"And none of those outlets also thought it was worth mentioning this EO likely means nothing and Trump has no serious power here"
I disagree with this part. Yes, technically, an EO would have no legal standing to enforce when networks schedule college football broadcasts.
But Trump still has serious power.
- His power is why Netflix didn't win their bid for Warner Bros. Discovery.
- Trump's power is why ABC agreed to pay $15 million for a frivolous defamation suit and why CBS/Paramount agreed to pay $16 million in another frivolous suit.
TechDirt seems to be under the impression that the primary purpose of the legal battle is to resolve civil issues in court. In that view, the legal battle is the ends and the PR battle is the means to those ends ("purpose of cementing that framing in some of the eventual jury members at trial").
What if the primary purpose of the lawsuit is the PR battle and the legal battle is just the means to that end?
If either participant loses the PR battle, their future employment in Hollywood is in great jeopardy.
Thats not how politics work. No matter how bad a party Fs up - and quite frankly I don't think we are in horrific times to label the prior administration an F up - the public will completely forget about it in four years. Case in point, see four years ago.
Have you ever been in a hotel or airplane that offered both free and premium wifi? In those instances, free wifi typically means glitchy unworkable wifi.
I sure hope NY regulations have some minimum metrics to ensure this doesn't happen here.
While Sprint may be languishing, consumers are winning by joining one of the many MVNO's that use the Sprint network. Some of the cheapest cell phone plans are from Sprint MVNOs.
Yea, careful what you ask for, you just might get it...
As long as these are monthly options, this setup can be gamed for the consumer's benefit. If you don't want to pay for Disney, Netflix, and CBS at the same time... pay for just one of them, catch up and binge on their shows, and then switch to another streaming provider and rinse and repeat.
Regarding the comment "I'd argue that their MVNOs (and MVNOs in general) are more of a competitor then Sprint is"
In my search for cellular carrier, I noticed that Sprint MVNO's offered the best deals. That is likely not a coincidence. Sprint struggle's are forcing them to offer more generous MVNO terms than other carriers.
Wouldn't a merger with T-Mobile risk killing the goose that is offering the golden MVNO eggs?
I am incurring this problem with Verizon FIOS. I was suckered into a two year commitment in return for a two year prize freeze.
Verizon has kept the base price frozen but increased other line items and added new items. They claim the new items are new government fees. These fees are labeled to look like government fees, but strangely enough, they aren't located in the government fees section of the bill.
Not all fee increases are masked as government fee increases. They increased the subscriber line maintenance fee by $2.00. I asked to have that undone and they told me to pound sand.
As part of a two year commitment, if I leave Verizon I would have to pay a fairly large fee. It appears to be a one sided commitment.
In his "The Volokh Conspiracy" blog on the Washington Post, Orin Kerr finds faults in Adam MacLeod's legal arguments, as do many of the commenters to the article:
Dumb question - can a president authorize the removal of records preserved under the Presidential Records Act? In particular, can a president authorize the removal of records added by an earlier president?
I suspect this won't go very far. The judge will rule in Goodman's favor or the charges will be dropped.
Under ordinary circumstances, the DA of North Dakota would follow through with his trumped up charges and win. But for this particular instance, Goodman is to well known. Such chicanery will go viral, bringing in more coverage and making the DA and the state a laughing stock. The effect will be similar to the Streisand effect.
Its in the DA's best interests to let this one go and not draw too much attention to standard, small state chicanery tactics.
Even if there was a Pokemon Go problem, how would banning all online games be eminently sensible? That would seem to be heavy handed - why should some poor schlep, minding his or her own business playing Hearts online, be banned from online games?
Why must compliance and gimmick be mutually exclusive? To comply with the law, Aero has implemented a gimmick device. We can disagree whether Aero efforts to comply are gimmicky or not, but not that compliance is never gimmicky.
Suppose Supreme Court allows religious exemptions to Obamacare, and suppose a non religious company all the sudden claims to be religious to some made up God that doesn't believe in health coverage. Would that not be gimmick trick to work around the law?
As we all know, craigslist big advantage is its network effects. Even if a competing site contained a better interface, nobody would want to post there because nobody would read it. The chicken and egg problem.
If I were a competitor that wanted in on Craigslist's business, I would create a site with my interface over top of craigslist data. I would set it up so that every interaction, particularly anything that submits data to craigslist, would go through my site. Then after some time when my market share is large enough and my brand is out there - when I have effectively stolen the network effects from craigslist - I would disconnect the craigslist cord.
Should craigslist be able to prevent other sites from mooching their data. If so, what is the proper legal framework to set that up.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Joe Schmoe.
"And none of those outlets also thought it was worth mentioning this EO likely means nothing and Trump has no serious power here" I disagree with this part. Yes, technically, an EO would have no legal standing to enforce when networks schedule college football broadcasts. But Trump still has serious power. - His power is why Netflix didn't win their bid for Warner Bros. Discovery. - Trump's power is why ABC agreed to pay $15 million for a frivolous defamation suit and why CBS/Paramount agreed to pay $16 million in another frivolous suit.
Winning the PR battle is the goal
TechDirt seems to be under the impression that the primary purpose of the legal battle is to resolve civil issues in court. In that view, the legal battle is the ends and the PR battle is the means to those ends ("purpose of cementing that framing in some of the eventual jury members at trial"). What if the primary purpose of the lawsuit is the PR battle and the legal battle is just the means to that end? If either participant loses the PR battle, their future employment in Hollywood is in great jeopardy.
Thats not how politics work. No matter how bad a party Fs up - and quite frankly I don't think we are in horrific times to label the prior administration an F up - the public will completely forget about it in four years. Case in point, see four years ago.
Have you ever been in a hotel or airplane that offered both free and premium wifi? In those instances, free wifi typically means glitchy unworkable wifi. I sure hope NY regulations have some minimum metrics to ensure this doesn't happen here.
GM is doing their best to dissuade buyers from purchasing their cars.
Re:
While Sprint may be languishing, consumers are winning by joining one of the many MVNO's that use the Sprint network. Some of the cheapest cell phone plans are from Sprint MVNOs.
Round robin response
Yea, careful what you ask for, you just might get it...
As long as these are monthly options, this setup can be gamed for the consumer's benefit. If you don't want to pay for Disney, Netflix, and CBS at the same time... pay for just one of them, catch up and binge on their shows, and then switch to another streaming provider and rinse and repeat.
Re:
Regarding the comment "I'd argue that their MVNOs (and MVNOs in general) are more of a competitor then Sprint is"
In my search for cellular carrier, I noticed that Sprint MVNO's offered the best deals. That is likely not a coincidence. Sprint struggle's are forcing them to offer more generous MVNO terms than other carriers.
Wouldn't a merger with T-Mobile risk killing the goose that is offering the golden MVNO eggs?
I am incurring this problem with Verizon FIOS. I was suckered into a two year commitment in return for a two year prize freeze.
Verizon has kept the base price frozen but increased other line items and added new items. They claim the new items are new government fees. These fees are labeled to look like government fees, but strangely enough, they aren't located in the government fees section of the bill.
Not all fee increases are masked as government fee increases. They increased the subscriber line maintenance fee by $2.00. I asked to have that undone and they told me to pound sand.
As part of a two year commitment, if I leave Verizon I would have to pay a fairly large fee. It appears to be a one sided commitment.
Re:
"as the registered owner you can be held for offences involving the vehicle"
Curious, if you lend your car to your neighbor and they run over and kill somebody, who should be tried for the criminal acts committed?
In his "The Volokh Conspiracy" blog on the Washington Post, Orin Kerr finds faults in Adam MacLeod's legal arguments, as do many of the commenters to the article:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/01/13/law-professor-gets-a-traffic-camera-ticket-hilarity-ensues/
Dumb question - can a president authorize the removal of records preserved under the Presidential Records Act? In particular, can a president authorize the removal of records added by an earlier president?
This shall pass.
I suspect this won't go very far. The judge will rule in Goodman's favor or the charges will be dropped.
Under ordinary circumstances, the DA of North Dakota would follow through with his trumped up charges and win. But for this particular instance, Goodman is to well known. Such chicanery will go viral, bringing in more coverage and making the DA and the state a laughing stock. The effect will be similar to the Streisand effect.
Its in the DA's best interests to let this one go and not draw too much attention to standard, small state chicanery tactics.
Re:
Even if there was a Pokemon Go problem, how would banning all online games be eminently sensible? That would seem to be heavy handed - why should some poor schlep, minding his or her own business playing Hearts online, be banned from online games?
compliance and gimmick are not mutually exclusive
Why must compliance and gimmick be mutually exclusive? To comply with the law, Aero has implemented a gimmick device.
We can disagree whether Aero efforts to comply are gimmicky or not, but not that compliance is never gimmicky.
Suppose Supreme Court allows religious exemptions to Obamacare, and suppose a non religious company all the sudden claims to be religious to some made up God that doesn't believe in health coverage. Would that not be gimmick trick to work around the law?
As we all know, craigslist big advantage is its network effects. Even if a competing site contained a better interface, nobody would want to post there because nobody would read it. The chicken and egg problem.
If I were a competitor that wanted in on Craigslist's business, I would create a site with my interface over top of craigslist data. I would set it up so that every interaction, particularly anything that submits data to craigslist, would go through my site. Then after some time when my market share is large enough and my brand is out there - when I have effectively stolen the network effects from craigslist - I would disconnect the craigslist cord.
Should craigslist be able to prevent other sites from mooching their data. If so, what is the proper legal framework to set that up.