The TV Networks hate Dish Hopper because they fear what may come if Dish Hoppe is successful with those who buy the units so they don't have to sit thru crappy ad's to watch their shows.
The Netwroks fear this will create a boomerang effect that if Dish Hopper is successful with those who buy it, that the success of it wiil move to a set top box for outside of Dish Network that could be used for T.V. service from Telco and Cable providers and diminish their ability in regards to rates they charge for advertising.
The Networks will stop at nothing to make sure they hang on to what has been a very profitable revenue stream for them. Look for them to keep up the fight thru other avenues much like this one on the basis for copyright inringement.
I like hearing the Copyright Trolls and their friendS at the MPAA & RIAA repeating the same old mantra of how copyright infringement is killing their business and plundering their profits.
They just want to go back to the old day's where they controlled distribution and how you got the media they produced. They do not want to have to give anyone a cut of the profits.
Before you had no choice but to get your media from sources where Hollywood controlled the distribution and they plain out f-ing hate that.
Hollywood has poured a ton of money into the White House to get the rules shifted back their way to try and get the profits flowing back their way.
When cassette tapes came out they said that copying would be the death of them, they said the same with VHS and Beta, and governments went and put takes on to that media to compensate them, and this has occurred every time technology has advanced and every time we have heard Hollywood say "woe is me".
Copyright troll lawsuits are not about protection of their copyrighted work and brand, it isn't about protecting their works, it is about revenue generation and always has been.
It has been about money and always will be about money, it's not about copyright enforcement, it is about revenue, and they see it as another avenue for revenue.
Ferguson round three. Law enforcement agencies sure seem to think they are above any laws they swore an oath to uphold.
It would seem more than ever that Law Enforcement agencies from the federal, to the state, to the cities and towns feel empowered to break any laws they see fir with impunity and there will be no consequences at all to them.
And Law enforcement say's it is the citizens who are out of control and have no respect for them. I disagree, it is law enforcement who have no respect for the citizens nor the laws they swore and oath to uphold.
And you read it right, because that is exactly what seems to have taken place. It seems that everyone on the law enforcement side does not want what was told to the people on that Grand Jury to come out.
From the very beginning of Brown's shooting, the Law Enforcement side of the incident has taken a very proactive stance at keeping how the incident took place, where and how the events unfolded under wraps.
Now usually Law Enforcement will let some details out, but in this case the have tried to control the information from the very beginning.
They have tried to control anyone who wanted to know more of the details, from media and the public.... and when questions were asked, Law Enforcement put forth efforts to stifle any information leaking out.
This was done thru a variety of means, financial intimidation and physical intimidation and unlawful intimidation.
The Law Enforcement side has gone leaps and bounds to keep the lid on how and what led up to Brown's death, it has been a coordinated effort from the beginning.
Would the power that be on the Law Enforcement side of this try to discredit someone who wanted to speak up about how this case was presented to the Grand Jury, given all that has taken place since this shooting occurred, I am of the belief they would and have.
There is a strong belief outside of that Grand Jury that the Prosecutor laid out the events in a "soft" manner that the allegations in how the events that night played out.
Most believe the prosecutor softened the version of how events played out, and thus in turn Wilson's conduct would be viewed in a better light than how if this was joe citizen would have gone.
Not long ago, one of those members of that Grand Jury filed suit to get the courts permission to speak out about his interpretation of the case and how it was laid out.
Since that Juror decided to file suit, now there has been a suggestion put out that this juror isn't concerned with how the prosecutor laid out his case against Wilson, rather that this is a cash grab.
Why a cash grab you might think....Well the belief is that this juror is looking to cash in, by doing interviews for print and television, book deals and being paid for those hence why the juror filed suit to relinquish him from the secrecy oath that this juror was bound by.
We all know the juror needs the court to grant this juror permission to speak without fear of legal reprisal. Is this juror looking to cash in, perhaps... One could see it in that light.
Could this juror feel that after the case and Wison was not indicted and upon hearing the reports in the media of how events took place that night and the contradiction of how events unfolded when Wilson shot Brown bothered the juror enough to come forward with the desire to speak, that seems reasonable.
The are a lot of parties that would like to make sure that whatever was said to the jurors hearing the Wilson case, never comes to light.
This juror has never said they are looking to cash in on what took place in that Grand Jury, but yet it has been inferred this is the juror's intent.
How would anyone know that? The juror hasn't said that, all they have expressed is a desire to speak up about the case with out ending up facing a charge for doing such.
There have been a lot of people on the law enforcement side who sure don't want to discuss specifics with the Wilson/Brown case and this has been since the shooting took place.
One has to wonder how the theory this juror was just looking to cash in was propagated to the public and media, I am of the belief it is the very same people who wanted this shooting was justified.
One day we will find out the truth, it's really just a matter of when.
I would be of the belief that we will see the trolls take a page out of the Prenda playbook and try to deny, deflect, and delay any attempts to have to pay the fee award. Lowe’s attempt with comedy by the way of offering a 5k sympathy fee payment ought to only encourage Lynch/Lamberson to keep the trolls feet to the fire.
I would be of the opinion that we will hear claims of how their client can’t pay, and there is no assets and bla bla bla. The bad thing I see in Rice’s ruling is that I see no mention of any of the Plaintiff attorneys being held accountable to pay any of the fees which is a shame really.
Now Elf-MAN LLC is going to be the one tagged to pay the fee award, but of course there will be appeals and delays and the usual run around, but I see trouble on the Horizon much like the Prenda gang had with AF Holdings.
Elf-MAN LLC has taken a lot of settlements in from it’s various cases all over the U.S., and has a lot of actions still pending, which means it has earned and still has the potential to receive monies from settlements and judgement’s which is going to be a headache for them.
If they try and pull a Prenda. sooner or later they are going to have to answer some questions and trot out a face to answer those questions ( much like when Paul Hansmeier did the Prenda two-step at the AF Holdings depostion ) and we all know how well that went for the Prenda gang….Well the gang at ELF-MAN LLC could be in the same predicament
Did anyone really think Petreaus wouldn't be facing charges even though he was Director of the CIA?
The Obama government has prosecuted more whistleblowers and those that have leaked information than any other Administration in U.S. history.
Eric Holder's time as the head of the U.S. DOJ will be remembered as one that aggressively pursued journalists, leakers and whistleblowers to the full extent of the law.
This Obama led government sought to punish anyone who embarrassed it, and James Risen's case is a prime example of how far the U.S. DOJ will pursue a person.
Petraeus passing of documents to Broadwell was stupid on his part,in actuality it seems it was more a thing of bravado to impress Broadwell.
All indications are that there was nothing in those documents that would harbor any critical military secrets or threaten the nation that Broadwell received.
This is more a case that due to Petraeus's position, that it had embarrassed the Administration, and how could they not prosecute Petraeus when they had done so to Risen and others, the Administration knew they would get called out on their being a double standard of they did nothing.
Petraues has skeleton's in his closet from his being in charge of how things in Iraq went with the torture at Abu Grahib.
Petraeus isn't a stupid man, he's intelligent and was well respected and will always be besmirched by the things that happened in Iraq while he was in charge, but he isn't dumb enough to have given out anything that was so secret or sensitive that it would damage him and the Administration.
Petraeus just got caught up thinking with his little head instead of his big head while trying to impress one woman and got caught up between two women who saw the other as some type of threat.
I am sure the rest of the Copyright Troll's who had planned a big wave of ISP subscriber lawsuits will be sending Rightscorp some thank you notes for f*ucking this up and making thing's harder to extort Canadians for cash.
In not even a week after this law came into place, Rightscorp has managed to get the MP's in parliament to demand Canadian ISP's tell their customers when sending these notices to their subscribers that no identifying subscriber information was handed to the trolls in conjunction with the notice being sent to them.
I know Rightscorp is hard up for cash due to their low stock price, but it sure does paint a picture of how lazy these clowns are that they try and use U.S. copyright law to Canadian ISP customers.
My guess is old Kirby called his Attorney and informed him of the gross violation of how his rights were violated by using his name in a newspaper article.
And once Kirby finished telling his story, his attorney filled him in on the fact that he wouldn't be able to sue for 1 billion dollars because he is a public official and it would be fair use under the first amendment, so he should come back from Fantasy Island and get a grip on the fact that he was wrong and would only further peoples opinion that he was being an ass.
Now I am only guessing here, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if a call like that didn't take place.