 |
| 3. |
Re: Morning Legal Briefs |
Oct 11, 2012, 17:30 |
Panickd |
|
|
Mr. Tact wrote on Oct 11, 2012, 14:40:
The true winner of this suit:
"As part of the consent decree, Netflix will pay $755,000 to plaintiffs' lawyers who prosecuted the lawsuit"
It's still cheaper than fighting it would have been even if they won, which they probably would have. I can't help but think the only reason they settled was because they were already working on captioning their stuff (80%+ of it is already captioned) and it was just easier and cheaper to settle.
What's next? Blind people suing (or more appropriately, scumbag lawyers suing on behalf of the blind) because Netflix doesn't support the spoken description audio tracks? Where does it end? |
|
|
|
|
|
  |
|
| |
| |
|
Date |
Subject |
Author |
| |
1. |
Oct 11, 13:47 |
Re: Morning Legal Briefs |
PHJF |
| |
2. |
Oct 11, 14:40 |
Re: Morning Legal Briefs |
Mr. Tact |
| >> |
3. |
Oct 11, 17:30 |
Re: Morning Legal Briefs |
Panickd |
| |
11. |
Oct 12, 10:23 |
Re: Morning Legal Briefs |
Verno |
| |
4. |
Oct 12, 09:20 |
Re: Morning Legal Briefs |
Ant |
| |
5. |
Oct 12, 09:36 |
Re: Morning Legal Briefs |
wtf_man |
| |
6. |
Oct 12, 09:38 |
Re: Morning Legal Briefs |
Ant |
| |
7. |
Oct 12, 10:06 |
Re: Morning Legal Briefs |
wtf_man |
| |
9. |
Oct 12, 10:14 |
Re: Morning Legal Briefs |
Ant |
| |
8. |
Oct 12, 10:07 |
Re: Morning Legal Briefs |
Beamer |
| |
10. |
Oct 12, 10:15 |
Re: Morning Legal Briefs |
Ant |
| |
12. |
Oct 12, 10:34 |
Re: Morning Legal Briefs |
wtf_man |
| |
13. |
Oct 12, 10:36 |
Re: Morning Legal Briefs |
Beamer |
|
|
Twitter 
