First, isn't it a little misleading for Google to say that paid *anything* to the artists when they actually send payments to the record labels?
Second, here's a hint for the movie studios: if I search for "Watch The Force Awakens", the top results better be Netflix, Amazom, Hulu, iTunes, or any number of legal sites. Oh, wait, it's not available on these sites due to exclusive contracts with a website that has a terrible user interface? Then no wonder people are looking for illegal versions.
Is a site's purpose to deliver an audience to the ad company?
I'm interested in the logic behind the whole process: Why are so many sites concerned more about unique visitors than an engaged community? Is it so they can charge more for advertising? Why? So they can make more money. But then who pays more? The advertising company. Why? So they can get their message or product in front of more people. Why? To increase sales and make more money Ah, yes, but does it?
At what point does this whole process collapse because people aren't clicking on ads and they aren't buying the advertised product? Oh, well, that's okay- at least people are aware of the product. And how does that help if people aren't buying the product and the company isn't making money?
And what does this say about the news site? Are they making content to inform and entertain the readers? Or is entertainment a way of delivering more viewers to the advertisers? If this is the case, at what point does the news site become nothing but click-baity celebrity gossip because that's what brings in the most viewers, which is what the advertisers want?
Of course, that assumes that the lawsuit will actually go anywhere, which seems ridiculously unlikely. Yes, but it already has gone somewhere: the people have hired lawyers, the lawyers have filed a case, and the case has made its way into the media. Like with similar lawsuits, who are the lawyers that are taking these cases? Don't they know that can't win? Is the 1% chance of winning and getting $1 billion decision (or a higher chance to settle) really worth their time and effort to start a case like this? And what happens if the 1% chance of winning comes true and a judge decides that every social media platform is liable for anything that happens on the site? Or do these lawyers not care that the case will set this kind of precedent?
This is a great comment and it's further evidence for my theory that too many people think they're living in an action movie and they need to whip out their gun at any minute. Even if the guy had a gun and even if he was going to pull it out, did the police officer really think there was a going to be a shoot-out in a car? With both people barely 3 feet apart and when the guy still had his seatbelt on?
This is the same thinking of people who say "I own a gun so of course I can shoot back at a shooter in a dark nightclub, full of smoke and loud noises and panicking people even though I rarely go to the shooting range and I've never shot at a real person in my life."
So what's the name of advertising agency that: 1) Didn't create the artwork on their own, which they were probably paid by the dealership to do? 2) Used an image that was "DCMA compliant" (as if that's a thing) instead of getting an image from a real stock photo/ art site? Oh, right, because stock image sites charge fees to use their images. 3) Didn't anyone at the ad agency think it was odd that the "DCMA compliant" site didn't charge any kind of licensing fee? Or did they think this was a good way to save money?
I wonder if it's fair to blame the dealership since they probably assumed (rightly) that anything the ad agency gave them would be fully clear for them to use.
I agree with the other posters that TD should make a case that court cases should not be removed or deleted from the public record. Again, if this person (or this court) can make one case disappear, what's to stop any court from making any case disappear? It becomes too easy to use this case as a precedent to allow a judge to rule that their current case is close enough to this one and it can be deleted from the record.
Yes, the person might have a good reason to not want a court case to follow him or her, but that's why cases are sealed. Okay, sure, the public records will still show that the case exists, but no one can get to the details.
I know this is getting off-topic, but: "not for profit" is defined as "has no money left after spending all incoming revenues on assets and salaries for the for profit corporation".
Isn't this what "non-profit" hospitals do all the time? They take in millions of dollars, but then spend all of it on their CEO and new "research" wings just so they don't show a profit. In this case, I think Peters was learning from the best.
I hate to sound cynical, but I believe most large companies have a mitigation department that checks these decisions for liability. It goes something like this:
CEO: Can we turn off the "choose an OS" feature? Mitigation: Let's run the numbers... okay, if someone brings a class-action suit, it may cost around $2.5 million. We might have to pay the customers an amount also. CEO: And how much is that? Mitigation: Let's estimate it at $9 per person, which could be up to $9 million CEO: Hmm... compared to our billions in revenue each year? Okay, let's do it and claim this as a cost of doing business.
Actually, law makers should hold gun manufacturers to the same safety standards as car makers. By law, cars must have seat belts, anti-lock brakes, air bags, and other safety features.
By comparison, guns come with a palm-reader so only the owner can fire it, an RFID chip so it can only be used within a certain range of the fob (again, to prevent stolen guns to be used in crimes), and guns are limited to only firing 60 bullets per minute. Oh, wait, NONE of that is happening.
Guns are the only products on the market that are designed to kill, and which don't have any improvement in safety features.
And how does someone tell a migrant boat from a real boat?
I think Mike's sentence sums this up perfectly: how would a random person who actually spotted a boat using such an app be able to distinguish a "refugee" boat from... any other boat?
So, tell us, app-maker, how does a user tell if a "suspicious" speck is a boat of migrants or a fishing boat? Is there a FAQ that covers this? Can people zoom in on the image? And what happens if enough people report the fishing boat speck? Will the app send out the authorities... to the boat which has probably filed their trip with the local coast guard?
So, yep, someone didn't think this through. However, it's slightly better than "Like and retweet this post if you support migrants".
If people can sue Big Tobacco over the willful deaths of smokers, when can people sun Big Gun over the deaths of people got shot? After all, AR-15 rifles are specifically designed to shoot and kill people. And the NRA has knowingly blocked legislation on the grounds that people's 2nd Amendment rights over-ride people's right not to get shot.
Here's something else to consider: isn't there any kind of statute of limitations on posts and pages? How can they complain NOW about posts in 2010 and 2012? Isn't that a little too late, especially since 98% of the traffic to those pages has already come and gone? How much ad revenue can a page from 2010 really be making?
Are these lawyers so bored and have nothing more constructive to do than file a trademark for "THANKYOU" and then sue another company over it? I can sort-of understand doing busywork to pad the billable hours, but this is getting ridiculous.