These people are either crackheads are on a quest to becoming clowns. As for the court case, before the judge laughs in these jokers faces, Google's defense may easily be as follows:
a. The obvious point of, "you never asked to have it removed."
b. Find clausable reason that the plantiff is trying to turn this fiasco into a publicity stunt in an effort to increase the property value, not devalue it, as they claim. Furthermore, Google paid resources to have their property imaged (van, tires, oil, gas, human resources), and should be exempt for providing a public service for FREE.
I truly beleive that if Google proactively removed/morphed the view of their property, they would have wanted to sue Google for the same exact shit; "We demand in excess of $25,000 to make up for the 'mental suffering' and the diminished value of our home for omitting it from StreetView."
These people are either crackheads are on a quest to becoming clowns. As for the court case, before the judge laughs in these jokers faces, Google's defense may easily be as follows:
a. The obvious point of, "you never asked to have it removed."
b. Find clausable reason that the plantiff is trying to turn this fiasco into a publicity stunt in an effort to increase the property value, not devalue it, as they claim. Furthermore, Google paid resources to have their property imaged (van, tires, oil, gas, human resources), and should be exempt for providing a public service for FREE.
I truly beleive that if Google proactively removed/morphed the view of their property, they would have wanted to sue Google for the same exact shit; "We demand in excess of $25,000 to make up for the 'mental suffering' and the diminished value of our home for omitting it from StreetView."
The music business has always been a desperate business; if a music artist can't make it to the top for some time, need that 9 to 5 no matter what. As for the big 5, the days of recorded media sales are over. Even though these companies' marketing structures have been revamped by removing the old goats with younger-- open-minded staff, the same caketard execs and board are still at the helm-- ensuing them (young marketing staff) the task of creating any "desperate" form of selling crap.
"music sales dropped to $11.5 billion in 2006 from a peak in 1999 of nearly $15 billion."
Again, the music industry (at the commercial level), is a desperate industry. With the above quote, one can easily gather the level of rationale these jokers portray. If they were kicking that shit to me, I'd smack them on the back of the head and show them a gas station price sign, a picture of Britney Spears just for shits and giggles, and make them watch 5 minutes of CNBC (so the word recession can sink in).
TigerDirect knows best on suing. They made lots of money selling shoddy parts and systems back in the late 90s with virtually no customer service. FTC and the State of Florida hammered them with extensive fines and a chance to shape up their client ethics.
All in all this could just be a publicity stunt for free advertisement.
Slashdot Mirror
These people are either crackheads are on a quest to becoming clowns. As for the court case, before the judge laughs in these jokers faces, Google's defense may easily be as follows:
."
a. The obvious point of, "you never asked to have it removed."
b. Find clausable reason that the plantiff is trying to turn this fiasco into a publicity stunt in an effort to increase the property value, not devalue it, as they claim. Furthermore, Google paid resources to have their property imaged (van, tires, oil, gas, human resources), and should be exempt for providing a public service for FREE.
I truly beleive that if Google proactively removed/morphed the view of their property, they would have wanted to sue Google for the same exact shit; "We demand in excess of $25,000 to make up for the 'mental suffering' and the diminished value of our home for omitting it from StreetView
Stupidity like this goes on and on everyday.
These people are either crackheads are on a quest to becoming clowns. As for the court case, before the judge laughs in these jokers faces, Google's defense may easily be as follows:
."
a. The obvious point of, "you never asked to have it removed."
b. Find clausable reason that the plantiff is trying to turn this fiasco into a publicity stunt in an effort to increase the property value, not devalue it, as they claim. Furthermore, Google paid resources to have their property imaged (van, tires, oil, gas, human resources), and should be exempt for providing a public service for FREE.
I truly beleive that if Google proactively removed/morphed the view of their property, they would have wanted to sue Google for the same exact shit; "We demand in excess of $25,000 to make up for the 'mental suffering' and the diminished value of our home for omitting it from StreetView
Stupidity like this goes on and on everyday.
"the deal is partly born of desperation."
The music business has always been a desperate business; if a music artist can't make it to the top for some time, need that 9 to 5 no matter what. As for the big 5, the days of recorded media sales are over. Even though these companies' marketing structures have been revamped by removing the old goats with younger-- open-minded staff, the same caketard execs and board are still at the helm-- ensuing them (young marketing staff) the task of creating any "desperate" form of selling crap.
"music sales dropped to $11.5 billion in 2006 from a peak in 1999 of nearly $15 billion."
Again, the music industry (at the commercial level), is a desperate industry. With the above quote, one can easily gather the level of rationale these jokers portray. If they were kicking that shit to me, I'd smack them on the back of the head and show them a gas station price sign, a picture of Britney Spears just for shits and giggles, and make them watch 5 minutes of CNBC (so the word recession can sink in).
My thoughts about this whole RIAA thing has lead me to beleive the following:
a. Most of the jokers buying these albums/ attending concerts for the artists in which RIAA defends are kids/ their parents.
b. The other people that listen to these artists are too lazy to search for worthy artists to listen to which RIAA does not monitor.
c. RIAA makes up for losses from these cases because most of the artists blow (britney spears) or have blown for years, i.e. Metallica, GNR, etc.
I know I have none of this music on my shared drive, I wish I did so these clowns can try me.
burning time similar to smoking; burning life, I agree
Obviously, New York City is a very expensive place to live in and/or conduct a business. Trying to make that chum change, thats all.
TigerDirect knows best on suing. They made lots of money selling shoddy parts and systems back in the late 90s with virtually no customer service. FTC and the State of Florida hammered them with extensive fines and a chance to shape up their client ethics.
All in all this could just be a publicity stunt for free advertisement.