As usual with these lawsuits, let's talk about the lawyer. No offense meant to anyone here, but if we can come up with reasons why this lawsuit is bad, shouldn't a lawyer know these things also? Who's the lawyer who agreed to take this case?
Or is it the usual case of "You take the case because I'm a famous star and you'll get to keep 50% or you're fired and I'll find someone who will take the case"?
As usual, why isn't the rest of the media (or the public) calling them out on statements like this? Do they explain this in their court filings with footnotes or are they actually trying to mislead the court?
So all of us can tell the difference between copyright infringement and plagiarism, but how about the people who were at the meetings or get the press releases? Why aren't more people calling out the "Creative" people for misleading the public like this?
The problem facing a lot of lawmakers is that all the good laws have been passed already.
Make it a crime to steal photos? Already done- it's called theft. Make it a crime to hack into a computer? Already done. Make it a crime to ask for money to delete photos? Already done- it's called extortion.
So what's a lawmaker to do when her constituents tell her to do "something"? Why, make new laws that are overly broad and will have chilling effects down the road. But remember, she did "something".
First- how is anyone supposed to avoid getting into trouble when police can charge you with "suspicion of intent to posses and distribute". How do you even fight a charge of "suspicion" or "intent to possess"?
Second- can anyone get in trouble for having a digital scale? My wife makes cookies and the digital scale is great for converting ounces to grams.
Why do I think someone in the upper levels of the TSA got finished watching "Lie to Me" on Netflix and thought it was a cool idea? In case people haven't seen it, the show is about how the character Cal Lightman (Tim Roth) reads people's facial expressions to solve crimes. It's a cool concept, but like most fiction TV shows, the science doesn't stand up.
But the bigger issue is why taxpayers had to pay $1 billion for this program.
Remember, we're talking about news sites that have to fight for people's attention. Which headline would you rather click on:
1) Malaysian Airlines sends text message to families. (OMG! That's cruel and heartless, those sons of a ***).
2) Malaysian Airlines sends text messages to families who previous agreed to be notified via text if they were not able to meet with the officials face-to-face. (Oh, okay, I can see why they did that.)
... maybe this guy is using these huge figures as a way to scare the companies into settling for far less. He'll probably be happy with $10 million or even $1 million. In theory, the companies would prefer to give him the $1 million instead of going to court and risk losing the entire $10 millions.
However, his claim of wanting $7 billion is so far past the amount needed to scare a company that they'll just ignore his case.
This story is why I advocate for basic education before people should be allowed to use a computer or get in the internet. After all, you don't give someone a car and tell them to go drive without any training.
Second, how are people getting these infections? If they're clicking on "invoice.pdf" when it's really "invoice.pdf.exe", then shouldn't some of the blame fall on Microsoft for hiding the actual file type?
Third, I would tell people to never, ever click on a link that comes from a "bank" or PayPal. Even if it looks 100% legit, always open a new browser window, log in, and check your account. The one time you think it's safe to click a link will be the one time your computer gets infected.
You say this was an opportunity, but the studios have a better name for it: a threat to the established studio system. How will the movie-production process work in the future if anyone can fund something a movie from a TV show? What's next? A Star Trek: Deep Space Nine or Voyager movie?
This process will disrupt how studios can pick and choose which movies get made solely on how much money they think it'll make. A Star Trek: Deep Space Nine movie? Too fan-specific to give a decent return. Transformers 4? Sure, the first three weren't very good, but they make millions.
I wonder if this guy's behavior is real or if he's grandstanding so he can say he's "doing something". To borrow Apple's phrase, a "moron in a hurry" can tell that the links for Huffington Post, Facebook, Netflix, and Amazon are legit.
So either this guy is a complete idiot or his staffers told him to say these are illegal sites or he's grandstanding. None of these options are very good.
As some people are mentioning, has Moonves thought about how his decision will affect the local affiliates who pay to broadcast the CBS network shows?
If CBS stops broadcasting, can the affiliates switch to another network? Does any city need 2 stations broadcasting NBC or ABC? Or would the station become independent and see its ad revenue fall since it's not showing any CBS shows?
But go ahead and make CBS an Internet-only station and show those Aero people you mean business.