I'm not a lawyer, but this article (http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2016-04-11/court-tells-states-to-leave-google-alone-on-copyri ghts) left me with the impression that the ruling was more a procedural one and that in the long run it's still a victory for Google as the ball is now in Hood's court to put up or shut up
I think the issue is more around the seizure with no proper trial. Rojablanca had an opportunity to defend itself in Spain and was found to be legal. A similar site in the US would at least have a chance to make a safe harbours defence, would it not? (as it is not actually hosting infringing content)
I am a die hard Football Manager (Worldwide Soccer Manager here in North America), but I have to admit this has me intrigued. It also has the benefit of releasing nearly a month and a half ahead of Football Manager. As others have said, I believe this is Eidos taking a hit in order to get some market share back.
Additionally, as it is a text based sim, production costs on a game like this can't be that high. Even if most people chip in $5-15, the losses probably won't be massive
The Premier League may be succesful in marketing their product, but I can't help but feel they are leaving so many potential customers out in the cold.
In Canada, we have three major sports stations. The Score, Sportsnet and TSN. Between them, we get two live matches a week: one on Saturday on Sportsnet, one on Sunday on the Score. Rogers Sportsnet has third pick of matches (I believe) so usually ends up with a mid table match (this weekend's is Aston Villa v Wigan. An interesting match I will watch, but not a barn burner). The Score gets the 'marquee' 3 PM kickoff game on Sunday's, which is where you often see the Liverpool/United, etc games (this Sunday is Liverpool/Spurs, two potential Top 6 teams).
To get those channels on a variety of cable networks, your looking at $58/month for cable (on Shaw in my area). So that is 2 out of a possible 10 matches per weekend (not counting weeks where there is a Monday/Wednesday match)
Additionally, for an extra $15/month you can add on the pay-TV package of Setanta. This weekend they have four matches (three on Saturday, one on Sunday). So even if I pay $75/month I am still missing out on viewing another four matches.
Even if they wanted to charge a pay-per-view fee for hosting the matches, thats something that would be worth considering. All 10 Premier League matches have camera's on site and are likely broadcast somewhere in the world. I see no reason to lock those up entirely.
Unfortunately, I'm someone who can't afford $75/month for all that television. That doesn't mean I am adverse to paying. For the entirety of last season I subscribed to Setanta's online service (renamed Setanta-I) which has a very good user interface, the ability to pull old matches from the archive, and access to matches from the Championship and French League. With the instability surrounding Setanta UK, I cancelled my membership, but may restart as there are no other options.
If there was a $20-30 option where I could subscribe directly to the Premier League for access to every match during the season then I would do that in a heartbeat.
I'd be interested to know what kind of influence ESPN/CBS had in enacting this policy. The SEC feels it has a product to protect, but this gives ESPN and CBS a near monopoly on highlights of the countries premier college football conference.
It's very similar to NBC's purchase of the Sunday Night NFL highlights, which forced ESPN to moveback it's Sunday Night Countdown show because it could no longer show the extended highlight packs it used to
'3 Juries in a row have come up with the same answer'
In the Tenenbaum case, under current law, it was very obvious that he was guilt as charged. For the jury to find differently would have been an incredible stretch. However, just because he and previous cases have been found guilty under those laws, does not mean that those laws are correct.
I believe the 'facts' mentioned above are familiar to consistent readers of this site. Mike has continually linked to scholarly studies and case studies that debunk much of what the RIAA is trying to prove here. I.E. Amanda Palmer is enjoying a much more lucrative career on her own, outside the RIAA. I.E. the music business is actually growing, just not in ways that benefit the music industry.
I don't feel it's implausible to make the leap from these documented instances to showing that the RIAA has a systematic history of misleading people via it's press releases/blogs/whatever