Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
JayC

Please Dont Post Peoples Address

Recommended Posts

I understand the frustration of dealing with a bad tradder and have no problem warning others. But I have to ask you all not to post people's private info like address and ph#'s. If you want to say their name or even city and state, thats fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good and all, but if we dont post addresses how can we know about a bad trader?

 

For instance if somebody tell in a feedback thread that Rodimusconvoy from Ontario Canada (to say something) is a bad trader what should people do? Not trading with Ontario people just because dont want to be scammed if the person changes his username???

 

This is not gonna work that way.

 

Just my 2 cents on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Good and all, but if we dont post addresses how can we know about a bad trader?

 

For instance if somebody tell in a feedback thread that Rodimusconvoy from Ontario Canada (to say something) is a bad trader what should people do? Not trading with Ontario people just because dont want to be scammed if the person changes his username???

 

This is not gonna work that way.

 

Just my 2 cents on this.

You can pass along the detailed info in a PM to anyone whose concerned.

The word will still get around, but it will not be broadcast in the open.

 

JayC has a good reason for asking this, because there are potential legal issues regarding libel with something like this.

Unless the person is convicted of fraud or similar crimes in a court of law, they can seek restitution/damages from any person or agency openly maligning them in print--which covers on-line posts as well.

This is something that deals with the defamation of character and reputation that can come from accusations of things like fraud, and on up to even worse things.

Because the use of the internet is becoming so prolific its entirely possible that, at some point, a person given a bad rep on-line ( being fair or un-fair) might encounter another person in "real" life who will react to that maligned person based on the on-line info. This can potentially mean loss of livelihood, or worse.

Given that this kind of "assault" on one's character can happen to a good and decent person as in can to a genuine crook--we are all entitled to the laws on this--even the bad guys.

Yes, it makes it harder to curtail their BS, but it also can same a good person a lot of grief too.

 

Precedents in law in this kind of thing are growing, and its only a matter of time before it become a real problem on on-line forums.

 

Its just a good "covering of one's butt"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Good and all, but if we dont post addresses how can we know about a bad trader?

 

For instance if somebody tell in a feedback thread that Rodimusconvoy from Ontario Canada (to say something) is a bad trader what should people do? Not trading with Ontario people just because dont want to be scammed if the person changes his username???

 

This is not gonna work that way.

 

Just my 2 cents on this.

You can pass along the detailed info in a PM to anyone whose concerned.

The word will still get around, but it will not be broadcast in the open.

 

JayC has a good reason for asking this, because there are potential legal issues regarding libel with something like this.

Unless the person is convicted of fraud or similar crimes in a court of law, they can seek restitution/damages from any person or agency openly maligning them in print--which covers on-line posts as well.

This is something that deals with the defamation of character and reputation that can come from accusations of things like fraud, and on up to even worse things.

Because the use of the internet is becoming so prolific its entirely possible that, at some point, a person given a bad rep on-line ( being fair or un-fair) might encounter another person in "real" life who will react to that maligned person based on the on-line info. This can potentially mean loss of livelihood, or worse.

Given that this kind of "assault" on one's character can happen to a good and decent person as in can to a genuine crook--we are all entitled to the laws on this--even the bad guys.

Yes, it makes it harder to curtail their BS, but it also can same a good person a lot of grief too.

 

Precedents in law in this kind of thing are growing, and its only a matter of time before it become a real problem on on-line forums.

 

Its just a good "covering of one's butt"

What you say make sense arrow, I ddint think there coulded be legal actions agains the board because of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No it doesnt.

 

Fraudsters rely on anomitity (SP?), if they attempt to sue for libel they have lost this anomitiy and can therefore be arrested criminally or countersued civily.

 

Furthermore, for libel to hold up in court the accusation has to be proven to be false. In other words, if I accuse board member XYZ (oh I really hope there isnt an XYZ on this board) of defrauding me, to sue me successfully he would have to prove how he did not defraud me, in contrast to me having to prove that he did.

 

All that being said, if JayC as the moderator of this board says not to publish addresses then I dont think we should. However, board members should not be concerned with publishing addresses because of legal reasons.

 

If there are any lawyers who want to either back me up or tell me I am wrong. Please do, I can take criticism postively.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think what JayC and possibly Arrow are trying to imply is, what if somebody posts somebody else address just because he thinks the other trader scammed him when in fact he wasnt. Like myself trading with JayC, for instance, my end arrives to JayC's but his doesnt arrives to me, because it was legit lost in the mail. If I write off JayC publicly because of that, using a real address, Id be damaging his trader image just because of a mistake that was out of his hands.

 

He could easily sue the board for difamation (or something like that) and could easily win the sue because he is right. Now, if the forum gets sued there will be no more TNI, and Id rather loosing 150usd on a trade that loosing the board at all.

 

Thats what I think. And like somebody said, frustration made us acting before thinking sometime.

 

Now the pm bad trades idea is neat, Im in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the cases where someone declares another as a scammer when in fact he is not is few compared to all the legitmate scammer annoucements. Take for example Jase and Superflashdoom for example, there was a trading problem, but neither Jase nor Superflashdoom posted the others address. They both simply stated each of their misgivings. That is a trading issue. Compare that with The Bat and Xequals10. The Bat clearly scammed Xequals 10, whereby The Bat convinced X that The Bat was going to send, where in all honestly The Bat never planned on sending. That is a scam. I hope I am making my point clear. The whole issue is that if there is a trading issue, i.e. condition, lost package (which by the way if it is a contential US to contential US trade, I simply don't buy it got lost in the mail), then I would agree posting an address is inappropriate. Yet, I have never seen something like this, and I try to keep up with problems which all active traders should. However, if it is a legit scam, perhaps evidenced by more then one board member indicating the same scam, then there is no reason not to post names, addresses, phone numbers, etc.

 

In my opinion, I think making the blanket statement "Do not post addresses" indicates a lack of involvement of the moderator. The responsibilities of the moderator should include deciding if the trade in question is a "issue" or a true "scam." And could advise members to post versus not post addresses.

 

But all that being said, I will comply to the rules of this board, since I think it is an excellent one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But I think that the scammer would sue because would consider the forum's owner as a third party involving in the conflict. However you stated valid points. There are a few scum bags out there that must be "educated".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, if there are lawyers out there who can clarify further please do, but it is my understanding that for one person to claim defemation of character or libel (which by the way I think the difference is one is verbal and one is written, but essentially the same thing) the the plantiff would have to prove that what the defendant said was false. In other words, for a scammer to claim libel (lets just go with one or the other for ease) he would have to prove that the defendant made a FALSE statement regarding the plantiff's actions. If a scam did in fact occur, there is no case. Your point is that the scammer can sue the board admins/mods because they are giving a channel for others to post perhaps negative comments. I believe that the same thing applies. The case would have no merit if the plantiff was in fact a scammer.

 

I am sure there is at least one lawyer on this board who can either back me up, or tell me that I am full of hot air.

 

Anywho, I am happy to continue this converstation, but I just want to state for the record that I am not trying to be combative, I think we are just having an intellegent conversation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mike

hate to break it to ya guys, but there's no debate about this..

 

don't post peoples address's plain and simple. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have clearly said that I was not going to break the rules set up by JayC.

 

And I don't think that is what we are debating here.

 

We are not debating the validity of this rule. Neither on whether or not to break it nor should it be eliminated, but rather what is the legal ramifications of the opposite are.

 

I was debating wether or not a lawsuit can be brought by one board member 1) against another board member, or 2) against the board for libel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was debating wether or not a lawsuit can be brought by one board member 1) against another board member, or 2) against the board for libel.

Yes, they can.

 

Because information on-line can be time-stamped and traced back to a user's computer, there's just enough potential evidence to warrant a case going through--IF the will is there.

Like anything else in legal circles, if someone feels hurt enough by another actions they can sue for damages and take the case as far as needed until its either thrown out by the courts, or until a verdict awards them.

Its the POTENTIAL that's at issue here.

 

Given the increasing ligititous nature of modern society, the potential is become more of an inevtiable.

 

No-one here can ever account for the means at the dispoal of any one person posting here, nor the inclinations one might have to take offsense and sue as a result.

ISPs, web-site owners, and posters are becoming increasingly more accontable for on-line conduct as the culture of the Internet grows.

The analogy is very much akin to newspapers and TV--which take great pains to watch out for libel. Because internet service is provided electronically, it is in a sense, "broadcast" with public participation.

That said the rules governing public conduct are the same as those in the lands in which that member of the public resides.

This is how police forces collar pedophiles ( for example) diseminating material over the 'Net--they use the laws of the perp's homeland to nab them and try them.

That reach of the law extends all the way down to a casual user like you and me, and just as if we were in a public place, so are we limited as to what we can say against another.

 

If I were to call another person a thief in a public gathering, the "victim" could call upon any witnesses to prosecute me for slander--assuming the accusations are unfounded or as yet not proven.

The statement can be traced back to me, supported by witnesses, and a assessment of damage to the victims reputation can be made.

This is the theoretical path that the courts would use to judge the case.

 

Well, the same path can exist on-line, but as we know, slander and libel cases are very difficult to prosecute. What it often comes down to is one person's word against another.

 

However, because a computer consitutues physically recorded evidence, with time stamps and other means of cataloguing where and when, it can potentially make a case easier to try.

If that is the case, then it inevitable that someone will seek to use that to their advantage.

It might be two scalpers waging war on their "turf", or it could simply be two people with a genuine dislike for each other--or even just a immature prank that goes sour.

There is no way to account for the veracity of a claim made against someone, no easy way to confirm the claim is genuine and not some perverse form of cyber-bullying--and defendiing against it is equally difficult.

Chances are a great many people here have already encountered something like this--possibly beginning with as juvenile an accusation as someone being "gay", for example.

Personal info like an address means the confrontations with a person on-line can leave the "cyber-realm" and venture in to the very real world.

With an address can come a phone number, then a license plate number, physical description, place of work, family members......all kinds of data, and with that data the potential again to real harm to a person or persons.

You can add the "right to privacy" issue at this point.......and its gets stickier from that point on.

 

 

See, I'm not a lawyer, just some schmuck using some common sense.

The 'Net is only about a decade or so old, so alot of the "laws" regarding it are being tacked on to existing laws and interpretations of laws as an after thought.

With something that can be possibly far-reaching, it better to be safer than sorrier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You do raise good points, for example name calling or pranks.

 

But lets describe a specfic scenario (just an example), in response to your last post, I state that you are stupid and low class. Let's then say you get my address and post a Bad Trader Alert and out me as a scammer. Can you sue me for name calling? I am not sure, if you could I would expect to see a rash of civil suits stemming out of recesses all over High Schools in America. Your point is that since this is actually recorded hard copy, there is a less of a he said/ he said compared to the HS example. And I would agree with that. But do you think the suit would hold up in court? Unlikely.

 

Now lets take the flip, would I be able to sue you. Well, you said something blatenly false about me. And you most likely hurt my reputation. But how does your act of posting my address with the BTA affect the outcome of that situation. Whether or not you posted my address has little to do with my ability to sue you. Therefore, perhaps the better stipulation should be do not post Bad Trader Alerts.

 

Your point about transfering into the physical world, however is a vaild one. But in the above situation, do you think other board members are going to seek me out because you posted my address and a BTA. If anything you would want to seek me out and you already have my address. Furthermore, my address is not private information (since it is in the yellow pages) and therefore if you published it, that would not be a breach of privacy.

 

Your post ends with using some common sense, well in my opinion, the idea that we can't post addresses assumes that board members do not have common sense. You clearly have common sense, I would expect all other board members had common sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Name calling is something that probably has some degree of leeway.

It would have to be pretty persistent and very inflammatory to be damaging. We'd be talking about some pretty vile things being attached to someone.

The thing about this is less the back and forth between two people, its more when others start to get involved and things spread.

This where the real , and potential, damage occurs.

The influence of a message in print can be great.

 

If I infer malice, or openly malign a person's character and someone else believes my statement to be true, without corroborating it, then THAT is where the damage to the victims character occurs.

Providing a means to confront that person directly ( posting their address, which is information potentially considered held in trust) increases the damage.

If someone then actually goes to that victim--using the info provided on-line and does something, even just non-physical imtimidation, then the "damage" goes from being something considered very mild to something that can be personally threatening.

This could be a simple as someone driving by my home and taking a picture of me--the threat is all in the perceptions and ( in Canada at least) a "threat" where an action is taken towards the threatened is considered an assault. That, of course, becomes a serious matter, with crimnal and civil damages possible.

 

The statement I would have made against the victim can be completely true--but because its not been determined in a court of law, it is NOT true in the eyes of the law, and I am in the wrong first because both parties are considered not guilty until proven otherwise.

Because a third party's conduct cannot be accounted for, a person can, by rights, insist that revealing their personal info can be potentially threatening to them.

 

See, I've actually done this myself on-line--divulged a troll's address and/or used their address info, as an incentive to get them to stop trolling--and only realized later what I had done and how serious a thing it could have become. Its not something I'm proud of, or ever intend to do again

 

Some of the posters here might also be underage as well--adding a even more serious tone to this.

Would we all be so quick to advocate disclosure if the perp was a minor??

 

An adult can make a sound and reasoned choice to divulge personal info about themselves, but a minor may not. That's not my opinion though, that's a legal intepretation actually on the books.

Given that minors are continually cautioned NOT to divulge personal info on-line it can be a very sticky thing.

As a step-parent, I've faced this particular matter with my kids, and the issue can (and has) careen into real life very easily.

 

Heck, even divulging the info privately can still raise issues because how do you know WHO is getting the info?

 

Nailing the scammers is the primary issue here, but protecting ourselves and the forums is also paramount. Its probably going to come down to using good judgement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First off, what is the formal defintion of trolling as pertains to forums? I have seen it used before, but I am not quite sure what it means.

 

And secondly ARROW, thank you, I think you have just convinced me why posting addresses could land a board member or the board admins in legal trouble. That minor aspect of minors. I always forget that people under the age of 18 are just as interested in comics and action figures as those over 18 (by the way, when you read this you might read some sarcasim, but that is not the case, I am being 100% serious). I think the fact that if I post an address I might be divulging a minor's information is very compelling, and obviously I wouldn't want to do that, and I am sure there is something that I could get in legal trouble for.

 

Thanks again for this discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

babact--

My apologies for being so long-winded on this.

Its a complicated issue because there are quite a few thing that can be addressed. Glad we can have a conversation on it, these have been good questions that will benefit everyone.

 

Trolling on the forums would mean posting provocative topics meant to incite flame wars, or posting responses intended to do the same thing.

 

A classic example is someone that posts quite civilly for a short period of time, then would all of a sudden start questioning the maturity of posters because they collect toys.

The general consensus is that the trolls are people that are starved for attention and resort to on-line misbehaviour to get it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a quick 2 cents...

 

Every board has the right to ask it's users to not post information about it's users. There is one thing people should understand if you had a simple problem with someone there obviously would never be a reason to post specific personal information. Now a perfect example of when it should not be a problem is the_bat aka Matt Mason of Kankakee IL. I personally have proof of his misdealings on a grand level. I have not posted his full information on this board. What I have posted is "public information" which at least here in the states is perfectly legal. The one thing that protects message boards like this is the fact that when you sign up in the clause it states that the site will not be held responsible for comments made by others. It also is in no way responsibles for anyones dealings on the said site. I have consulted my attorney on what I can and can't disclose which basicly is info like Social Security and information on place of work. Being one of the people trying to get others who have been ripped off by Mr. Mason together I have looked in to this deeply.

 

Again this is just my 2 cents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just a quick 2 cents...

 

Every board has the right to ask it's users to not post information about it's users. There is one thing people should understand if you had a simple problem with someone there obviously would never be a reason to post specific personal information. Now a perfect example of when it should not be a problem is the_bat aka Matt Mason of Kankakee IL. I personally have proof of his misdealings on a grand level. I have not posted his full information on this board. What I have posted is "public information" which at least here in the states is perfectly legal. The one thing that protects message boards like this is the fact that when you sign up in the clause it states that the site will not be held responsible for comments made by others. It also is in no way responsibles for anyones dealings on the said site. I have consulted my attorney on what I can and can't disclose which basicly is info like Social Security and information on place of work. Being one of the people trying to get others who have been ripped off by Mr. Mason together I have looked in to this deeply.

 

Again this is just my 2 cents.

Well, your "proof" might be all well and good, but is it legally valid?

 

Not until its been proven such in a court of law.

THAT is the law.

 

That's one of the issues here. Its one person's word against another's UNTIL such claims have been validated by authority--and that is how someone can contest this......and possibly win.

Also the disclaimers are good to have, but it really depends on how they are worded, and upon the state/province/country the site is based in.

Some states grant the disclaimers stronger authority than others, some grant the users more rights over and above the agreements and disclaimers.

Some can even render the agreements INVALID, if the wording isn-t 100% correct-and consultation with just one lawyer might not be enough to catch it.

The site has to protect itself first, and the users themselves of their own accord.

 

Yes, This is all a likely a bigger much-ado-about something-next-to-nothing, but I think its wiser to avoid dragging real lawyers ( charging real dollars) into spats that are really over petty cash amounts and some name-calling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it all comes down to the owners of the sites choice. I would also find it hard to believe that someone who has ripped off people would even have the courage to retain an attorney to have information removed. That by it self would be opening a can of worms for the bad trader.

 

I could just see the person...... "Uhh.. Your honor, I ripped off all of these people and they are bad mouthing me on the internet... I don't think they should do that..."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The key to weeding out the scammers is to always make sure you put tracking and insurance on any and all packages. That way you can see wheather or not the item was sent, when and where it was sent aswell. You also have to keep the reciepts and a copy of any and all forms of payment. And definitely keep all of your PM's, e-mails, and posts that include any iformation on the trade so that you have proof of what was agreed upon. However should a scam occur after all those things have been done, The scamed person should have the right to post any personal info of the scammer that the unfortunate scamed person wishes, because they would then infact have proof of what they claim. And this should be included in the rules and agreement policies of the board so that it is in no way held responsible for any occuring slander liabilities.

 

Thats how i feel at least

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The key to weeding out the scammers is to always make sure you put tracking and insurance on any and all packages. That way you can see wheather or not the item was sent, when and where it was sent aswell. You also have to keep the reciepts and a copy of any and all forms of payment. And definitely keep all of your PM's, e-mails, and posts that include any iformation on the trade so that you have proof of what was agreed upon. However should a scam occur after all those things have been done, The scamed person should have the right to post any personal info of the scammer that the unfortunate scamed person wishes, because they would then infact have proof of what they claim. And this should be included in the rules and agreement policies of the board so that it is in no way held responsible for any occuring slander liabilities.

 

Thats how i feel at least

These are good tips. Also keep in mind that under contract law, anyone who is a minor is NOT bound by a contract--so making a deal with them means they can run off with the goods LEGALLY. This depends on where they are too--as someplaces allow for the parents to be held accountable.

 

Good references, chatting up the person for a period of time--learn something about them, checking their other deals... all good tactics to use.

Nothing is fool-proof though, so rely on your gut.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Sponsors

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • ShartimusPrime takes a look at the new Marvel Legends Sp//dr Build-A-Figure which is part of the newest Spider-Man themed wave from Hasbro. The figures in this wave include Doc Ock, Cloak, Dagger, All-New All-Different Daredevil, Elektra, House Of M Spider-Man and Scarlet Spider. You can purchase these figures now at Megalopolis.Toys.
       

      Check out hi-res images for this figure below in our GALLERY!
    • Gunn said something stupid and for once in the history of forever a d**k got what he had coming. End of story. Personal responsibility. Pass it on.
    • Since he was so sorry and apologetic about his tweets,  why not delete them? And this whole "I was being a provocateur" excuse is laughable. The reality is that the things he said we're so reprehensible and perverse there was no believable explanation he could offer,  so he just said he was joking... Yes, joking about serious issues does not immediately mean that the person is involved in them. I'll give you that,  but this wasn't just one tweet,  this was a whole series of horrible tweets, not one of which was funny in any way, all revolving around the same subject,  pedophilia. Which should raise a Red flag in most people's eyes. Often where there is smoke, there is fire. Especially in Hollywood. Have you ever heard of anyone by the name Weinstein, Spacey, or Singer? I agree that people can certainly change,  but why not go back and delete those tweets? The mere fact that Gunn left these up on twitter, suggests to me that he was never all that concerned or apologetic about their content. If I was to tweet something awful, get called out on it, and was truly apologetic, I would go out of my way to remove the offensive tweets. And while I know the GOTG cast has said he isn't the same person he was back then, let's not pretend that any of the cast actually know what Gunn does in his private life. My opinion on Dave Bautista is just that,  an opinion and I stand by it.
      Gunn is the one who really mishandled this situation. A public figure like Gunn should know his tweets will be held to a higher standard & yes these vile tweets will probably define him for some time, quite fairly in my opinion. However,  I don't think this sends a message to your average person,  that no matter how much they've changed as a person they'll always be defined by their lowest point, as they are simply regular people & not public figures like Gunn, the millionaire Hollywood director. The sheer volume & subject matter of Gunn's tweets were beyond awful & extremely disturbing. A public figure like Gunn should know better than to post these sort of things that would come come back to haunt him, & had he been sorry enough for tweeting about how much he enjoy's little boys touching his "naughty place", he would have deleted them, however here we are today & it feels like more than anything else,  he's sorry he got caught.
    • Gunn did explain the purpose behind those tweets, expressing that his intention those years ago was to act as a provocateur. He additionally had already apologized for his raunchy attempts at humor. I don't think that joking about serious issues in such a way necessarily means that a person has a thing for them, especially if the purpose of those "jokes" is to cause a reaction. It's making a joke which is offensive for the sake of it being offensive, and not necessarily to insinuate some kind of depraved fetish. There have been many news of idiot tourists making the Nazi salute in Germany, which doesn't automatically entail they're Nazis. They're just idiots (at the very least, hopefully). I believe this is a similar case with James Gunn.

      His tweets are disgusting, and don't say anything nice about the person he was in 2010. However, Gunn himself and the people he has closely worked with for over five years expressed that he has changed and that he's no longer the kind of person those tweets reflect. I don't think any kind of conclusion from this incident should be made without taking those people into account. And I don't think it's appropriate to assume Dave Bautista is depraved solely based on his stance from this situation. He knows much more about James Gunn than the slim portion most people get to see. Gunn's situation has been mishandled for the most part by people online, and shows a toxic mentality. It tells people that it doesn't matter how much they have changed as a person, their lowest point will always define them. And just in case there's any doubt, I don't mean to defend James Gunn's tweets, or the type of "humor" we waved like a flag back then. I don't even want to pretend to know what course of action Disney should've taken. It's a slippery slope, but there should be some balance between painting him as a misunderstood saint and a depraved would-be child-molester.
    • Pedophilia is not something that should EVER be joked about. It is a real problem worldwide and it is horrible. The tweets made by James Gunn were extremely insensitive and vile,  especially to victims and their families. Not one of these so called jokes were funny and they suggest that Mr. Gunn at the very least is a sick individual who could very well be involved in pedophilia in some form. He is simply not fit to direct anything until all of these "jokes" are adequately explained. I find it very sad & pathetic that so many people have defended Gunn and his disgusting tweets. It speaks volumes when thousands jump to the defense of a man who has endorsed pedophilia & may himself be a pedophile, simply because he directed a couple of entertaining movies. Here's to hoping that Disney will fire Dave Bautista too. He has been the most vocal of Gunn's supporters and I suspect has some disturbing skeletons in his closet as well.
×







Entertainment News International (ENI) is the popular culture network for fans all around the world.
Get the scoop on all the popular comics, games, movies, toys, and more every day!

Contact and Support

Advertising | Submit News | Contact ENI | Privacy Policy

©Entertainment News International - All images, trademarks, logos, video, brands and images used on this website are registered trademarks of their respective companies and owners. All Rights Reserved. Data has been shared for news reporting purposes only. All content sourced by fans, online websites, and or other fan community sources. Entertainment News International is not responsible for reporting errors, inaccuracies, omissions, and or other liablities related to news shared here. We do our best to keep tabs on infringements. If some of your content was shared by accident. Contact us about any infringements right away - CLICK HERE