Archive through August 07, 2002
MoveCloseDeleteAdmin

TV ClubHouse: Archives: Archive Two: Four live streams, 24/7 unrestriced access. $24.95: Archive through August 07, 2002

Ryanc2002

Tuesday, August 06, 2002 - 10:56 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Mystery - It depends on whether you look at the TV commercial and/or LF logo or if you read the fine print. They never said they WOULDN'T block out, in fact they said right from the start that they WOULD.

Draheid

Tuesday, August 06, 2002 - 10:58 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
FWIW - The advertising does say LIVE and 24/7 ... as far as I know, the shots of the FOTH are, in fact, LIVE! JMO

Ryanc2002

Tuesday, August 06, 2002 - 11:00 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Thank you Draheid, that's what I'm trying to say. "unrestricted" can be put up for interpretation, and besides, it's one word in a television commercial.

Goddess146

Tuesday, August 06, 2002 - 11:06 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
unrestricted: adj

1: not subject to or subjected to restriction [ant: restricted]
2: free of restrictions on conduct; "I had unrestricted access"
3: accessible to all [syn: unexclusive]
4: (grammar) not restricted or modified in meaning; "unrestricted verbs are usually stronger than those qualified by adverbs"
5: never having had security classification [syn: nonsensitive]

Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University

Ryanc2002

Tuesday, August 06, 2002 - 11:08 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
"Accesible to all" The FOTH is accesible to all who purchased the feeds, no? They're not restricting your viewing of the FOTH, correct?

Draheid

Tuesday, August 06, 2002 - 11:10 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
FWIW - re: unrestricted. That could easily refer to the accessibility of the feeds. No paid subscriber has yet to be restricted from any of the 4 feeds being netcast. However, I do not recall any specific statements or guarantees as to the content of the streams. JMO - FWIW

Goddess146

Tuesday, August 06, 2002 - 11:10 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
What about those stupid commercials. When you get the commercial you are not getting anything live.

Ryanc2002

Tuesday, August 06, 2002 - 11:11 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Goddess - Those stupid commercials are a glitch I think.

Goddess146

Tuesday, August 06, 2002 - 11:15 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Well Ryan, thank you for framing all the arguments that could be advanced. It will help when I compose my letter to the Attorney General of the State of California, Consumer Fraud Division.

Ryanc2002

Tuesday, August 06, 2002 - 11:19 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Goddess - Glad I could help, but it'll never see the inside of a courtroom, and if by some one in a billion chance it does, CBS/ASP will win.

Goddess146

Tuesday, August 06, 2002 - 11:21 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
I agree. It will never go to court. CBS/ASP will settle. I take it that you will asked to be excused from any class action settlements.

Ryanc2002

Tuesday, August 06, 2002 - 11:23 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
They won't settle, you don't have a strong enough case for any lawyer to take it. Cases like this are what's wrong with the legal system. People take BS cases against big corporations knowing that rather than risk bad publicity the corporation will settle. And yes, you can take my name off of any "lawsuits"

Mystery

Tuesday, August 06, 2002 - 11:30 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
A company can't get away with lying in an advertisement by just making the lie "one word in a television commercial." One word is not less important than another word. CBS is using "unrestricted" for a reason, to get people to buy the feeds. They can't keep their fingers crossed behind their back and say they're using some esoteric meaning of the word "unrestricted." In the absence of a full explanation--which they do have on the CBS site (though in my opinion not prominently displayed) but which I do not see on the Real site--they're stuck with the general meaning of unrestricted. Their use of the word is not an accident. It's not something they didn't think about before they used it in an advertisement.

On its ad, CBS shows 4 completely different feeds. They do not show the FOTH. Their ad says "See what happens all day & all night in the big brother house." It doesn't say see what happens all day and all night IN FRONT OF the big brother house. It says "catch all the action." How is FOTH any action at all?

Their disclaimer says that coverage may be blacked out on occasion "to preserve the integrity of the TV show." I take that to mean that they want to save some shots just to be shown on TV. But hardly anything, IF anything, that happens during FOTH makes it to the TV show.

Mystery

Tuesday, August 06, 2002 - 11:33 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
In the opinion of someone who's been a lawyer for 11 years, cases like this are not what's wrong with the legal system. What's wrong with the legal system, and with American society in general, is the attitude that it's okay for business entities to lie, and cheat, and steal, with no repercussions because the victims should have known they were being lied, and cheated, and stolen from.

I find it very strange that someone would say on one hand that no lawyer would take this case and on the other hand that this kind of case shows what's wrong with the legal system. If no lawyer takes it, it hasn't affected the legal system at all.

Ryanc2002

Tuesday, August 06, 2002 - 11:34 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
No, they promise you 4 feeds, not 4 completely different feeds. And they didn't lie. Unrestricted does not necessarily mean uncut. And as long as some of the FOTH makes the show their disclaimer holds true.

Ryanc2002

Tuesday, August 06, 2002 - 11:36 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
"Cases like this" IE the McDonalds Coffee lady and Krista's case against CBS.

Ryanc2002

Tuesday, August 06, 2002 - 11:42 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
My final say on this little argument. I'm 17 years old, my law studies don't extend past highschool classes, and I've been able to come up with at least decent arguments against your case. What could a real lawyer do?

Goddess146

Tuesday, August 06, 2002 - 11:46 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
"What's wrong with the legal system, and with American society in general, is the attitude that it's okay for business entities to lie, and cheat, and steal, with no repercussions because the victims should have known they were being lied, and cheated, and stolen from. "

EXCELLENT!

Wcv63

Tuesday, August 06, 2002 - 11:47 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Ryan I was going to ask you if you were on the CBS payroll! You have a PR job in your future if you want it!

Ryanc2002

Tuesday, August 06, 2002 - 11:50 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
WCV - I think I'll stick to arguing but who knows!

Goddess146

Tuesday, August 06, 2002 - 11:50 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Mystery, seeing what Ryanc has said about a "real" lawyer, could you do a "devils advocate" posting of the agruments the CBS/ASP lawyers could pose against the claim of fraud?

Ryanc2002

Tuesday, August 06, 2002 - 11:56 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Ok, one more because I'm wound up. Every argument that has been thrown out for a case against CBS has been based on interpretation of CBS's wording. The arguments against, however have been based on CBS's own clear, undeniable words that they WOULD block out certain portions of the feeds.

Lurknomore

Tuesday, August 06, 2002 - 11:57 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Hey hey HEY...on behalf of all decent and honest PR professionals...some of us do spin based on merit :)

Wcv63

Tuesday, August 06, 2002 - 11:57 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Okay...This could be construed as a "bait and switch".

Say one thing on tv...you get there and find an inferior product.

Argue that one Ryan!

Ryanc2002

Wednesday, August 07, 2002 - 12:01 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Nope, I'm done for tonight.