Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: 240 is Back on October 10, 2006, 09:18:51 PM
-
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-10-10-internet-defamation-case_x.htm
A Florida woman has been awarded $11.3 million in a defamation lawsuit against a Louisiana woman who posted messages on the Internet accusing her of being a "crook," a "con artist" and a "fraud."
Legal analysts say the Sept. 19 award by a jury in Broward County, Fla. — first reported Friday by the Daily Business Review — represents the largest such judgment over postings on an Internet blog or message board. Lyrissa Lidsky, a University of Florida law professor who specializes in free-speech issues, calls the award "astonishing."
-
The funniest thing is that the plaintiff paid all court costs and sued a broke woman.
Does this constitute self-owned? Or something else...?
-
240, I see that the threats of a "lawsuit" has kept you in check. You're not even funny anymore. Sad to say this, but you kinda turned into an internet whuss! That shit must have scared the hell outta you. This ain't about you. So...
Well, now I know it can be done.....!
-
sued
-
i still post. 240 doesn't. but... ;)
besides, half these cats are clients now. once they become clients I no longer bring them up in anything less than a flattering light.
-
i still post. 240 doesn't. but... ;)
besides, half these cats are clients now. once they become clients I no longer bring them up in anything less than a flattering light.
Like you don't have gimmick accounts, ::)
-
Like you don't have gimmick accounts, ::)
I post as 'Chick' sometimes when I want to put a little disinformation out there.
-
i still post. 240 doesn't. but... ;)
besides, half these cats are clients now. once they become clients I no longer bring them up in anything less than a flattering light.
Tamali scared the shit out of you. ;D
-
I post as 'Chick' sometimes when I want to put a little disinformation out there.
Where is furby ???
-
i still post. 240 doesn't. but... ;)
besides, half these cats are clients now. once they become clients I no longer bring them up in anything less than a flattering light.
Translation: "You're right! I have lost the very reputation that has put me on the map".
Seriously dude, I would look forward to reading your posts. Now......they just plain ol' SUCK! You ain't even funny anymore. WEAK! Your last 4000 posts have sucked.
You must have been warned by the 'powers that be'. Oh, I get it....since you have found this as a source of "income", you no longer have balls.
$300 website + free balls!
-
The funniest thing is that the plaintiff paid all court costs and sued a broke woman.
Does this constitute self-owned? Or something else...?
Yes, that is total self ownage.
I can't imagine how many people take this shit seriously. If you do, you're pathetic. I can't imagine why ANYONE would want to sue over hurt feelings on an internet board.
Anybody wants to sue me, go for it. You won't get shit. ;)
-
That verdict will either be reversed or severely reduced on appeal. Just like the 50 Milion Dollar Coffee Spill.
Special "Useless Judgments" Ed
-
Big Joke.
-
YOUTUBE is justg 19 months old andit was bought by Google for $1.62 Billion. Unreal
-
YouTube is just the most recent hot-potato...the last one holding it is the looser.
I don't know, I think it's going to be interesting to see what the wonderboys from Google can do with it. Clearly they're flush with success and feeling invincible. They just might make something out of it, there really is nothing else like YouTube.
-
Nope. They can't optimize banner ads. The meta-data from the videos is not enough, and/or completely missing. And, quality, high-paying advertisers are going to shy away because they do not want their product possibly being associated with the hottest video on YouTube when it's a 16 year old picking his nose and feeding it to his little sister. Not good for business to have Tide, Coke, Toyota or McDonalds associated with that.
Hot. Potato.
Last person who pays the bills looses. If it's not Google, it's the people Google gets to advertise on it. So Google may be a winner. But, mark my words, the last person (or group) holding it will be loosers.
Clearly they have a plan, they wouldn't have given away 1.6 billion in stock if they didn't think they could make it work. I agree with your assessment of top rate advertisers but perhaps that's not the way they plan on generating revenue. Would a fee based YouTube work if the fees were small enough? There is enough content to keep people coming back.
-
They couldn`t scrape up two pennies for gas money to even make it to the lawyers office, let alone pay the initial consulting fee.
Let them try.
-
youtube is an awesome example of using the customer as a co-producer in the service process. much like the McD counter that "lets" you pour your own beverage (resulting in one less employee needed per shift), it lets the user upload all the content, and all they provide is the database for people to do it.
It's funny... anyone who is over 25 should remember the 2 Jan 2001 tech bubble bursting. What caused it? Among other things, overinflated value estimates of stocks. Once confidence weens, it's all over. Once the code goes public, politics take over, and/or bandwidth prices drop with the next magic internet wire, youtube is toast. And the google kids know it. They just believe that 1.6 B in stock is less than the value it'll bring to current stock value before the barriers to entry are gone and the technology/database of videos/subscriber base is no longer worth it. Google is worth 80billion - what is 1.6B in stock (that the youtube kids prob have to sell very slowly) really going to do? We're all talking about it, so...
This always happens. Can you believe people once put millions into a company which based its business model on the prediction that people would be repeat buyers of 20-pound dog food bags coming in their mail? I mean, didn't anyone do a simple shipping cost per square foot analysis to see that people were going to be wooed into overpaying by that sock puppet for only so long?
-
I agree. They have a plan. But that plan might be to pass the bill onto some naive rich people. Again, hot-potato. Greatest example is the sale of AOL to Time Warner. Another is the "sale" of Netscape to the investors on the stock market.
Fee based? I dunno. What would you pay to see shit quality 30second-5min clips of people picking their nose, or the funniest tv ad, or parts of movies? Half of which you can find elsewhere on the net. Maybe if they upped the quality (for for-pay members, and left it as-is for free members) and charged like $4.95/month unlimited. Then spammed the hell out of the site with ipod video download ads (through their own store), or have a dvd store.
Does that add up to enough to pay for the $1mil/month bill bandwidth? Plus everything else...
Totally right garraeth. They have zero business model and their technology is laughable. From what I've heard. they've been cruising mostly on VC money for the past 19 months... nobody "cared" about the balance sheet because of all the "hype". I don't see what value google see into it... google had its own "google video" which didn't really took off and was negative in revenue as well...
Google business strategy/aquisitions folks are loosing their edge and I know what I'm talking about, that's what I do for a living in the valley...
-
Hey guys, 1.6 Billion for one the worlds largest violations of copyright law is a smart move.
-
youtube is an awesome example of using the customer as a co-producer in the service process. much like the McD counter that "lets" you pour your own beverage (resulting in one less employee needed per shift), it lets the user upload all the content, and all they provide is the database for people to do it.
It's funny... anyone who is over 25 should remember the 2 Jan 2001 tech bubble bursting. What caused it? Among other things, overinflated value estimates of stocks. Once confidence weens, it's all over. Once the code goes public, politics take over, and/or bandwidth prices drop with the next magic internet wire, youtube is toast. And the google kids know it. They just believe that 1.6 B in stock is less than the value it'll bring to current stock value before the barriers to entry are gone and the technology/database of videos/subscriber base is no longer worth it. Google is worth 80billion - what is 1.6B in stock (that the youtube kids prob have to sell very slowly) really going to do? We're all talking about it, so...
This always happens. Can you believe people once put millions into a company which based its business model on the prediction that people would be repeat buyers of 20-pound dog food bags coming in their mail? I mean, didn't anyone do a simple shipping cost per square foot analysis to see that people were going to be wooed into overpaying by that sock puppet for only so long?
I have two questions regarding this.
If YouTube really is a dog then the short term benefit of the acquisition isn't worth the loss of 1.6 billion in stock and the eventual downturn in stock value once the market realizes Google can't make YouTube profitable. Where's the benefit? A short term stock hike isn't worth 1.6 billion in stock.
What kind of board of directors would approve such a gamble when the only benefit will be short term and the eventual losses will outweigh any benefits.
No offense 240 but your theory is hard to grasp, at least for me. That doesn't mean you're not right though.
-
I have two questions regarding this.
If YouTube really is a dog then the short term benefit of the acquisition isn't worth the loss of 1.6 billion in stock and the eventual downturn in stock value once the market realizes Google can't make YouTube profitable. Where's the benefit? A short term stock hike isn't worth 1.6 billion in stock.
What kind of board of directors would approve such a gamble when the only benefit will be short term and the eventual losses will outweigh any benefits.
No offense 240 but your theory is hard to grasp, at least for me. That doesn't mean you're not right though.
You have a point ieffinhatecardio. But Google business model it quite particular; they make money by pricing adsense at a certain level, based on their "traffic", the more traffic, the more pricey the adds are. Much like TV ratings.
now 1.6bil is peanuts when valued at 130bil market cap; simple integration of YOUTube or even a "fade out" and migration of the "customers" to their google video and they get "into their money". No financially but position wise...
It's a classic destroy by aquisition pattern IMO..
-
If I had copyrighted material of mine on Youtube without permission I would see this a perfect opportunity to join a class act suit against the very wealthy pockets of google. :)
-
Yo, 240!
How is the baby? Boy or a girl?
djohnsen
-
If YouTube really is a dog then the short term benefit of the acquisition isn't worth the loss of 1.6 billion in stock and the eventual downturn in stock value once the market realizes Google can't make YouTube profitable. Where's the benefit? A short term stock hike isn't worth 1.6 billion in stock.
Google is riding the wave. It will not be worth 80+B in 10 years. You pump it before you dump it. technology has wonderful way of killing those barriers to entry.
What kind of board of directors would approve such a gamble when the only benefit will be short term and the eventual losses will outweigh any benefits.
Tech stocks are always short-term. If it fits on a cd-rom, it can and will be copied and distributed with time. Those 6 geeks at Excite had the first mainstream search engine in 1993 - got it up to 6.5B in 99, and was bankrupt in 2001. Why? Cause the technology was copied, and the monster idea they had no longer gave them a competitive advantage.
Hell, youtube could have added a search engine and/or a mailbox to their homepage, and google may have had a serious threat on its hands in 6 months. Competitive advantages NO NOT last in tech markets.
-
Yo, 240!
How is the baby? Boy or a girl?
djohnsen
an adorable baby boy. 6 pounds. spunky little bugger. Likes to grab jewelry and already has developed a nice left hook and a right cross. Working on the jab.
-
an adorable baby boy. 6 pounds. spunky little bugger. Likes to grab jewelry and already has developed a nice left hook and a right cross. Working on the jab.
Good to hear.
Congrats man!
-
Interesting theory. So your saying that YouTube was sucking so much traffic that it was pulling from big sites using Google's AdSense? Causing the AdSense pricing to deflate.
hmm...interesting.
Oh, btw, a little secret. If you have a website w/ ad's you've put on it. Google will ream you. Hard. Yahoo pays out 10x as much.
I think it's more a question of google's master plan of the "internet of everything". Video is obviously a big part of it. I'm working with a little company right now that does integration of YOu Tube into Windows MediaCenter; user would be able to browse YOuTube from their TV, get an "inbox" of video etc... now I'm wondering how much impacted they will be from today's aquisition.
It's quite clear that google video is a failure and that YOutube has significant traffic; aquire the "traffic" and you just made your adsense more valuable.
Oh and btw, Bandwidth is now dirtcheap, so is storage. It's even more true for a google; economy of scale.
-
Yes, that is total self ownage.
I can't imagine how many people take this shit seriously. If you do, you're pathetic. I can't imagine why ANYONE would want to sue over hurt feelings on an internet board.
Anybody wants to sue me, go for it. You won't get shit. ;)
I think Kamali wants to sue over hurt feelings.
-
I bet a certain King would like to sue getbig..hahaha
-
I bet a certain King would like to sue getbig..hahaha
-
Kamali can't sue because everything we say about him is true.
-
Kamali can't sue because everything we say about him is true.
hahhah EXACTLY.
Plus he would be too embarrassed for the truth to get out in an open court...We would have a field day in court....Imagine how many times he would get owned.
-
Good luck trying to collect.
-
Good luck trying to collect.
Exactly... let's see a Florida court try to enforce this order on a Louisiana resident who presumably has never set foot in Florida. ::)
If they wanted to stand any chance of collecting anything at all, they should have filed suit in Louisiana (the lack of money issues aside).
-
I can just see the plaintiff, jumping up in down in court as the 11 mil verdict was read. She probably went right home, logged onto mayhem and started bragging.
Her husband standing with her, pissed off that the petty woman spent their $10k in savings in a fruitless lawsuit.
-
I can just see the plaintiff, jumping up in down in court as the 11 mil verdict was read. She probably went right home, logged onto mayhem and started bragging.
Her husband standing with her, pissed off that the petty woman spent their $10k in savings in a fruitless lawsuit.
Regardless... still make you think twice doesn't it? Hope Kamali doesn't read this; he might get inspired... with the kid & all cour dates might suck a little ....
-
Regardless... still make you think twice doesn't it? Hope Kamali doesn't read this; he might get inspired... with the kid & all cour dates might suck a little ....
Stop trying to get him worked up. That lawsuit wasn't analogous to 240's situation with Kamali. He's a new father, let him bask in the glow for a little while without having to stress out of bullschit.
-
LOL... no Bber who uses drugs and emails threats wants the mess that comes with involving law enforcement and eventually getting on the stand, under oath, as post after post is read.
-
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-10-10-internet-defamation-case_x.htm
A Florida woman has been awarded $11.3 million in a defamation lawsuit against a Louisiana woman who posted messages on the Internet accusing her of being a "crook," a "con artist" and a "fraud."
Legal analysts say the Sept. 19 award by a jury in Broward County, Fla. — first reported Friday by the Daily Business Review — represents the largest such judgment over postings on an Internet blog or message board. Lyrissa Lidsky, a University of Florida law professor who specializes in free-speech issues, calls the award "astonishing."
Rob,
Please e-mail me the details about this. As chick has used the same language about me. And it has affected my relationship with one of my sponsors.
Jack
-
Rob,
Please e-mail me the details about this. As chick has used the same language about me. And it has affected my relationship with one of my sponsors.
Jack
Which did he call you, a "crook", a "con artist", or a "fraud"?
Or did he just call you a "fat sack of shit"?
If he called you fat, you probably can't sue him, but I'm sure Ron would be happy to put him in "time out" for you. Apparently, calling people "fat" is a no-no around here, and will land you in time out with the quickness!
-
Which did he call you, a "crook", a "con artist", or a "fraud"?
Or did he just call you a "fat sack of shit"?
If he called you fat, you probably can't sue him, but I'm sure Ron would be happy to put him in "time out" for you. Apparently, calling people "fat" is a no-no around here, and will land you in time out with the quickness!
Okay, another troll. I will indulge. He called me a fraud, and a liar. Stating that I did not win the Nabba N. america.
But I'm sure you will have some witty comeback.
-
youtube is an awesome example of using the customer as a co-producer in the service process. much like the McD counter that "lets" you pour your own beverage (resulting in one less employee needed per shift), it lets the user upload all the content, and all they provide is the database for people to do it.
It's funny... anyone who is over 25 should remember the 2 Jan 2001 tech bubble bursting. What caused it? Among other things, overinflated value estimates of stocks. Once confidence weens, it's all over. Once the code goes public, politics take over, and/or bandwidth prices drop with the next magic internet wire, youtube is toast. And the google kids know it. They just believe that 1.6 B in stock is less than the value it'll bring to current stock value before the barriers to entry are gone and the technology/database of videos/subscriber base is no longer worth it. Google is worth 80billion - what is 1.6B in stock (that the youtube kids prob have to sell very slowly) really going to do? We're all talking about it, so...
This always happens. Can you believe people once put millions into a company which based its business model on the prediction that people would be repeat buyers of 20-pound dog food bags coming in their mail? I mean, didn't anyone do a simple shipping cost per square foot analysis to see that people were going to be wooed into overpaying by that sock puppet for only so long?
Rob,
The MCDonalds Lawsuit was justified regarding the coffee incident.....Its a shame the media never reports the ENTIRE story.
Here:
The “McDonald’s coffee” case. We have all heard it: a woman spills McDonald's coffee, sues and gets $3 million. Here are the facts of this widely misreported and misunderstood case:
Stella Liebeck, 79 years old, was sitting in the passenger seat of her grandson’s car having purchased a cup of McDonald’s coffee. After the car stopped, she tried to hold the cup securely between her knees while removing the lid. However, the cup tipped over, pouring scalding hot coffee onto her. She received third-degree burns over 16 percent of her body, necessitating hospitalization for eight days, whirlpool treatment for debridement of her wounds, skin grafting, scarring, and disability for more than two years. Morgan, The Recorder, September 30, 1994. Despite these extensive injuries, she offered to settle with McDonald’s for $20,000. However, McDonald’s refused to settle. The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages -- reduced to $160,000 because the jury found her 20 percent at fault -- and $2.7 million in punitive damages for McDonald’s callous conduct. (To put this in perspective, McDonald's revenue from coffee sales alone is in excess of $1.3 million a day.) The trial judge reduced the punitive damages to $480,000. Subsequently, the parties entered a post-verdict settlement. According to Stella Liebeck’s attorney, S. Reed Morgan, the jury heard the following evidence in the case:
By corporate specifications, McDonald's sells its coffee at 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit;
Coffee at that temperature, if spilled, causes third-degree burns (the skin is burned away down to the muscle/fatty-tissue layer) in two to seven seconds;
Third-degree burns do not heal without skin grafting, debridement and whirlpool treatments that cost tens of thousands of dollars and result in permanent disfigurement, extreme pain and disability of the victim for many months, and in some cases, years;
The chairman of the department of mechanical engineering and bio-mechanical engineering at the University of Texas testified that this risk of harm is unacceptable, as did a widely recognized expert on burns, the editor in chief of the leading scholarly publication in the specialty, the Journal of Burn Care and Rehabilitation;
McDonald's admitted that it has known about the risk of serious burns from its scalding hot coffee for more than 10 years -- the risk was brought to its attention through numerous other claims and suits, to no avail;
From 1982 to 1992, McDonald's coffee burned more than 700 people, many receiving severe burns to the genital area, perineum, inner thighs, and buttocks;
Not only men and women, but also children and infants, have been burned by McDonald's scalding hot coffee, in some instances due to inadvertent spillage by McDonald's employees;
At least one woman had coffee dropped in her lap through the service window, causing third-degree burns to her inner thighs and other sensitive areas, which resulted in disability for years;
Witnesses for McDonald's admitted in court that consumers are unaware of the extent of the risk of serious burns from spilled coffee served at McDonald's required temperature;
McDonald's admitted that it did not warn customers of the nature and extent of this risk and could offer no explanation as to why it did not;
McDonald's witnesses testified that it did not intend to turn down the heat -- As one witness put it: “No, there is no current plan to change the procedure that we're using in that regard right now;”
McDonald's admitted that its coffee is “not fit for consumption” when sold because it causes severe scalds if spilled or drunk;
Liebeck's treating physician testified that her injury was one of the worst scald burns he had ever seen.
Morgan, The Recorder, September 30, 1994. Moreover, the Shriner’s Burn Institute in Cincinnati had published warnings to the franchise food industry that its members were unnecessarily causing serious scald burns by serving beverages above 130 degrees Fahrenheit.
In refusing to grant a new trial in the case, Judge Robert Scott called McDonald's behavior “callous.” Moreover, “the day after the verdict, the news media documented that coffee at the McDonald's in Albuquerque [where Liebeck was burned] is now sold at 158 degrees. This will cause third-degree burns in about 60 seconds, rather than in two to seven seconds [so that], the margin of safety has been increased as a direct consequence of this verdict.” Id.
-
During discovery, McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700
claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims
involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebecks. This
history documented McDonalds' knowledge about the extent and nature of
this hazard.
McDonalds also said during discovery that, based on a consultants
advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit to
maintain optimum taste. He admitted that he had not evaluated the
safety ramifications at this temperature. Other establishments sell
coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is
generally 135 to 140 degrees.
Further, McDonalds' quality assurance manager testified that the company
actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185
degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that a burn
hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above,
and that McDonalds coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured
into styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn
the mouth and throat. The quality assurance manager admitted that burns
would occur, but testified that McDonalds had no intention of reducing
the "holding temperature" of its coffee.
Plaintiffs' expert, a scholar in thermodynamics applied to human skin
burns, testified that liquids, at 180 degrees, will cause a full
thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds. Other testimony
showed that as the temperature decreases toward 155 degrees, the extent
of the burn relative to that temperature decreases exponentially. Thus,
if Liebeck's spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid would
have cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn.
McDonalds asserted that customers buy coffee on their way to work or
home, intending to consume it there. However, the companys own research
showed that customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while
driving.
McDonalds also argued that consumers know coffee is hot and that its
customers want it that way. The company admitted its customers were
unaware that they could suffer thirddegree burns from the coffee and
that a statement on the side of the cup was not a "warning" but a
"reminder" since the location of the writing would not warn customers of
the hazard.
The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages. This amount
was reduced to $160,000 because the jury found Liebeck 20 percent at
fault in the spill. The jury also awarded Liebeck $2.7 million in
punitive damages, which equals about two days of McDonalds' coffee
sales.
Post-verdict investigation found that the temperature of coffee at the
local Albuquerque McDonalds had dropped to 158 degrees fahrenheit.
The trial court subsequently reduced the punitive award to $480,000 --
or three times compensatory damages -- even though the judge called
McDonalds' conduct reckless, callous and willful.
No one will ever know the final ending to this case.
The parties eventually entered into a secret settlement which has never
been revealed to the public, despite the fact that this was a public
case, litigated in public and subjected to extensive media reporting.
Such secret settlements, after public trials, should not be condoned.
-
Oh man....Now I bet Vince G. is going to start sueing people on here :( ???
-
If we learned anything about dot com stocks is that they will eventually fold if they don't make a profit. The dot com type stock goes up like a pyramid scam but the bottom line is do they make a profit? Stocks that are heavy with investors but no bottom line will eventually collapse. The lucky ones will cash in before the thing crashes.
-
selling potential is sexy, no doubt about that!!
-
Rob,
Please e-mail me the details about this. As chick has used the same language about me. And it has affected my relationship with one of my sponsors.
Jack
sorry to hear that your relationship with your Bra sponsor is strained because of Chick...