True, though the request for such information always implies a blackmail threat until such time as it's actually released (after all, blackmail is simply saying "give me what I want or I will release this"). Again, not being a legal expert I'm not sure, but I'd be wary of the idea that blackmail isn't going to be assumed even if you're going for the petty revenge angle, especially as it's your stated intention to reverse a business decision (how many execs are going to do this for you after you're publicly embarrassed them?).
I suppose that any actual crime would depend on this aspect and a question what the information was and how it was gathered (i.e. if it was already publicly known information or something compiled for the requested purpose). But, it's not a good look.
"Besides begging OAN viewers to “blow up” AT&T’s phone lines with demands that they keep his channel, Ball also called on them to send them any salacious information about the conglomerate’s chairman."
I'm no legal expert, but isn't soliciting blackmail information some kind of crime? At the very least it would surely ensure that any subsequent backtracking on the deal would be open to close investigation in case such blackmail had taken place?
I can't imagine that TPG would be swayed in its decision even if the blackmail were successful and that probably reduces any power AT&T execs would have directly, but it takes a certain type of stupidity to say "I will publicly announce my intention to commit crimes in order to reverse a decision", even if they were going after the person who made the decision.
Re: 'What do you mean speech has consequences?! Not for me!'
"when you cross the line from 'This is my opinion of what happened' to 'This is absolutely what happened and I have proof' you've opened yourself wide open for defamation charges"
Yeah, what's important here is that Lindell keeps claiming he has irrefutable proof, then mysteriously that proof either doesn't appear or is debunked in seconds by actual experts in the field.
Given that one of his most recent claims is that he had evidence that could get up to 300 million people locked up for life, it could be that he's either going for the insanity plea or that his crack habit has returned, but it's likely that he's just another poor deluded soul who swallowed the lies, he just happened to have enough money and profile to lose his mind publicly.
If you're working the grift, Lindell's constant claims that he has evidence or Trump's regular promises of something happening in 2 weeks might be effective in the medium term. But, at some point someone's going to ask you where the evidence is, or why nothing happened after 2 weeks...
IIRC, Jones' lawyers tried that defence but he shut down that line of argument himself. He's certainly very much on the hook in the most recent lawsuits he's lost.
As for Lindell, I fear that he's an actual true believer who has taken too much from his own supply. I expect him to go down kicking and screaming claiming that he's a victim, blissfully unaware that most of the people who previously humoured him are just laughing at him now. I've heard recent clips of him whining on Infowars that Fox has abandoned him since they stopped taking his ad money.
"CoD is a big franchise that brings in a lot of money on the PS console and MS definately wants that money"
The way that Microsoft has been organising its gaming business in recent years suggests that they recognise that "force everyone to buy our dedicated hardware in order to play this specific title" is not the only way to make money from said title.
"It's just that... CoD hasn't been... "good" lately. Like EA and Madden, it really hasn't innovated for a couple of decades at least"
Hmmm.. I suppose it depends on how you view that. You're exaggerating slightly in that CoD:MW/2 were released in 2008/9 and they were definitely innovating at that time. Then, between the Black Ops series and the futuristic titles they were definitely trying something different on the odd occasion. The series does seem to have stagnated somewhat, and I generally lost interest myself when they moved away from single player campaigns, but there's definitely been more going on there than the typical "same game with different rosters and a few minor changes" model that EA has applied to its sports titles.
"Of bigger interest to me is Activision/Blizzard's back catalogue and what Microsoft plans on doing with it, like say, all those Sierra titles not being used"
Yes, the whole thing should stand to shake up the way the whole organisation uses its assets, and I have no doubt that simply removing Bobby Kotick from it will result in some very interesting ideas going forward, some of which a poor developer has been trying to push through for a decade. Anyone who thinks that all that will happen here is that money goes to MS and they just carry on working as they were is missing some very interesting implications.
"As for the article itself this is typical Corporate Speak, make it as vague as possible until the actual details come out"
Well, yeah. The purchase hasn't even been confirmed yet, and the statement was clearly just a piece of damage control aimed at the paranoid fanboys who assume that they'll just start pulling the PS servers the moment they get full control. We won't find out any actual details until the merger is fully approved, and even then they'll be taking some time to work out the final plans. I'll go out on a limb and say that we'll get a huge information dump at E3 2023/4 or whatever the MS equivalent by then is, but until that point we'll just be hearing innuendo and MS's attempts to quash the more damaging rumours.
"But... again... I don't think Microsoft is stupid enough to give up all that money from Playstation players."
They're not. But, I think that any long-term planning is something we won't hear about for a while and will be affected greatly by seeing what Sony's response to Game Pass is, and if they end up being open to collaboration or licensing deals.
As I often do, I have to wonder why someone so actively hostile to end users has decided to try making his name with a product that would fundamentally require working with them, if it were developed by someone competent.
Word to the wise - if your only comment on a subject is "I don't care about this because I'm completely unaffected by the product I don't use either way", you'd be adding more value to the conversation by just moving on to the next article.
"The entirety of my post under this article is the author’s glowing joy and glee at the event."
Yes, you have a problem with the way someone expressed their opinion about a decision made by DirectTV. Which still makes the story about DirectTV, no matter what you were hallucinating earlier when you said you didn't comment on them.
They didn't. In fact, given that AT&T funded their creating and DirectTV ditched their sorry asses the moment that they were not part of AT&T any longer, it's arguable that AT&T were the only reason they were speaking in the first place.
I'm sure that if someone at AT&T cares enough for it to continue, they can provide a platform themselves , but I suspect that interested parties are already moving on to the next grift.
They still have that right, they just can't use the platform that a supplier has decided not to continue to contract with them to supply.
"That the same people who jump on “finally” would be jawing about the evils of the world if a liberal network was cut?"
Depends on the network and reasoning. I'm sure that if it were a naked propaganda outlet that's going to be in serious financial trouble in the near future as a result of lies spread that have caused actual damages to both other companies and potentially democracy itself, most on the left would be happy to be rid of such damaging embarrassment. But, we'll have to wait for such a thing to exist first on a similar wide platform before we can judge your strawmen and whataboutism.
Yes, because you remove the deduction you built the inequality and regressive nature of the tax into the base plan and not in to option extras that only the rich exploit.
"From what I have read it’s just a right wing version of MSNBC"ç
What is it with people like you, false equivalence and your obsession over MSNBC and CNN? Why can you never defend an actual position, only whine about vague whataboutisms relating to things that nobody outside of butthurt right-wingers ever seems to think about?
It's never "OANN is a valid news source that has been treated unfairly because X", it's always "but mommy, MSNBC does the bad things tooooo!"
"They even said (and the translation was correct) that "she could've used either her husband's computer, or her son's computer...." "
My immediate response would be that if you can't even identify the device used and who used it, how do we know that the suppose infringement even happened at all? It wouldn't be the first time logs have been misinterpreted to accuse an innocent party, and if you're not examining the files actually downloaded, how do you know they were even infringing? File names don't have to accurately reflect the contents, after all. If the charge is serving files illegally, my first request would be that they identify the server used and prove that the files there are infringing.
"So one should wonder why she would have an internet account if she has no computer?"
Mobile phones? Smart TV or IPTV? VoIP? Her telephone provider sold her a package with internet included even though she didn't really need it?
There are of course numerous reasons, but getting to the truth typically isn't a priority when there's copyright related extortion to be done.
Some new games, not all and not any existing titles, and given the commitment they have with releasing through Game Pass and xCloud, most people interested in playing them will be able to access them without having to buy new hardware. They just won't be able to play them on PlayStation natively (although they could still be made available on PS if Sony wanted to allow a partnership to allow GP on there).
Meanwhile, Sony are still locking up franchises and studios that started on the XBox with no hope of accessing them without buying a PlayStation, according to their current business model, and even PC ports can take years to emerge if they happen (whereas XBox/PC titles typically arrive at the same time, and you can cover delays by using xCloud until the native port appears).
Honestly, I don't think there's much to be taken from this. Once the news came through, there's been all sorts of random scare stories from Sony fanboys about how this means that all CoD games were immediately going to be removed from PlayStation and a bunch of other claims that don't have any basis in anything but the imaginations of those reading the initial news. Spencer's statement is simply to say that specific fear is unfounded, but I doubt they have solid plans anywhere else.
There's plenty of other ways to read this news. One is that other statements from MS regarding an interest in resurrecting dormant IPs indicate some great things on the horizon for gamers overall. Another is that since MS has increasingly expressed interest in getting GP on to other platforms, this could be ammunition required to get Sony on board with that, which could include a reciprocal relationship with current PlayStation exclusive titles eventually being ported in return for Activision titles being on Sony's platform.
I think it's way too early to read anything in to any announcements so far, and we're unlikely to know anything concrete until the merger is actually approved, but I certainly don't think anything is gained by reading too much into a statement that is essentially intended to say "no, we're not going to instantly remove CoD players on PS".
No, pathetic attempts at whataboutism, thy name is AC.
Surely even someone as desperate as you to find a double standard must understand the vast differences between end user moderation on a single platform and exclusive business contracts that restrict people to a single platform? Even you must surely understand the difference between saying "this might be a bad idea for consumers" and "this should not be allowed"? Surely even you can read the words about how it's unclear how the deal will affect non-CoD games going forward and understand that this is the main criticism, not the concept of a platform being controlled by the owning party?
It's like you read a couple of words in an article, ignore context and attack a hastily erected strawman. Again.
"I see an author praising the silencing of an opinion."
That is one interpretation of the article, although since you somehow missed the fact that AWE was mentioned in the article as well it doesn't provide evidence that your reaction wasn't a knee jerk.
"A statement in direct opposition to free speech"
Nowhere in the concept of free speech is "the company providing access to their private property via a contract with your private business can't opt to not renew said contract" expressed. Free speech is still protected, unless you subscribe to the myth that free access to other peoples' property and a built in audience are part of the deal, which it never has been.
"I didn’t say anything relating to Trump. And honestly have no clue what he has to do with OAN."
Then, you appear to have ignored their entire history.
Yes, we know that you can't see why the things you have suggested are. by their nature regressive and only benefit the wealthy who are the ones exploiting the current system. Your inability to understand why this is despite it being explained to you many times is a problem, but that doesn't stop it from being true.
On the post: Deja Vu All Over Again: Microsoft, Sony Making Vague Statements About Exclusivity In Activision Titles
Re: Re: Re: Fool me once...
They don't need to, they only need to allow browser access to xCloud, which is in Sony's ballpark.
On the post: OAN Throws A Hissy Fit After Being Axed By AT&T, DirecTV
Re: Re:
True, though the request for such information always implies a blackmail threat until such time as it's actually released (after all, blackmail is simply saying "give me what I want or I will release this"). Again, not being a legal expert I'm not sure, but I'd be wary of the idea that blackmail isn't going to be assumed even if you're going for the petty revenge angle, especially as it's your stated intention to reverse a business decision (how many execs are going to do this for you after you're publicly embarrassed them?).
I suppose that any actual crime would depend on this aspect and a question what the information was and how it was gathered (i.e. if it was already publicly known information or something compiled for the requested purpose). But, it's not a good look.
On the post: OAN Throws A Hissy Fit After Being Axed By AT&T, DirecTV
"Besides begging OAN viewers to “blow up” AT&T’s phone lines with demands that they keep his channel, Ball also called on them to send them any salacious information about the conglomerate’s chairman."
I'm no legal expert, but isn't soliciting blackmail information some kind of crime? At the very least it would surely ensure that any subsequent backtracking on the deal would be open to close investigation in case such blackmail had taken place?
I can't imagine that TPG would be swayed in its decision even if the blackmail were successful and that probably reduces any power AT&T execs would have directly, but it takes a certain type of stupidity to say "I will publicly announce my intention to commit crimes in order to reverse a decision", even if they were going after the person who made the decision.
On the post: Smartmatic Sues MyPillow CEO For Defamation Over His Months Of Nonstop Election Conspiracy Theories
Re: 'What do you mean speech has consequences?! Not for me!'
"when you cross the line from 'This is my opinion of what happened' to 'This is absolutely what happened and I have proof' you've opened yourself wide open for defamation charges"
Yeah, what's important here is that Lindell keeps claiming he has irrefutable proof, then mysteriously that proof either doesn't appear or is debunked in seconds by actual experts in the field.
Given that one of his most recent claims is that he had evidence that could get up to 300 million people locked up for life, it could be that he's either going for the insanity plea or that his crack habit has returned, but it's likely that he's just another poor deluded soul who swallowed the lies, he just happened to have enough money and profile to lose his mind publicly.
If you're working the grift, Lindell's constant claims that he has evidence or Trump's regular promises of something happening in 2 weeks might be effective in the medium term. But, at some point someone's going to ask you where the evidence is, or why nothing happened after 2 weeks...
On the post: Smartmatic Sues MyPillow CEO For Defamation Over His Months Of Nonstop Election Conspiracy Theories
Re: My question is this…
IIRC, Jones' lawyers tried that defence but he shut down that line of argument himself. He's certainly very much on the hook in the most recent lawsuits he's lost.
As for Lindell, I fear that he's an actual true believer who has taken too much from his own supply. I expect him to go down kicking and screaming claiming that he's a victim, blissfully unaware that most of the people who previously humoured him are just laughing at him now. I've heard recent clips of him whining on Infowars that Fox has abandoned him since they stopped taking his ad money.
On the post: Deja Vu All Over Again: Microsoft, Sony Making Vague Statements About Exclusivity In Activision Titles
Re: Re: Re:
"CoD is a big franchise that brings in a lot of money on the PS console and MS definately wants that money"
The way that Microsoft has been organising its gaming business in recent years suggests that they recognise that "force everyone to buy our dedicated hardware in order to play this specific title" is not the only way to make money from said title.
"It's just that... CoD hasn't been... "good" lately. Like EA and Madden, it really hasn't innovated for a couple of decades at least"
Hmmm.. I suppose it depends on how you view that. You're exaggerating slightly in that CoD:MW/2 were released in 2008/9 and they were definitely innovating at that time. Then, between the Black Ops series and the futuristic titles they were definitely trying something different on the odd occasion. The series does seem to have stagnated somewhat, and I generally lost interest myself when they moved away from single player campaigns, but there's definitely been more going on there than the typical "same game with different rosters and a few minor changes" model that EA has applied to its sports titles.
"Of bigger interest to me is Activision/Blizzard's back catalogue and what Microsoft plans on doing with it, like say, all those Sierra titles not being used"
Yes, the whole thing should stand to shake up the way the whole organisation uses its assets, and I have no doubt that simply removing Bobby Kotick from it will result in some very interesting ideas going forward, some of which a poor developer has been trying to push through for a decade. Anyone who thinks that all that will happen here is that money goes to MS and they just carry on working as they were is missing some very interesting implications.
"As for the article itself this is typical Corporate Speak, make it as vague as possible until the actual details come out"
Well, yeah. The purchase hasn't even been confirmed yet, and the statement was clearly just a piece of damage control aimed at the paranoid fanboys who assume that they'll just start pulling the PS servers the moment they get full control. We won't find out any actual details until the merger is fully approved, and even then they'll be taking some time to work out the final plans. I'll go out on a limb and say that we'll get a huge information dump at E3 2023/4 or whatever the MS equivalent by then is, but until that point we'll just be hearing innuendo and MS's attempts to quash the more damaging rumours.
"But... again... I don't think Microsoft is stupid enough to give up all that money from Playstation players."
They're not. But, I think that any long-term planning is something we won't hear about for a while and will be affected greatly by seeing what Sony's response to Game Pass is, and if they end up being open to collaboration or licensing deals.
On the post: The World Handled A 'Wordle' Ripoff Just Fine Without Any IP Action
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As I often do, I have to wonder why someone so actively hostile to end users has decided to try making his name with a product that would fundamentally require working with them, if it were developed by someone competent.
On the post: Deja Vu All Over Again: Microsoft, Sony Making Vague Statements About Exclusivity In Activision Titles
Re:
Word to the wise - if your only comment on a subject is "I don't care about this because I'm completely unaffected by the product I don't use either way", you'd be adding more value to the conversation by just moving on to the next article.
On the post: DirecTV Finally Dumps OAN, Limiting The Conspiracy And Propaganda Channel's Reach
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"The entirety of my post under this article is the author’s glowing joy and glee at the event."
Yes, you have a problem with the way someone expressed their opinion about a decision made by DirectTV. Which still makes the story about DirectTV, no matter what you were hallucinating earlier when you said you didn't comment on them.
On the post: DirecTV Finally Dumps OAN, Limiting The Conspiracy And Propaganda Channel's Reach
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
They didn't. In fact, given that AT&T funded their creating and DirectTV ditched their sorry asses the moment that they were not part of AT&T any longer, it's arguable that AT&T were the only reason they were speaking in the first place.
I'm sure that if someone at AT&T cares enough for it to continue, they can provide a platform themselves , but I suspect that interested parties are already moving on to the next grift.
On the post: DirecTV Finally Dumps OAN, Limiting The Conspiracy And Propaganda Channel's Reach
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"… protecting their right to speech as a voice?"
They still have that right, they just can't use the platform that a supplier has decided not to continue to contract with them to supply.
"That the same people who jump on “finally” would be jawing about the evils of the world if a liberal network was cut?"
Depends on the network and reasoning. I'm sure that if it were a naked propaganda outlet that's going to be in serious financial trouble in the near future as a result of lies spread that have caused actual damages to both other companies and potentially democracy itself, most on the left would be happy to be rid of such damaging embarrassment. But, we'll have to wait for such a thing to exist first on a similar wide platform before we can judge your strawmen and whataboutism.
On the post: DirecTV Finally Dumps OAN, Limiting The Conspiracy And Propaganda Channel's Reach
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, because you remove the deduction you built the inequality and regressive nature of the tax into the base plan and not in to option extras that only the rich exploit.
On the post: DirecTV Finally Dumps OAN, Limiting The Conspiracy And Propaganda Channel's Reach
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"From what I have read it’s just a right wing version of MSNBC"ç
What is it with people like you, false equivalence and your obsession over MSNBC and CNN? Why can you never defend an actual position, only whine about vague whataboutisms relating to things that nobody outside of butthurt right-wingers ever seems to think about?
It's never "OANN is a valid news source that has been treated unfairly because X", it's always "but mommy, MSNBC does the bad things tooooo!"
On the post: DirecTV Finally Dumps OAN, Limiting The Conspiracy And Propaganda Channel's Reach
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, and?
Are you trying to say that people shouldn't state an opinion?
On the post: The Internet Wins: Adblocking (And Other Extensions) Don't Violate Copyright Law In Germany
Re: Re: Re:
"They even said (and the translation was correct) that "she could've used either her husband's computer, or her son's computer...." "
My immediate response would be that if you can't even identify the device used and who used it, how do we know that the suppose infringement even happened at all? It wouldn't be the first time logs have been misinterpreted to accuse an innocent party, and if you're not examining the files actually downloaded, how do you know they were even infringing? File names don't have to accurately reflect the contents, after all. If the charge is serving files illegally, my first request would be that they identify the server used and prove that the files there are infringing.
"So one should wonder why she would have an internet account if she has no computer?"
Mobile phones? Smart TV or IPTV? VoIP? Her telephone provider sold her a package with internet included even though she didn't really need it?
There are of course numerous reasons, but getting to the truth typically isn't a priority when there's copyright related extortion to be done.
On the post: Deja Vu All Over Again: Microsoft, Sony Making Vague Statements About Exclusivity In Activision Titles
Re: Fool me once...
"the games"
Some new games, not all and not any existing titles, and given the commitment they have with releasing through Game Pass and xCloud, most people interested in playing them will be able to access them without having to buy new hardware. They just won't be able to play them on PlayStation natively (although they could still be made available on PS if Sony wanted to allow a partnership to allow GP on there).
Meanwhile, Sony are still locking up franchises and studios that started on the XBox with no hope of accessing them without buying a PlayStation, according to their current business model, and even PC ports can take years to emerge if they happen (whereas XBox/PC titles typically arrive at the same time, and you can cover delays by using xCloud until the native port appears).
I'm still on Microsoft's side here.
On the post: Deja Vu All Over Again: Microsoft, Sony Making Vague Statements About Exclusivity In Activision Titles
Honestly, I don't think there's much to be taken from this. Once the news came through, there's been all sorts of random scare stories from Sony fanboys about how this means that all CoD games were immediately going to be removed from PlayStation and a bunch of other claims that don't have any basis in anything but the imaginations of those reading the initial news. Spencer's statement is simply to say that specific fear is unfounded, but I doubt they have solid plans anywhere else.
There's plenty of other ways to read this news. One is that other statements from MS regarding an interest in resurrecting dormant IPs indicate some great things on the horizon for gamers overall. Another is that since MS has increasingly expressed interest in getting GP on to other platforms, this could be ammunition required to get Sony on board with that, which could include a reciprocal relationship with current PlayStation exclusive titles eventually being ported in return for Activision titles being on Sony's platform.
I think it's way too early to read anything in to any announcements so far, and we're unlikely to know anything concrete until the merger is actually approved, but I certainly don't think anything is gained by reading too much into a statement that is essentially intended to say "no, we're not going to instantly remove CoD players on PS".
On the post: Deja Vu All Over Again: Microsoft, Sony Making Vague Statements About Exclusivity In Activision Titles
Re:
No, pathetic attempts at whataboutism, thy name is AC.
Surely even someone as desperate as you to find a double standard must understand the vast differences between end user moderation on a single platform and exclusive business contracts that restrict people to a single platform? Even you must surely understand the difference between saying "this might be a bad idea for consumers" and "this should not be allowed"? Surely even you can read the words about how it's unclear how the deal will affect non-CoD games going forward and understand that this is the main criticism, not the concept of a platform being controlled by the owning party?
It's like you read a couple of words in an article, ignore context and attack a hastily erected strawman. Again.
On the post: DirecTV Finally Dumps OAN, Limiting The Conspiracy And Propaganda Channel's Reach
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"I see an author praising the silencing of an opinion."
That is one interpretation of the article, although since you somehow missed the fact that AWE was mentioned in the article as well it doesn't provide evidence that your reaction wasn't a knee jerk.
"A statement in direct opposition to free speech"
Nowhere in the concept of free speech is "the company providing access to their private property via a contract with your private business can't opt to not renew said contract" expressed. Free speech is still protected, unless you subscribe to the myth that free access to other peoples' property and a built in audience are part of the deal, which it never has been.
"I didn’t say anything relating to Trump. And honestly have no clue what he has to do with OAN."
Then, you appear to have ignored their entire history.
On the post: DirecTV Finally Dumps OAN, Limiting The Conspiracy And Propaganda Channel's Reach
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, we know that you can't see why the things you have suggested are. by their nature regressive and only benefit the wealthy who are the ones exploiting the current system. Your inability to understand why this is despite it being explained to you many times is a problem, but that doesn't stop it from being true.
Next >>