How Channel 7 protect themselves.

[Title_II]

What agreement did you sign?

They sent you something and retroactively said you can't share it. That can't be legally binding.

Send them an email saying you are going to jerk off on their front door knob but they can't tell anyone.

[happyhunter]

Just post the stupid thing.

[Die Judicii]

What agreement did you sign?

They sent you something and retroactively said you can't share it. That can't be legally binding.

Send them an email saying you are going to jerk off on their front door knob but they can't tell anyone.

Title ol Mate,,,,,,,

You must be reading between your own version of lines.
I never said that I had signed anything, let alone an agreement.

[<<Genesis93>>]

Rhetorical question perhaps...... like 'are you an idiot?'

[adam]

Yes I believe he was being rhetorical. ie - He was pointing out that you didn't sign any agreement with them, so why do you believe you're obligated to follow their instructions.

I personally believe that it's a scare tactic. Ch 7 probably wouldn't have a leg to stand on if you were to publish the document, but moreso a bluff. However I don't blame you for not knowing and having doubts (which I would too) - which is what I bet they're counting on...

[Die Judicii]

Yes I believe he was being rhetorical. ie - He was pointing out that you didn't sign any agreement with them, so why do you believe you're obligated to follow their instructions.

I personally believe that it's a scare tactic. Ch 7 probably wouldn't have a leg to stand on if you were to publish the document, but moreso a bluff. However I don't blame you for not knowing and having doubts (which I would too) - which is what I bet they're counting on...

Rhetorical,,,,,,,,,,, yeah of course, that's a given.

As for some of the other views,,
I wonder how many of those who penned them would in reality take the risk in publishing without doing homework first ?

[happyhunter]

Post it up and stop being a pussy.

[sandgroperbill]

Easy to be brave when you're not the one with the risk.

Nope, they wouldn't have a leg to stand on, but that doesn't mean they couldn't start a frivolous court case. Yes, they would have to pay your legal fees at the end, but you'd still be pouring out money in the mean time.

Let him take his time and get his advice. If you want a response beforehand, write your own complaint to get your own copy of the response. It would probably be identical, anyway.

[on_one_wheel]

I was once threatened with litigation ir regards to a Facebook review that I gave a gun shop in Adelaide.
They told me that it was defamation and if I didn't remove it I'd be hearing from their lawyer.
So I edited the review. .. this time I didn't hold back never heard another thing.

If someone is stupid enough to spend time and money on something that trivial, that's their own bad luck. When it comes to people getting offended by the truth I have zero time for them. If I had received a summons for it , that to would have been duly ignored.

As for 7 ... if you change the letter by 10% it can no longer be considered the same letter.
Perhaps changing one in every 10 words could be considered 10% different?
Or you could rewrite it in your own words.

Or you could stop being such a pussy and share the letter

Ask the aussie review bloke how he goes with coppy right breaches by the media. I bet he gets nowhere.

[adam]

Easy to be brave when you're not the one with the risk.

Nope, they wouldn't have a leg to stand on, but that doesn't mean they couldn't start a frivolous court case. Yes, they would have to pay your legal fees at the end, but you'd still be pouring out money in the mean time.

Stress, Loss of income (time in court), loss of sleep, etc... it'd all add up. The likelyhood of it happening is probably next to zero, but not zero. This is exactly what some of these companies use to bully the rest of us around...

I wouldn't republish the letter here online. However I'd have no problems giving an indication or likeness of it's content (in the same way it's already been stated it had 'Not for publication' stamped on it) shouldn't be a problem.

However at the end of the day, it's the OP's decision and I will respect whichever way they decide to go with it.

[happyhunter]

Pussy.

[happyhunter]

The O.Ps reason for starting this thread is purely attention seeking. I doubt such a letter even exists.

[Title_II]

Send it to me. I will post it and send them a pic of my testicle.

If you are still scared, send me the letter you sent them. I will mark it up a bit and send it to them myself. Then I will post their response, so you are off the hook.

[<<Genesis93>>]

So...... you've only got 1 ball? begs the question, what happened to the other

[Title_II]

So...... you've only got 1 ball? begs the question, what happened to the other

I wear short shorts. You usually get to see one at a time if you are lucky.

[<<Genesis93>>]

oooh... short shorts... like Richard Simmons' short shorts ?? to Sydney, early March..

[Die Judicii]

100_4044.JPG (722.49 KiB) Viewed 4219 times

Pussy.

[adam]

^^^ Took me a few moments...

[safeshot]

A program you don't like? write to the sponsor whether its a fly spray Co, a motor Co whatever and let them know that their lacky is being (in your opinion) unethical.

[Korkt]

What if we're unlucky?