I'm not sure what you get from an individual reader viewing and/or clicking ads are, not the business I'm in. However another website that I read daily, Ars Technica, does offer an annual subscription to readers who want to support the site and I am one of their subs. Now a part of their offering is no-ads on the site, a large reason I sub to be honest (feel better subbing and not seeing ads than not seeing ads and not supporting them).
Is there some sort of option for TD to do so? Obviously the no ads thing wouldn't work since you already offer that for free, but maybe something like earlier access to media content or something along those lines? I don't know any other reader so I can't say if they would be willing to sub, but for the right price and the right hook I would.
TPP is (imo rightfully so) an extremely toxic issue right now. Im pretty sure shes trying to convince bernie supporters (who are rabidly against it) she'll block, while dancing back behind the scenes to CoC and certain businesses that shell still pass it post election.
Im not sure which should be believed or what her actual stance on it is.
I'm a bit concerned about the absolutism displayed here in the comments. People make mistakes. I think it's extremely unjust to completely and forever condemn someone for a mistake that has been attempted to be rectified. Having compassion for one side of the situation is one thing, they are perceived as a victim (and were most likely). However, some of y'all need to learn to have some compassion and forgiveness in your lives for people who admit to a mistake and tries to clean up the mess (even ineffectively).
You'll wind up being a happier person in the long run I think.
To add one additional point, charges not being brought now means also that no dismissal with prejudice from a judge (preventing the charges from ever being brought again) will be happening, and also no acquittal will be happening, preventing double-jeopardy.
Should she be prosecuted? Hell yes she should, but the realities of the situation are the realities. There is no way it can happen and to try is a waste of time, effort, and money.
That's not what I said at all. Think it through logically. There is absolutely no way a legal case brought against her finishes before the next president is sworn in. Period.
So that means there are 2 possible results: 1. She's elected, then under presidential immunity, unable to prosecuted normally (only via congress - not going to happen), and Comey and Lynch will be destroyed politically. 2. Trump is elected and the indictment can go forward.
These were the only 2 possibilities pretty much ever available. I don't like it, but the only chance she is prosecuted was always ever going to be her losing the election.
I'm not making an assumption about who will be president.
Do you honestly expect a trial to be handled for completion BEFORE the next president is sworn in? We can't finish trials for misdemeanors in less than 4 months in this country.
It's best the DoJ/FBI stay out of the election and in the long-shot that she isn't elected, then handle it at that time, period. Indicting now would ONLY have political ramifications and not result in anything being completed legally.
I really don't like this double-standard (whistle-blowers have been absolutely annihilated by this administration for far less). THAT BEING SAID, it really is probably best that charges not be filed against a presidential candidate in the middle of an extremely contentious election. We don't need the FBI or DoJ further weaponized in our political system. No charges recommended or being filed at this time doesn't mean charges can't be brought later (new evidence etc), after the election.
It's a civil lawsuit, not a criminal action. Chapter 11 effectively protects them from having to pony up the required amount for the escrow while they await appeal. Considering Gawker's actions in court, some of the things they said in deposition and on the stand seriously had a big impact on how the judge and the jury viewed them. They presented themselves as extremely unlikable and I'm sure to some at least amoral.
That may not matter from a freedom of the press standpoint, but once they got in front of a judge and a jury, a little humility would have gone a long long way.
First, there are innumerable other sources of entertainment available for everyone other than sports these days. 20 years ago, most people were restricted to home video (VHS), television, movies, and (in a much smaller percentage than today) video games. With the internet and gaming being so much more accessible and widely appealing, you're competing a lot more for people's attention than you ever had to, and you are bloody well losing...badly.
Second, I don't think as many people like sports as you think. I'm a big NFL fan, but that is 4 months of sports I watch, and that's it. I suspect quite a high percentage of sports fans are 1, maybe 2 team fans. That does not necessitate a 24-7 sporting news (I use news loosely here) cycle.
Third, people are getting really sick and tired of subsidizing shit they don't use in entertainment across the board. Notice the decline of the album in music sales now that a la carte track choices are for the most part ubiquitous. TV has a long way to go, and it's going to be painful.
So, the company originally at the heart of all this was not Chevron, it was Texaco. In looking at the Texaco wikipedia article (I know, I know), it looks as if the originating incidents happened in/around 1993, with Chevron merging with Texaco in 2002. Nearly a decade after the sh*t hit the proverbial fan.
This article doesn't specify when that previous administration agreed to the closure of the issue with Texaco/Chevron, but that may be pretty critical to understanding actual moral responsibility (not necessarily legal).
To be honest, I'm pretty damn skeptical of Ecuadorian governments in general, corruption has been a constant feature of every administration there for the past 5 decades. The money doesn't seem intended for the 30k residents contaminated or their homes destroyed to be rebuilt/cleaned up. It seems to be a way of propping up an administration on the backs of someone else.
I dunno Mike. I did some digging around yesterday and from what I could see the consensus seemed to be that the Fine Bros were basically looking to crowdsource the creation of content and monetize it, taking a 20-40% cut of the potential revenue (depending on which side it came from).
They wouldn't really add anything to it, except maybe the brand name. Their FAQ stated that basically they would offer no legal support (e.g. Fair Use defense kind of stuff), the format is open and anyone can use it, so no value from providing guidance on the format. Pretty much saying copy our videos in other languages for us for free to start with, and we'll keep 20-40% of the rev gen.
Sounds to me like they were offering very very little support to hopefully get enough hundreds of/thousands of content creators signing up for them that they could monetize at little to no cost for them (Fine Bros that is). That comes across to me as exploitative at best.
MCNs do *NOT* have a good reputation on YouTube, for good reason, and they weren't even going to provide support like those. I think you are misinterpreting what they were actually planning to 'offer'. I didn't see them as offering much of anything.
While your fan-fic kind of side note about how that would be cool is a nice concept, it's not what they were doing. They don't have characters or a universe or set pieces or design staff to use or get help from. They basically having nothing from a creative standpoint to offer other creators, except a logo, maybe an intro sequence, and the opportunity to funnel them 20-40% of view revenue.
I don't see fan fic and this being equivalent though. Fan fic by definition is built on the foundation of someone else's characters/world. That's not what Fine Bros are engaging in here.
I look at it more as the local CBS affiliate trademarking "Eyewitness News" and doing local news, sports news, weather in that order, and trying to use that to stifle competition from the local ABC affiliate "Eyewitness News" in another city.
I don't think people are reacting negatively to the proposed concept of...licensing I guess, the format and supporting independent content creation. I think people are reacting negatively to the trademarks Mike.
It seems to me you're seeing one half, the proposal, as a good thing, and attributing reactions to that (the licensing/format scheme), while ignoring the other half, the IP half, which is what it seems most people are reacting negatively to.