First, there are defamation, slander, and libel laws on the books. If one is stupid enough to post a bogus review that runs afoul of these laws they should be sued and their specific post removed.
Second, the vast majority of these cases are real customers who have a horrible experience with company. So the review is an honest opinion with facts to back it. Thus not slander, libel, or defamation.
Third, I think most people reading reviews try to look at couple of things. Which reviews seem to be outliers, good or bad. Is there a consist thread to the reviews which is probably more important than specific details in each review.
Fourth, most people have the good sense to filter reviews based on business itself. What is the business's products/services and what should one reasonably expect from such a business.
So if your business is consistently getting poor reviews you need to look internally for the problems. People are telling you what to fix in their reviews. If you are consistently getting good reviews, keep up the good work.
If I were judge and faced one of these lawsuits, I would try to find a way to rule: 1. the information originally requested be turned over to the defendant under discovery rules. 2. the state must pay the defendant's legal costs. The person signing the lawsuit for the state faces whatever criminal charges can be found and is personally liable for civil damages payable to the defendant.
Yes there are ways to partially offset the losses. But when the scale of the losses are as big as they are some sports these methods are rounding errors. Direct lose of ~25M on the NHL is not fun but the amount is small enough that other income might offset the loses enough to eke out a small profit. However, losing 1+B on the NBA or NFL contract is hard to make up no matter how creative you are.
It seems the retail pricing is more important than anything for 'piracy' control. Movies and videos seem over priced to many based on the quality and variety. Music, books seem to be priced more fairly in general so why pirate. Plus there is more variety and quality available. Fairer pricing also means one if often more willing to a flyer on an unknown musician or author by purchasing something they have done.
The point of anti-discrimination employment laws is to keep non-relevant factors out of hiring, promotion, and retention policies. If a factor, such as race or age, is applicable then it is not discrimination to exclude based on that factor. However, the only industry where this is often true is the movie industry where characters have defined age, race, etc. In other industries, race, age, etc. almost never are valid reasons to eliminate someone.
Unless they are represented as an appraisal, they are just a best guess with some being low and some being high. What is not noted is what is the percentage difference the appraisal and estimate.
Probably the courts are getting tired of these suits so they are beginning lay down some rules. Implicit is the right to record their actions as long as you take reasonable care not to interfere.
The problem with a lot of forensic evidence is it is misused. Bite marks, shoe prints, etc. are not conclusive but exclusive. If the shows were a Nike, then anyone who does not own a pair is in the clear. Also, wear patterns and size can reduce the number of candidates to a manageable number. It would be enough to get a search warrant. But when this evidence is used as conclusive by itself is when you have a serious problem.
It seems like J-school graduates have trouble with critical thinking. Cord cutting is done by many to reduce costs but also to get control of the what they watch. There are too many cable channels I will never watch and they are included in a the cable package. Ditching cable and satellite with selecting the services that I want will probably reduce my costs and will definitely allow access to shows I want to watch. Cord cutting is only an option because cable companies do not offer 'a la carte' selections of channels.
The spooks do not want accountability but are passing the buck for their own ineptitude. First, any large program will have bugs that can be exploited. Second, many of these bugs will be found. Third, a few pose serious risks to computers and networks. Fourth, all the spooks in the world are hunting bugs. Fifth, crackers are hunting bugs. Sixth, both the spooks and crackers will find harmful bugs.
"We do our best to keep Facebook safe, but we cannot guarantee it."
Pretty much sums up Facebook responsibility. Also, the fact that dipshit did not sue the actual posters means the anti-SLAPP counter was valid. He was not after justice or he would likely be in the pokey.
The simplest conclusion is the 14 sources have provided enough proof and corroboration that only an idiot would not believe the totality of the evidence. Apparently Anthony 'Carlos Danger' Wiener's problems did not resonate with the fool. Many fine sexting disgusting and if enough people are sexted it will leak to someone.
Re: Re: Re: There's a more obvious flaw with this "evidence"
Your experiences and habits are probably very typical of most who are slaves to the device. It is usually in their possession but not always for any of a number of innocent reasons. Also, phones can be easily lost.
The problem with this was the basic inaccuracy of the method. Its accuracy appears to 1/4 to 1/2 mile from the actual location. So the best one can say is someone was in the general area. This is much different from someone or a video placing him at precise spot at a definite time. The courts are correct in rejecting it as proves nothing.
Engineer has several meanings: degree, job description, and licensure. I have held positions were my job title included "Engineer". Many have degrees in engineering. And some have obtained a professional license. Depending on context one can call themselves an engineer. They can state, "As an engineer..."
The issue is too many lawyers and judges are willfully ignorant about technology. Thus, they are willing to make assumptions based on their incompetent understanding.
On the post: Larry Lessig's Latest Big Challenge: Fixing The Way We Elect A President
Re: Everyone is missing the really critical point.
On the post: Appeals Court Tells Patent Trolls' Favorite Judge He Can't Just Ignore The Supreme Court To Keep Patent Cases In Texas
Re:
On the post: Company CEO Pleads Guilty After Forging Judge's Signatures On Bogus Court Orders Sent To Google
Second, the vast majority of these cases are real customers who have a horrible experience with company. So the review is an honest opinion with facts to back it. Thus not slander, libel, or defamation.
Third, I think most people reading reviews try to look at couple of things. Which reviews seem to be outliers, good or bad. Is there a consist thread to the reviews which is probably more important than specific details in each review.
Fourth, most people have the good sense to filter reviews based on business itself. What is the business's products/services and what should one reasonably expect from such a business.
So if your business is consistently getting poor reviews you need to look internally for the problems. People are telling you what to fix in their reviews. If you are consistently getting good reviews, keep up the good work.
On the post: More Government Agencies Filing Lawsuits Against Public Records Requesters
Re: Judges should refuse to rule
1. the information originally requested be turned over to the defendant under discovery rules.
2. the state must pay the defendant's legal costs. The person signing the lawsuit for the state faces whatever criminal charges can be found and is personally liable for civil damages payable to the defendant.
On the post: The Soaring Cost Of Sports Programming Is Simply Not Sustainable
Re:
On the post: EU Buried Its Own $400,000 Study Showing Unauthorized Downloads Have Almost No Effect On Sales
Pricing
On the post: Screen Actors Guild Tells Court There's Nothing Unconstitutional About Curbing IMDB's Publication Of Facts
Re:
On the post: Court Dumps Lawsuit Against Zillow Over Its Inaccurate 'Zestimates'
Clueless Wonder
On the post: No Immunity For Cops Who Arrested Man Recording Them For Obstruction
Re:
On the post: Court Strips Immunity From Bite Mark Experts Who Put Wrong Man In Jail For 23 Years
Re: Shoe Prints and DNA
On the post: Tech Journalists Keep Completely Missing The Point Of Cord Cutting
J-School = Clueless
On the post: Former NSA Official Argues The Real Problem With Undisclosed Exploits Is Careless End Users
Re:
On the post: Appeals Court Mostly Fixes Bad CDA 230 Ruling Over Publicity Rights
"We do our best to keep Facebook safe, but we cannot guarantee it."
On the post: Fox News Host Files SLAPP Suit Against Reporter Who Exposed His Sexting
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Fox News Host Files SLAPP Suit Against Reporter Who Exposed His Sexting
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Court Rejects Cell Site RF Signal Map In Murder Trial Because It's Evidence Of Nothing
Re: Re: Re: There's a more obvious flaw with this "evidence"
On the post: Court Rejects Cell Site RF Signal Map In Murder Trial Because It's Evidence Of Nothing
Re:
On the post: Licensing Body Agrees To Temporarily Allow Man To Criticize The Government Without A License
Re:
On the post: Appeals Court: An IP Address And Some Alternative Facts Are A 'Reasonable' Basis For A Search
Re: More Interestingly...
On the post: Cloudflare Ups The Ante In Search Of Prior Art To Invalidate ALL Patents From Patent Troll Blackbird Tech
Ah the smell
Next >>