Archive through August 06, 2002
MoveCloseDeleteAdmin

TV ClubHouse: Archives: Archive Two: Four live streams, 24/7 unrestriced access. $24.95: Archive through August 06, 2002

Goddess146

Tuesday, August 06, 2002 - 05:21 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Is it any wonder that Arnie went out of his way to cast a con man on the show. He needs someone like himself in the house.

Jesse

Tuesday, August 06, 2002 - 05:45 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
I wish there would be a ligit "Reality TV" category . . . governed by rules and ethics . . . right now it is anyone's game and Shapiro is squashing it . . . not to mention game show manipulation.

Mystery

Tuesday, August 06, 2002 - 05:47 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Well it sure seems like he's violating some Truth in Advertising laws, anyway.

Bbfanatic

Tuesday, August 06, 2002 - 05:56 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
i bought the feeds last year so i knew what i was getting. i figure if i wasnt watching my $9.95 a month feeds i would be out spending alot more money elsewhere. so i probably save money in the long run. i guess it doesnt bother me too much since i check out the feeds every other day for just a little while.

Sheilaree

Tuesday, August 06, 2002 - 06:34 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
I bought the feeds for a few days but you didn't see anything interesting and when something happened interesting they blocked that . That is why I cancelled my 24/7 so maybe they will learn to let us see something good, instead of something boring.

Ryanc2002

Tuesday, August 06, 2002 - 06:37 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
The feeds don't say "unrestricted" or "uncut". They say 24/7, and technically showing FOTH is still showing Big Brother, they're showing the Big Brother house.

Bastable

Tuesday, August 06, 2002 - 07:11 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Yeah, last year they said uncensored. It was a bone of contention.

Bigbrotherbelle

Tuesday, August 06, 2002 - 07:14 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
They say uncensored this year too. At least the ad does. "Watch the 24/7 Uncensored Feeds Now!"
http://home.real.com/?

Cajunrambler

Tuesday, August 06, 2002 - 07:21 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
I was going to post the same thing.

Goddess146

Tuesday, August 06, 2002 - 07:27 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
The ad used during the TV show specifically uses the words "four (streams), 24/7 and unrestricted."

One could say that they really are providing four feeds even if all the feeds are on the same scene. One could say that if one were a con man.

Crossfire

Tuesday, August 06, 2002 - 07:30 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
If they just said either '24/7' or 'uncensored', I could defend them, but when they say both...I'd say that is misleading at best.

But then they also have this disclaimer on the website:

Quote:

Certain Content may be delayed, edited and/or blacked out at various times at our sole discretion. You agree that we shall have no liability whatsoever relating to the Content and you waive any claims you may have, now or in the future, against us relating to the Content.




So I guess its no more misleading than anything publishers clearing house does.

Goddess146

Tuesday, August 06, 2002 - 07:33 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
You can not wave your rights sue for fraud.

Crossfire

Tuesday, August 06, 2002 - 07:41 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Bonus!

If someone advertises something as uncensored, but on the same page, reserves the right to censor, and then does so, has a fraud been committed?

Ryanc2002

Tuesday, August 06, 2002 - 08:13 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Even if someone claims uncensored, if you choose to believe that it is truly uncensored you are being naive. For legal reasons there has to be some censorship.

Guiltyviewer

Tuesday, August 06, 2002 - 08:15 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Wonder what Lawyerman would say about that?!:)

Mystery

Tuesday, August 06, 2002 - 09:47 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
In my opinion someone who claims to sell something that is "uncensored," and doesn't, is committing fraud, even if they reserve the right to censor on the same page. A court would also look at issues such as whether the "censorship" language is in a smaller type, or otherwise harder to see, than the "uncensored" language. Naivety on the part of the purchaser does not lessen the fault of the seller.

Goddess146

Tuesday, August 06, 2002 - 09:55 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
At best it is a "bait and switch" tactic. You think you are going to get one thing. Once you are all hyped and ready to close, they pull the switch.

Ryanc2002

Tuesday, August 06, 2002 - 10:06 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
It's common sense people, there is no way it could be truly uncensored (show EVERYTHING) there is too much risk of being sued by someone who is not in the house because someone in the house told a not-so-flattering story.

Goddess146

Tuesday, August 06, 2002 - 10:15 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Ryan, did you BB1? They did show everything and no one got sued. There were so very unflattering stories told about people the HGs knew.

Even so, they censor many, many things that are not law suit material such as giving us the FOTH during the live.

Ryanc2002

Tuesday, August 06, 2002 - 10:17 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Well, they also do it for TV purposes. And you're correct, but there were different producers for BB1 maybe ASP is a little more lawsuit-shy. And even for BB1 we had the chicken cam.

Lurknomore

Tuesday, August 06, 2002 - 10:26 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
I think the difference is the producers for BB1 didn't hate our guts and actually tried to do a good job for the internet audience. Arnie just wants us to go away.

Mygetaway

Tuesday, August 06, 2002 - 10:35 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Ryan, did you BB1? They did show everything and no one got sued.

Ryan already responded, but I also wanted to point out we got the chicken cam A LOT during BB1, and complained about that too. It just seems like we get them more during BB2 and BB3. For BB1 we did get to see the LIVE show, and the Monday meetings, etc. They didn't block much of that out.

Mystery

Tuesday, August 06, 2002 - 10:37 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
No one can get out of an agreement by claiming that "common sense" should have told the purchaser that the seller's advertisement would not be honored.

Ryanc2002

Tuesday, August 06, 2002 - 10:45 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Not trying to get out of an argument, just stating my opinion. I think people complain about "not 24/7" because they want something to complain about. Can anyone honestly say they believed that the feeds would have been 24/7 with no FOTH or something similar when they purchased the feeds?

Mystery

Tuesday, August 06, 2002 - 10:52 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Ryan, I didn't mean you when I talked about trying to get out of an "agreement," I meant CBS. CBS has an agreement with the people who purchase the feeds. If you really want to be a lawyer some day then try to look at the positions of both parties (CBS and purchaser) in this case.

If you think that legal reasons would prohibit the advertised 24/7, then which party is in the position to (1) know about those legal reasons and (2) if the legal reasons really exist, keep the 24/7 language out of the advertising? In both cases the answer is that CBS is the only party in a position to know or accomplish what needs to be known or accomplished. It's not up to purchasers to go researching the legal issues before they decide whether or not to believe CBS's advertisement. CBS cannot take people's money by advertising 24/7 and then claim that a "reasonable person" (a standard you'll hear quite a lot in law school) wouldn't have believed the feeds were going to be 24/7. If a reasonable person wouldn't have believed it, then CBS, in its position of knowledge, qualifies as a reasonable person who should not have included 24/7 in the advertising.

Of course in law school a professor will drag this out of you via the Socratic method!