'That isn't Kevin Butler', Bridgestone claims

[fordy]

IvorEvilen said:

fordy said:

IvorEvilen said:


Blindly defending Jerry Lambert, with no knowledge of contract or copywrite law (I don't mean just reading things randomly on wikipedia or on websites) just paints you as the fool. The big guy isn't always the bad guy.

Remeber, it's Sony who is suing HIM. Sony in this case is the aggressive one.

And your stance is really blindsiding the "innocent until proven guilty" stance that should be taken. Siding with the aggressor. Who is the fool again?

Oh, and helpful hint, the commercial was paid for by Bridgestone. they're in it to sell tyres, not Wiis. kthx.

Innocent until proven guilty only applies to the legal system and the final outcome.  You can't use that as an argument to not sue someone... that would accomplish absolutely nothing.  If I murdered someone, and everyone one knew it, I would still be "innocent until proven guilty" in the courts, but everyone would hate me and want me dead.  I'm only saying to do more research before throwing support behind one side or the other.

And yes, I know they're into selling tires... I fail to see why that would matter.  They're using Wiis as a promotional item, which means they're in a partnership with Nintendo, which also could also mean that Nintendo wanted Jerry Lambert, but that would only be hypothetical.  The Wiis being present is what makes this a violation of contract and a potential copywrite violation.  It doesn't matter what kind of merchandise Bridgestone sells.

For someone who's talking about jumping the gun with throwing support behind one side, you seem to have done a good job of doing that yourself. Really? Nintendo wanted Jerry Lambert to star in a tyre commercial? I'm sure you have proof of this, since, you know, jumping the gun and throwing support behind one side or the other...