To be clear I think they are disturbed that citizens are now aware of how complicit in the spying on everyone who touched an ATT network they were. The conversation isn't impossible because of a logo, it is impossible because the company refuses to admit for how long, how deep, and how helpful they were to these programs. They didn't give a damn when they were being paid to assist but suddenly they worry about their image.
And in the chase for a few more pennies, they proceed to do what the printer industry did. They will end up spending more money on legal fees in the end, than this master plan will earn them.
They really should consider replacing their CEO with someone who can look beyond dreams of quick cash to see that this didn't work every other time it was done in multiple industries, and perhaps they should pursue other ideas to help the revenue stream.
I was more entertained by the people trying to pretend that it was wrong that people were offended by his behavior. I find it amazing that the battle cry is always it is unfair they called me things after I called them things.
Fidelity is a company who buys up bad debt (I would guess). The debt was presented as being valid, and I am sure KlearGear signed an agreement stating as such.
Perhaps having Fidelity fix the reporting, and not trying to screw them over is part of the greater plan for the Palmers. The debt collector is a victim of KlearGear's illegal practices as much as the Palmers are.
Fidelity got screwed by KlearGear as well, and most likely will be working to obtain back any payments made to KlearGear to purchase these debts. Come on kids, you can't believe this is the ONLY time KlearGear sold these debts off - this is the one we heard about. I bet there is a pile of the debts out there on shaky ground just needing a push.
I have a feeling there will be at least 1, if not more, debt collectors coming after KlearGear. Given the general hate for the debt collection industry, I hope they use every sleazy borderline illegal tactic to hound KlearGear.
4 years to develop. 1 year running. This is what failure looks like.
Millions of dollars spent on a system designed to create new "law" that the corporations demand be in place to stave of their bankruptcy all while having record years. A system still not vetted by an expert, who was never on the RIAA payroll before, and looking forward to continuing income "monitoring" the program. Using a software package that clearly states how they are using it is in violation of the TOS. A system fronted by someone who's claim to fame is she worked for AOL. An advocate supposed to be representing the rights of the citizens who parrots the party line of holding someone accountable because they pay a bill is perfectly fine. A system run by a company so "good" at what they do they DMCA'd a client's own website trying to sell content to consumers as pirated material.
Of course they are going to claim the system works, otherwise the labels & artists might question why the fsck they keep pouring money into these **AA pipedreams that NEVER EVER work as promised.
In the same time and for probably less money, they could have created a system that pwned the crap out of everything else out there to sell content at the price the market wants and made another fortune. Instead they focus on the illusion that they have a right to keep control over what people do with what they purchase, rather than remember they are in the business of selling content to consumers.
The next time a lawmaker proposes that tax dollars support this industry, perhaps it would be best to ask why. Record sales, record profits, record salaries, and enough money left over to waste on shit programs all while staying the course with a business model everyone else can see is outdated and in trouble.
Here's to CCI. You've lied, and lied, and lied all while you're being paid for doing jack shit to "solve" a problem by using a Rube Goldberg machine. That "problem" could easily have been solved for much less time and money had you just told the emperor he is naked. But good on you for subverting the legal system with your own kangaroo court.
If only the law opened the door in the US to 'reasonable' awards like a multiple of the market value rather than the $150K cannon, then it might ACTUALLY force them to meet consumer demand and make more money than before without the help of the courts.
Zoe Keating @zoecello I don't think so, it's promo. RT @juliettrowe: Is it time for #soundcloud and #bandcamp to pay artists for streaming?
How is it with all of the money taken in "for the artists" by the old gate keepers, artists are always looking for more?
I think it also exposes the problem of thinking the 'art' matters so much more than the platform. When is the last time a platform went on and on about these 'artists' bleeding them dry because they don't pay for the use of the platform? Perhaps because the platforms have figured out other ways to get paid while offering the service for free rather than just demanding someone else pay them for their work.
While the other streaming services have talked about being bled dry, it is by the old guard gatekeepers demanding more and more (and artists who don't pay any attention beyond how little the label gives them vs how much the label collected in their name).
So they aren't stopping terrorists. They have been caught on several occasions using this power to do things that benefit corporations. And yet somehow they still claim this is the right way to do things.
Perhaps we need to think about the right way to make the government afraid of its people and not its corporate backers again.
I've figured it all out. Because it has taken so long for material to be released in Oz, they want to extend the copyrights so that there is a reason for corps to finally get around to releasing it to 26 million potential customers. If there wasn't copyright there would be no money in doing it and Oz would never get these things.
Or they could point out that content no longer needs to be sailed to Oz, that the "internet" could let them get content there even faster and that they will not change the laws to suit companies who treat them like Ike treated Tina.
But then I live in a fantasy land where it should not be Governments job to protect a business model that refuses to move forward and become more profitable.
Wow you mean giving someone a monopoly in an area might encourage them not to compete? But the market is supposed to fix everything. We hand them all of this money to wire things and provide access and they manage to fail at that. Can we get refunds?