I just thought the word "classic" should be used in connection with Sherlock Holmes.
Also, it's pretty classic that the Doyle family would be the ones who pulled this stunt. My understanding (from a special by the "Sherlock" creators) is that the Sherlock Holmes character has been reimagined and used more than any other (provably) fictional character in history, and that Arthur Conan Doyle gave his blessing to all sorts of plays and derivative works during his lifetime.
Great character to try as a test case a century later.
Strictly Speaking, it's an Immunity, not Safe Harbor
Putting too fine a point on it, but Safe Harbor usually requires some conditions or act to obtain, to wit:
"1.The provision in a law or agreement that will protect from any liability or penalty as long as set conditions have been met."
Whereas Section 230 is outright immunity from liability for defamatory third-party posts. No action required of the website (as opposed to DMCA Safe Harbors).
I only mention this because §230 immunity is so important to the functioning of the web as we know it, that referring to it as a safe harbor may downplay its true power and role in allowing such things like my making this post. Immunity is a nice, strong word that says it all in this context.
I was surprised last week to get an email from my broadband provider Cox telling me that for an extra $5/month I can get even faster broadband! Yay.
I'm already paying an extra $10/month for "Premium" access but I checked it out anyway. The new offer is really about $10-12 more per month (liars), and offers download speeds of 'up to' 50Mbps (I had routers in 1999 that could handle more than that).
I was too put out to determine whether they are slowing down my Premium speeds, or just offering a third tier of even higher not-very-fast speeds for a higher, misrepresented sum.
Other broadband options available?: None to speak of.
In light of current issues - tackiness threshhold has been surpassed.
Good thoughts, but I don't think they will take root in a crowdfunding context.
The predominant point of crowdfunding sites is to help people raise money to try something. They could fail. If the project had money to offer refunds when they fail, they wouldn't need to raise money to fund the project in the first place.
I have funded a dozen+ projects, and each time I know I am giving some artists my cash to see if they can pull it off. Sometimes they just can't. That's the risk I willingly take. Thus far most have come through, others are still working on it, wayyy past deadline. (Still waiting on the Dr. Demento and Devo documentaries, but got my zombie playing cards and my Ouya.)
But the ones who are working on these overdue projects are communicating with us; and late or nothing is the risk I took. It's not about quality control or guarantees or meeting deadlines. It's about supporting folks with groovy ideas. And apparently vastly more succeed than fail.
The folks in the article apparently stopped communicating with anyone months ago, and haven't been found. That's not the spirit of the thing, and hopefully that type of scenario is the extent of where these lawsuits go if there are more.
19%? That's crazy good. I am consistently surprised at how many people I know who do not use Twitter at all. They don't get it.
Live Tweeting during TV events is great interactive fun. Like baseball games and Archer when it's first airing. But the Olympics was showing stuff that had already happened. What's the point of live tweeting about that? That's like live tweeting to a rerun of an Astros game, or Bewitched. Who freaking cares?
Twitter ain't Facebook. It's a more specific group of users and largely about immediacy. So sure it's important to TV viewing, to the right group, in the right circumstances -- like something happening right now for the first time. (I dunno, that NBC guy just set me off.)
AT&T has jammed useless bloatware onto my last 5 smartphones, and before as well (Asphalt Racing? YP? AT&T FamilyMap? -- I know where my family is). I like my S4, but it greatly expanded on AT&T's bloatware "offerings." Take a gander at "running apps" and it's mostly stuff I don't even recognize. Urgh.
Just last night I was "turning off" bloat apps under dire warnings of functionality problems, which did not come to fruition. But I should not have to muck with it at all.
Yeah, they are. But legitimate gripes. I bought 24" TVs for the back room computer monitors, so they can double as crappy standard definition TVs for Padres games when I'm not in the front room with the big HD screen. I can go to any of my computers -- or to a local coffee house and support my local business, or anywhere -- and watch the Dodgers, Cubs, Nats, Tigers in lovely HD on my phone, notebook, or tablet. But my own Padres? Gotta park myself on the couch or be relegated to radio or crappy picture in the back studio.
Granted, I could pay $200+ for a Slingbox, but I already paid $130 for MLB.tv, on top of my outrageous cable bill.
(Not to mention, when you're at a game, biological imperatives always seem to kick in right before that big play happens. Wouldn't it be nice to be able to immediately view what you missed while you're there?)
"One belief that I do firmly hold is that, when a PhD holds up their degree as a proof of higher intelligence, then the individual is not a member of the higher intelligence PhD group."
Gotta agree with you on this one. I have known and worked with many PhDs. The ones who cringe when you call them "Doctor" are more likely the best and brightest; the ones who volunteer their PhD or mention it out of context generally lack some essentials ... like breadth of common knowledge, self-awareness, stuff like that. (Like someone telling you how honest they are = red flag.)
This had to be at least partially cost/benefit motivated
I have dealt with Getty on numerous occasions for clients. Their "representatives" spoke in unrealized absolutes ("We will sue"), and were hardwired to try to collect $350-750+ per image regardless of the circumstances, how long the image was online, whether it was the web developer's fault, etc. Granted, these are not really *legal* considerations in a lawsuit, but they do color the situation.
So we'd just run Getty through the paces. Negotiate back and forth, stall on responding, try to talk them down, push them to the edge of their bluff -- basically make it so whatever they might have eventually gotten to settle was less than it cost them to get there. That in addition to the probably largely-uncollectable lawsuits...
Perhaps enough folks did things like that to warrant rethinking their hardline stance.
Regardless how they got there, they can have the "forward thinking" benny-'o-doubt. Good for them.
I guess these lawyer-type folks haven't heard of 47 USC §230(c) ... that 15+ year-old federal statute that immunizes interactive websites from defamation liability for statements by its users. You know, the one that essentially allows social media sites, forums, and comment threads like this one to exist in the first place? That one?
Anyway, have fun defending that Motion to Dismiss.