My clicking skills aren't up to the level of my commenting skills. My intent was to call out the trolling of the original anonymous coward who (successfully) attempted to hijack this thread into a discussion around Google's IP, which is only tangentially related to the merits of the lawsuit.
I watched the whole segment vacillating between thinking, "What utter garbage!" and "I can't wait to see what Mike says about this tomorrow."
The worst was when they trotted out the French "3 Strikes" law and implied that the U.S. wasn't doing its part by not enacting similar legislation.
An ad agency creates ads. An ad agency markets products. Denizen seems to have done neither.
Based on their website, I'd guess it's more a shell company (surprisingly, not in East Texas), set up to shake down real agencies.
I doubt MS got out of it without having to pay anything. Those type of partnerships don't happen without some sort of upfront financial commitment. It's entirely possible MS will stay have to pay the entire agreed-upon cost, given how close the episode/ad (episad?) was to airing.
Not at all, nor would I make all encompassing statements about an industry employing several million people based on the stupid behavior of one agency/client.
Yes, and I've heard guys named thomas see nothing wrong with making overly-broad statements about industries with which they're clearly not familiar.
I'd say the music industry's less of a rape victim and more of a hooker who charges you for sex, then wants to charge you every time you think of the sex you had with her.
Oh, and troll much?
I'd say the music industry's less of a rape victim and more of a hooker who charges you for sex, then wants to charge you every time you think of the sex you had with her.
Oh, and troll much?
This guy!
And that guy, and that other guy.
Tracfone's seems in line with that of our penal system. And, given the jaded view most in the telecom industry have of pre-paid users, perhaps they thought they were speaking in the same terms.
I tend to think the reporting on this one is mostly right (but I work in marketing, so take that for what it's worth).
Saatchi recently won the JCP account. It's common for agencies to produce "spec" spots for pitches - advertising that the client doesn't see and isn't aware of before the pitch. It's done to show the client that the agency "gets" their brand. The work usually never sees the light of day. I'd guess that's what happened in this case. The agency worked with a director (who was probably trying to build his reel) to produce the spot on the cheap for the pitch, then it was likely leaked by someone at the agency or by the director after the pitch w/o JCP's approval.
The people at JCP are as conservative as they come regarding protecting their brand (I live near their HQ). Red state Americans are their bread and butter, so I doubt that they'd have any interest or willingness to participate in a reverse "Streisand Effect" type plot.
I have to wonder if they were pressured by outside forces (music industry?) to keep it running so as not to provide yet another example of why DRM is ultimately bad for consumers.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080613-third-times-the-charm-riaa-tries-end-run-around-old-case.html The specific quote from the RIAA spokesperson: "We recently uncovered evidence in the course of the litigation that another member of Ms. Cassin's household is likely the infringer." As I said, their actions were still highly questionable, but not as blatantly awful as some of the other stuff they've done.
My understanding is that the RIAA's reasoning for dropping and refiling was that they realized it wasn't Cassin doing the sharing but someone else with access to his open network. The whole thing is still questionable (the failure to mention the original cases in the refile, for example), but it's a little (very little) less fishy than this article makes it sound.
The link in the article seems to be bad. Or maybe just already down from a DMCA letter?
Re: Nitpicking
Glad someone else made this point. Not commenting on the broader case, but they are headquartered in Texas, so it makes sense that they'd file the case here.