reader

Anyway I've made my point and I'll leave it now

Give it a rest.

Someone who buys the paper or goes to it as their truth portal is a Daily Mail reader.

For others it's about know your enemy

The copyright infringement part was always going to go against the Daily Mail. The only question was over the breach of privacy since the DM argued the privacy had already been breached (by the earlier People article);and the letter had always been intended for publication (the emails between Meghan and staff that discussed possible publication).
It's the privacy component that was always going to be interesting and could potentially impact on what celebs/politicians/businesses etc can keep out of the public domain.

You hate the Daily Mail so much you've posted on here about something you saw whilst reading the Daily Mail.

The DM had to cough up libel costs for Katie Hopkins' racist bile about a Muslim family being members of Al Qa'eda didn't they? a few years back as I recall. Such paragons of truth, they are. And wasn't it the DM's own fragrant Jan Moir who wrote the disgustingly homophobic piece on Stephen Gately when the man's corpse was barely cold? I could list a whole load of other instances of their racism/homophobia etc but I simply don't have enough hours in the day .

I don’t get the pretence that people aren’t lapping up whatever drivel they publish. I only see it in here and my dm’s kitchen table. It’s always so funny when people pretend they despise it but manage to find articles or things to share.
I can’t bear Amanda Holden or Ant and Dec but I don’t seek out their Twitter or Facebook or whatever to get all irate about.

Someone who buys the paper or goes to it as their truth portal is a Daily Mail reader

Thank you! Sounded like one or those MN users who like to feel superior trying to argue silly points to make themselves look clever!

@Baggingarea

Basically shows millionaires can mislead court and get off scott free.

The letters were written to be leaked and pull at the heart strings. She was ok with her friends speaking to People. It just makes a total mockery of copyright law and sets a worrying precedent.

It is very much in the thread of 'one rule for us and another for them'. Much like Katie Price escaping a jail sentence because she could afford to go to private rehab.

We are living in an extremely unbalanced society and it's getting worse.

I'm delighted she's scored a victory from the Mail on Sunday after the relentless smearing and hate campaign they've directed toward her over a matter of years. It's also noteworthy that they've chosen to print the acknowledgement/non apology on one of the quietest days of the year for newspaper days.

I'd seen this on Twitter but scoured the Mail's website and was unable to find this. A good day to bury bad news.

On the other hand, I can't help but agree with the comment above. I've long been concerned about the huge degree of control Windsor PR exerts over UK media. They are painted in such a sickeningly rosy, saintly light that only a Ladybird reader might believe. Live for any duration in another country and you'll realise how much is suppressed to protect this family's influence.

The Mail did receive a bloody nose for their disgraceful bullying. That's aside from the view that a free press is essential to any nation calling itself a democracy, whilst a monarchy isn't. We don't have a free press for as long as the UK media sucks up to the Windsors, and free press should not give carte blanche for a relentless, ruthless campaign against one individual. But this is likely a pyrrhic victory for her, and not a great day for press freedom either.