You’re right. No private or public research group is going to go to the trouble of acquiring one.

The current scholarship is (often) free and cheap. But what about future scholarship?
Should anyone in the future writing a thesis or dissertation or paper on racism in 20th century media or the evolution of African Americans in Disney be denied access to primary sources?
You say that people can see it but fail to…

Cool.
I’ve honestly never actually seen Song of the South. Where can I buy or legally acquire a copy?
It might be a good way to start a conversation about racial depictions in media and the past with my son along with cultural appropriation of Anansi stories.

Sure, but how can someone write a new artcle, book, thesis, and paper on Song of the South if no one can see it?
It will make it harder for scholars and historians and students to research the content and compile a history of racist caricatures or show the progress of depictions of African Americans.

It’s gatekeeping because you’re telling me HOW to display and enjoy my own Lego sets and that I’m doing it wrong because I don’t do it the same as you. And because I was not impressed with this set (before we saw the moving display) and wanted something that would be a more evocative display piece.

GTFO of here with the gatekeeping and wrongbadfun.

Okay... this set super did not wow me. And I wasn’t sure why.

Oh man, it looks like to get the level displayed on the screen you need to buy one of the game/ toy sets. That feels like a bit more of a cash grab from Lego. You can’t just get the collector’s piece as a stand-alone item.

That’s not remotely what is happening.

Or, as I’ve said before and is much, much more likely... Disney+ isn’t paying someone to sit down and watch the tens of thousands of hours of footage planned for the service while making careful notes of things to censor and edit out.
And instead they’re just grabbing whatever copies they have that are the appropriate…

A tweet posted on the company’s official Twitter account blames the fact that this “Ubisoft Forward” event’s content is pre-recorded, itself a byproduct of Ubisoft’s annual E3-style showcase not being a traditional live show due to the ongoing pandemic.

Taken
Free
Taken
Taken
Free
Free
Free
Fee
Taken
Free
Free
Free

I was trying to be diplomatic rather than confrontational. Because I didn’t want to spend my Friday responding to comments.
Yeah, it’s a slam dunk.

Chinese-based store makes products for Buddhists and its neighboring nation, India. News at 11.

Sorta. There are a lot of factors in trademarks and branding. We’ll see whom the courts believe and back.

They tried to negotiate. And the other party asked for an exorbitant amount of money. Negotiations broke down, so they turned to the courts.

I was 100% on her side before thus. (But I did want to give the band a chance to make things right before condemning them.) But demanding $5 million seems like a bad move on her part.

The “so what” is they likely can’t easily pay it. They likely don’t just have $25 million sitting in a shared bank account they can tap into. They’re popular but they’re not U2.

Apparently they paid for the trademark in the early 2000s. Legally they own it. It’s a slam dunk case for them.

Yes and no.