I'm not sure I get the logic here. I can kinda see allowing the suit if there's evidence that the rating company deliberately mislead the people involved somehow and that lead to them suffering harm. That would make sense to me at least.
But the article seems to say she's only looking at who got the ratings, and I don't understand why that matters.
I think in the end it's a clash of viewpoints. Craigslist is taking the long view and realizing if it does what everybody thinks it should to maximize profits RIGHT NOW that it will shorten it's overall lifespan drastically. They're looking to maximize over the long term, and that's something wall Street just doesn't do much of anymore.
I really only dislike the RIAA as a business because of their business decisions. They saw their customers embracing a new technology that liberated the music or other media from any one format and drove distribution cost down to almost nothing. And instead of looking forward and embracing the technology, they decided to do everything in their power to simply halt technology in its tracks right there.
I dislike any business when the only things I hear about are all the great new services and technologies they've tried to shut down to protect their own obsolete business practices. I don't have a problem with people making a buck, but I do have a problem with somebody desperately lashing out at progress cause they can't learn to adapt.
Ah, my point was simply that fans and officials are already getting upset over things that seem, at least to me, rather trivial so I don't see a problem in adding gambling to that list.
Perhaps a better example would have been my family's constant assertions that when OSU plays in the... PAC 10, PAC 12? that the officials from those schools always rule against us.
It just seems to me that people already tend to decide that things going against their team are less than on the up and up, at least in some cases, So I don't see that gambling is going to suddenly make that an issue.
To be honest I couldn't care less about our city's one daily (Columbus Dispatch). If I want to see some local news I'll either check one of our 4(!) local stations r pull up the weekly rag (the other paper ftw). Breaking news comes faster on tv, and the other paper is a hell of a lot more objective and interesting to read.
Isn't this the sport where they were ready to bring out torches and pitchforks over one team video taping the practice sessions of another? (I am sadly, not that into sports, forgive my lack of specific knowledge.)
I'd say that they're well past the stage of "gambling fans to question whether an erroneous officiating call or a dropped pass late in the game resulted from an honest mistake or an intentional act by a corrupt player or referee".
The way I look at it, Apple isn't in the business of selling apps or music. They're in the business of selling ipods. You get an ipod, and all this stuff that makes your life better comes on it. It breaks maybe a couple years later, what are you gonna do? Toss all the effort and money that went into your ipod down the drain, or buy a new one and start over right where you left off?
They don't really care about app revenue, or music revenue. The real money is in selling the devices they come on.
Saw on another site that the Youtuber who uploaded it received info from NOM in the take down request. Apparently they say some of the audition tapes that were shown in the MSNBC segment were of actors that were not used, and thus NOM did not have them sign all the proper releases.
I can't wait to see this deployed. You know there has to be some obnoxious, stinking animal or bug out there that will think this thing is emitting a bloody mating call, and that will be the end of it.
And btw, I do consider country music to be a violation of human rights.
Ok, when I first heard about this, it was that he couldn't use his blackberry due to concerns about it's security. A reasonable idea. The service isn't controlled by the government, fine. But every successive story I've seen the blackout gets wider and wider.
Does anyone have an acutal straight answer? Is he giving up the crackberry, or all E-comms? And why the hell could the Whitehouse's internal email servers not be secure enough for the president to use, at least for day to day business?
I'm still not always clear that this is something to be cheerful about. An artist on one of the sites I visit had some of her work used, without attribution, by a company making clothes for Wal Mart.
I kind of get your point about everybody building on other's work, but it still bothers me a bit that she recieves no credit, not even a damn link on thier site or her name on the the shirt to get some more exposure.
The artist did cheerfully admits she apes Don Bluth's artistic style closely, and she puts the images up as a hobby on an art site, but she still felt kinda bummed about the whole episode.
I guess on some level I'm still not sure that there shouldn't be some kind of acknowledgement or something for somebody's work, provided freely or not.
Unbelievable. Why does anyone think this is somehow better tahn the damn butterfly ballots from florida? Screw instant results. Go back to a handcounted paper ballot system, monitored by both parties and independants, and make people get marked with permanent ink or something to rpevent extra voting. It sickens me to think that there are third world countries more capable of running an honest election than the US is.
I'm not sure theft charges wouldn't apply. It sounds like there's some possibility that the kids meant to take these things and sell them for cash. Certainly the assault and battery charges should apply, but I'm not sure you can't call this theft on some level, or at least bring it up as an issue.