| elvenjewel |
 Posted: April 3, 2007 - 6:02am |
|
|
Joined: 29 Mar 2007
|
| Holy cow! Check out this website: http://www.stickittostern.com/ Write your congressmen! Sanjaya Malakar might WIN and we need congressional action to STOP him!! Sheesh!!
"Why can't we just all get along?" -- Rodney King
__________________________
Simon says he always refers to a fortune cookie and says the moth who finds the melon finds the cornflake always finds the melon and one of you didn't pick the right fortune. — Paula Abdul
|
|
|
|
|
| angry_ferret_jones |
| Posted: April 3, 2007 - 9:18am |
|
|
Joined: 29 Mar 2007
|
| Jesus what douche-bags. That site is almost as funny as what's in their pants.
1. Stop "Vote for the Worst" campaign. - Howard Stern has nothing to do with the VFTW website, you idiots.
2. Send a written and video apology for "Vote for the Worst" campaign to American Idol producers. - Howard Stern has nothing to do with the VFTW website, you idiots.
3. Give any American Idol contestant voted of show because of "Vote for the Worst" campaign $20,000 as an "goodwill" gester. - First of all, the word you are so painfully trying to spell is 'Gesture.' As in "I made a gesture to you with my middle finger." Secondly (he said again) - Howard Stern has nothing to do with the VFTW website, you idiots.
4. Apologize on air to wacpacker "Eric the Actor" for "Vote for the Worst" campaign. - It is spelled Wack-Pack, and (again) Howard Stern has nothing to do with the VFTW website, you idiots.
5. Never watch or Tivo American Idol again. - It's a deal. |
|
|
|
|
| cry_me_ariver |
| Posted: April 3, 2007 - 9:39am |
|
|
|
Joined: 21 Mar 2007
|
| Q: What do you call a shuttle full of lawyers "accidentally" plummetting into the sun?
A: Guaranteed funding for NASA
__________________________
This is almost as big a treasure as when the emperor discovered the formula to great Star Wars dialog... "something something something DARK SIDE, something something something COMPLETE!"
|
|
|
|
|
| cry_me_ariver |
| Posted: April 3, 2007 - 10:13am |
|
|
|
Joined: 21 Mar 2007
|
| But it's not even just about the first amendment. That's just an obvious reason this line of thought is foolish. The bigger problem this woman is an idiot is that contrary to what she is arguing, neither she/AI/tptb could ever prove tortious interference with a business or with the execution of a contract.
The format of the show - a reality show in which people cast votes as often as they like, for whatever reason they like - cannot be said to be interfered with by anyone's voting behavior. Or non-voting behavior. Could Wal-Mart sue people for buying a crappy VCR, when they want everybody to buy a spiffy NEW VCR (one that is *supposed* to sell more...)? No. THEY MADE THE CRAPPY VCR AVAILABLE, so ultimately, any "interference" with the process of selling the anointed VCR begins and ends with the people who made that decision. It's the same with Idol.
That would be like saying people you poll are "interfering" with your study if you don't get the responses you want. Sure you *can* sue them, but you won't win, and the negative publicity you'd suffer would be devastating. To keep with the Wal-Mart analogy, they can't even successfully sue people who run websites that say "Boycott Walmart", when the suggestion is to not do business with them at all. This is a far, far cry from what VFTW is doing.
In fact, a case could be made that VFTW actually assists the operation of this business, since its membership is encouraged to participate. Very very often, if my cell phone is any indication.
As for the lawful execution of a contract section, there is even less merit, since the voting public is under no obligation of any kind to vote within certain parameters. The deal is, they put up the top 24 contestants, and people vote for them. Period. There's no EULA and even if there were, you could not enforce a "vote for whom you want, but you can only choose for reasons X, Y, and Z" clause.
In regards to the contestants, they are contracted to have an opportunity to compete for votes on-air. Not votes given to the best, which TPTB could never guarantee due to the caprices of taste; not votes given due to an "honest assessment" which could never be guaranteed for similar and other obvious reasons. The contestants' contracts give them the right to sing on national television in an effort to garner votes. That's all.
No website campaigning for votes for specific people can be said to interfere with this, regardless of why they make their suggestion. If people can vote for you or your opponents, then the contract can be fulfilled in a legal manner. End of story.
__________________________
This is almost as big a treasure as when the emperor discovered the formula to great Star Wars dialog... "something something something DARK SIDE, something something something COMPLETE!"
|
|
|
|
|
| idolfan001 |
| Posted: April 3, 2007 - 1:34pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 13 Mar 2007
|
| I'm sure her legal career is over once people see that appearance on O'Reilly.
As civil litigator myself, her arguments made no sense to me at all. For starters, American Idol would need to show some injury in order to support that claim. AI has suffered no injury and no economic loss, but rather, I would say, has benefitted from the publicity. I mean Sanjaya is the most contoversial idol ever. Howard Stern may have urged people to vote for Sanjaya, but he essentially gave FREE PUBLICITY to AI.
Secondly, Howard Stern (and VFTW) is allowed to say almost whatever he wants on the radio, subject to certain limitations. Telling listeners to vote for Sanjaya does not fall into the limitations on free speech that Danielle whats-her-name mentions.
Third- NO one is compelled to vote for Sanjaya, they do it by their own free will.
Finally, the loss of opportunity argument- Generally, many courts do not easily recognize claims for "lost opportunity" and the contestants would really have to prove their loss with certainty. And, looking back on past seasons where the winners were not necessarily the early favorites and where guys like Chris Daughtry got voted of in 4th place, it becomes very difficult to prove that any contestant really "lost out" on being the idol because Sanjaya stayed another week.
__________________________
www.daily-reflection.blogspot.com
My random thoughts of the day on American Idol, Election 2008 and other news stories.
|
|
|
|
|
| idolhater |
| Posted: April 3, 2007 - 1:50pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 22 Mar 2007
|
| I have to agree. There are several hurdles to get past summary judgement on this one.
1) Idol itself is making more money so there are no damages to Idol or Fox;
2) Class action, are you kidding? The point of a class action is to sue on behalf of a class of people because the class is too large to name as individual plaintiffs. American Idol and Fox are not a class, neither are the contestants because there are a limited number of contestants who can each be named as plaintiffs.
3) Causation - people vote of their own free will, no one compels you to vote. It's like saying a boycott is illegal because it interferes with a business relationship or creates a lost opportunity.
What law school did she attend??? |
|
|
|
|
| RAYELLE |
| Posted: April 3, 2007 - 2:43pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 03 Apr 2007
|
| Hey, cheese. You are not alone, I actually thought the clip they played of Sanyaja singing was pretty good. |
|
|
|
|
| idolfan001 |
| Posted: April 3, 2007 - 3:17pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 13 Mar 2007
|
| Also, lets not forget that Nigel Lythgoe himself said that with 30 million votes, VFTW is really like a fly buzzing around a cow. In essence, the idol producers are admitting publicly themselves that VFTW has no impact on voting.
I bet Fox chose to put some inexperienced young attorney on O'Reilly just to generate more controversy. They know there is no real possibility of a suit and they just wanted to start a rumor that Fox may be suing VFTW, just like they put Sanjaya in the top 24, just to generate buzz and controversy.
At the end of the day, FOX producers put Sanjaya in the top 24. There are thousands of contestants and producers have full discretion on who they let through. Don't tell me that Sanjaya was more talented than thousands of others. The producers, NOT the viewers, chose him to get to the top 24. How can they possibly claim that VFTW or Howard Stern posed such a strong interferance with the AI franchise?
NO- when producers turned away other talented singers like Tammy or Bailey Brown in the place of Antonella Barba, the producers can't honestly say that this is a singing competition. So then what exactly is VFTW interfering with? AI is still on TV. More people watch it now because of Howard Stern and VFTW.
So what if more people are voting for Sanjaya? Isn't that the point of the show, that people vote for who they want to?
You can't create a reality show which allows the public to vote from a narrow pool of contestants whom YOU (the producers) have selected and then cry when they vote for the antagonist, whom YOU decided to put through to the top 24 at your own discretion. Boo-hoo, cry me a river, people and stop pointing fingers at VFTW. Its the producers who hand-picked Sanjaya and put him there for you to vote for.
Maybe you should sue THEM for fraud, trickery and wanton and willful disregard for the sanctity of prime-time reality entertainment...
__________________________
www.daily-reflection.blogspot.com
My random thoughts of the day on American Idol, Election 2008 and other news stories.
|
|
|
|
|
| Paul |
| Posted: April 3, 2007 - 4:03pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 22 Mar 2007
|
| Idolfan001
You hit it RIGHT ON with paragraph one! That says it all! (and all the rest too).
Paul
Los Angeles
__________________________
Paul
Los Angeles
|
|
|
|
|
| idolfan001 |
| Posted: April 3, 2007 - 4:23pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 13 Mar 2007
|
| "Which law school did she attend?" I would rather ask which state let her pass their bar exam???
__________________________
www.daily-reflection.blogspot.com
My random thoughts of the day on American Idol, Election 2008 and other news stories.
|
|
|
|
|
This is hysterical. On The O'Reilly Factor, civil litigator Danielle Aidala makes incredibly stupid arguments about how she could sue this website. The arguments are actually even stupider than the rationale from the 12 year olds who write to us, so it's a pretty funny way to waste five minutes if you're bored. __________________________