| |
Discussion: Rebecca responds To Gaga
Member Since: 3/5/2014
Posts: 7,746
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Dark_Lorde
Bang up. I publically and regularly say that those kind of comments made about lady gaga are unacceptable. I was all over that thread that made fun of her weight telling people to stop. I do practice what I preach. Most of my comments are about her career.
Someone from this thread has come to my twitter and wished death upon me by aids. It shouldn't be this difficult for you to refute that despite your feelings towards me.
|
So you want people to go out of their way to defend you despite how you act here on ATRL? I mean, I don't agree with telling people to die, but people telling you that doesn't cause me to lose an ounce of sleep, and I'm sure you'll be fine at the end of the day.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/19/2013
Posts: 3
|
Dark_Lorde, be proud that after casually browsing this site for a couple of years you're the first person who's made me feel inclined to post something.
I think that the intention by people posting "get that $1.4M!" is that Gaga has a right, just like Rebecca F did, to utilise the legal system to attempt to get back something that she believes is hers (being the money she had to spend to defend herself). Rebecca F believed that the song was plagiarised, so sued and lost. She should have known, or at the least her legal representation should have told her, the potential consequences of a lost case.
I'm from Australia and our court system works in the way that the losing party almost always pays the legal fees of the winning party. Hence, my opinion on this matter as posted in the OP is that Gaga has every right to try and reclaim the money spent on her lawyers. But as this is the USA, I found that the Copyright Act of the US states "In any civil action under this title, the court in its discretion may allow the recovery of full costs by or against any party other than the United States or an officer thereof. Except as otherwise provided by this title, the court may also award a reasonable attorney’s fee to the prevailing party as part of the costs" ( http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/505)
So it is now up to the discretion of the court in the counter-claim made by Gaga, who has every right to defend her name and her fortune and set a deterrent for future cases that may be frivolously made against her, or other musicians. You've made your point quite clearly that you don't believe Rebecca F should be made financially ruined. You're merely using carefully written statements and quoting particular sections of people's posts to get a rise out of them due to your not so subtle dislike for Gaga. Give it a rest.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/15/2013
Posts: 25,504
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Dark_Lorde
Are you really making fun of someone for reading a thread?
Defensive much. |
Didn't make fun of him, I just laughed, cuz:
1. He comes to defend someone who sue a celebrity over nothing, just to make money and then when she failed, she has to pay money back. Let alone that she started bullying Gaga, like what the hell bitch ?
2. He read a whole thread about someone he dislikes, yes it's laughable. I mean I care about Gaga a lot and even I didn't read the whole thread 
|
|
|
|
Banned
Member Since: 2/6/2014
Posts: 4,224
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Bang Up
So you want people to go out of their way to defend you despite how you act here on ATRL? I mean, I don't agree with telling people to die, but people telling you that doesn't cause me to lose an ounce of sleep, and I'm sure you'll be fine at the end of the day.
|
I'm not asking you to defend me at all. Acknowledging that, that kind of nonsense isn't cool. Is enough.
Next time you label me a hater though, perhaps remember that not once do I come to people's walls, or twitters or DM's and wish them death.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/6/2014
Posts: 9,220
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Mariano
What ? Did u really just read the whole thread ?  And then it's the monsters who have a problem.. |
My friend, I'm college educated. I can read 7 pages of a forum in 5 minutes. I kinda signed up so I could read whole threads.....
If you need me to explain more about reading things on the internet, PM me
|
|
|
|
Banned
Member Since: 2/6/2014
Posts: 4,224
|
Quote:
Originally posted by j0el88
Dark_Lorde, be proud that after casually browsing this site for a couple of years you're the first person who's made me feel inclined to post something.
I think that the intention by people posting "get that $1.4M!" is that Gaga has a right, just like Rebecca F did, to utilise the legal system to attempt to get back something that she believes is hers (being the money she had to spend to defend herself). Rebecca F believed that the song was plagiarised, so sued and lost. She should have known, or at the least her legal representation should have told her, the potential consequences of a lost case.
I'm from Australia and our court system works in the way that the losing party almost always pays the legal fees of the winning party. Hence, my opinion on this matter as posted in the OP is that Gaga has every right to try and reclaim the money spent on her lawyers. But as this is the USA, I found that the Copyright Act of the US states "In any civil action under this title, the court in its discretion may allow the recovery of full costs by or against any party other than the United States or an officer thereof. Except as otherwise provided by this title, the court may also award a reasonable attorney’s fee to the prevailing party as part of the costs" ( http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/505)
So it is now up to the discretion of the court in the counter-claim made by Gaga, who has every right to defend her name and her fortune and set a deterrent for future cases that may be frivolously made against her, or other musicians. You've made your point quite clearly that you don't believe Rebecca F should be made financially ruined. You're merely using carefully written statements and quoting particular sections of people's posts to get a rise out of them due to your not so subtle dislike for Gaga. Give it a rest. |
Your comment is certainly welcome but I really don't need the advice.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 9/12/2012
Posts: 15,562
|
Quote:
His associate DJ White Shadow, however – a wanna-be if ever there was one – had contacts, lots of them.
DJ White Shadow believing they’re his songs now because he changed them.
|
Doesn't sound too off didn't Sexxx Dreams basically sound like a remake of some old song.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/3/2014
Posts: 15,909
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Dark_Lorde
No it's not.
Find me the deposition in full.
|
Care to explain how god knows how many news outlet were able to report she called her ex-assistant a hoodrat then? I'm not about to go look for a full transcript when the media having the full deposition themselves is proof enough.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/3/2014
Posts: 15,909
|
Quote:
Originally posted by j0el88
Dark_Lorde, be proud that after casually browsing this site for a couple of years you're the first person who's made me feel inclined to post something.
I think that the intention by people posting "get that $1.4M!" is that Gaga has a right, just like Rebecca F did, to utilise the legal system to attempt to get back something that she believes is hers (being the money she had to spend to defend herself). Rebecca F believed that the song was plagiarised, so sued and lost. She should have known, or at the least her legal representation should have told her, the potential consequences of a lost case.
I'm from Australia and our court system works in the way that the losing party almost always pays the legal fees of the winning party. Hence, my opinion on this matter as posted in the OP is that Gaga has every right to try and reclaim the money spent on her lawyers. But as this is the USA, I found that the Copyright Act of the US states "In any civil action under this title, the court in its discretion may allow the recovery of full costs by or against any party other than the United States or an officer thereof. Except as otherwise provided by this title, the court may also award a reasonable attorney’s fee to the prevailing party as part of the costs" ( http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/505)
So it is now up to the discretion of the court in the counter-claim made by Gaga, who has every right to defend her name and her fortune and set a deterrent for future cases that may be frivolously made against her, or other musicians. You've made your point quite clearly that you don't believe Rebecca F should be made financially ruined. You're merely using carefully written statements and quoting particular sections of people's posts to get a rise out of them due to your not so subtle dislike for Gaga. Give it a rest. |
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/28/2012
Posts: 11,237
|
she has no money at all? oh no
bitch buckle up for a long sad life where you will have to save every penny to give it to the queen 
Quote:
You’ve got kids, college tuitions, classes, boyfriends. You’re a wife, a father, a mother, an employee, a boss, a sister, a friend. You owe money to Visa or ride a bike to work; you swim on weekends or drive a car.
You’re a Regular Human.
I am, too.
That’s why Lady Gaga’s suing me for $1.4 million dollars is about YOU.
|
Bitch what? You were the attention hungry, delusional **** that probably really thought she could milk Gaga.
don't make this about others ...
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/19/2013
Posts: 3
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Dark_Lorde
Your comment is certainly welcome but I really don't need the advice.
|
From the constant barrage you've been getting and then complaining about, I'm thinking that maybe you do. But you just keep doing what you're doing. 
|
|
|
|
Banned
Member Since: 2/6/2014
Posts: 4,224
|
Quote:
Originally posted by j0el88
From the constant barrage you've been getting and then complaining about, I'm thinking that maybe you do. But you just keep doing what you're doing. |
Well no, the constant barrage is the problem here. Not the other way around.
I have not once personally insulted someone here yet it's happened to me as you put it "constant barrage" Your advice should be directed at the problem, towards the people that don't have the ability to keep their emotions in check.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/11/2012
Posts: 14,498
|
Anyone who thinks it's wrong to counter sue her is just plain stupid. It's totally irrelevant that Gaga has a lot of money and would bring bankruptcy to Rebecca F. That means anyone can sue a celebrity on something with no merit and not experience any consequences. Hell, if a person goes to jail for a murder, you could say he doesn't deserve it because he has a family. I mean the logic behind that is so severely stupid.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/19/2013
Posts: 3
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Dark_Lorde
Well no, the constant barrage is the problem here. Not the other way around.
|
As a member posted above, your 'I just posted this for everyone's benefit' act is very transparent and you would have known exactly the reaction you would get and now you complain about it. You'll never accept that you're somewhat bringing it on yourself so I'm not going to get dragged into a back and forth with you. I'll just go back to my casual browsing and shaking my head. Enjoy!
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/15/2013
Posts: 25,504
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Versace
Anyone who thinks it's wrong to counter sue her is just plain stupid. It's totally irrelevant that Gaga has a lot of money and would bring bankruptcy to Rebecca F. That means anyone can sue a celebrity on something with no merit and not experience any consequences. Hell, if a person goes to jail for a murder, you could say he doesn't deserve it because he has a family. I mean the logic behind that is so severely stupid.
|
It's really that simple
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/11/2012
Posts: 14,498
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Mariano
It's really that simple |
That is basically the sole argument dark lord had against Gaga as he wrote here.
Quote:
Originally posted by Dark_Lorde
I made it clear I'm simply quoting the post that people didn't read.
I havn't defended her once. I simply mentioned what she wrote, that no one read before wishing financial ruin on her family.
|
We can all agree that his logic is unprecedented and just plain wrong.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/6/2014
Posts: 10,805
|
Dark_Lorde, you are such a joke. You are biased even while you are trying to say you are not biased. I don't trust your sincerity.
OT.. Rebecca...
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/28/2012
Posts: 34,863
|
You people are wasting your time 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/6/2014
Posts: 9,220
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Mariano
Didn't make fun of him, I just laughed, cuz:
1. He comes to defend someone who sue a celebrity over nothing, just to make money and then when she failed, she has to pay money back. Let alone that she started bullying Gaga, like what the hell bitch ?
2. He read a whole thread about someone he dislikes, yes it's laughable. I mean I care about Gaga a lot and even I didn't read the whole thread |
1. I'm not defending anybody. I'm raising questions on the whole thing. What makes you think she sued GaGa just for the money? If you wrote a song that was atypical (such as Juda juda da da da) and that song was recorded by somebody with your ex involved, would not YOU make a reasonable connection and exact some compensation?
2. I do not dislike Lady GaGa. I dislike the hypocritical nature of her persona.
Go ahead and laugh at me. If I'm not wrong it's something a large portion of your stanbase does right?
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 2/10/2012
Posts: 2,319
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Dark_Lorde
Your comment is certainly welcome but I really don't need the advice.
|
oh yes, yes you do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
