Classaction: refund for viewing Sony Movies = $5 compensation

[alm4rr]

Originally posted by: bob4432
what if you have one of the dvds?

the claims make no mention of dvd's so not gonna get anything

 

[xarmian]

Originally posted by: Hacp
Wtf? Shouldn't the case have been handled by federal or state prosecuters?

It's a class action not a criminal case.

 

[1Lee]

Originally posted by: JimKiler

Originally posted by: labgeek

Originally posted by: CountZero
Do you give money you earn working to charity?

Yes I do (and I actually produce something of value not redistribute money for a living). Apparently you must not or it wouldn't seem like such an outlandish idea to you...

Lawyers... earn... That's a good one... ROTFLMAO!!

BTW nice move on the lawyers' parts... They get $500,000 while the class gets $750,000. So out of a 1.25million award they get 40% Sweet deal for them.

This instance is good, but my dad had two settlements one for DirecTV and one with AT&T and both times the lawyers get paid money and customers are stuck with coupons. Coupons that were only good it you bought more from AT&T and DirecTV, that is when a lawyer should not get paid.

I propose a lawyer has to be paid in the same currency as the victims.

Don't think most lawyers are ethical, in that money talks over consequences. That said I think we live in a society were money over comes a lot of things and so money talks for most people. By bringing up stupid cases and joining we allow ourselves to feed lawyers like this.

 

[TheShiz]

Originally posted by: JimKiler

Originally posted by: labgeek

Originally posted by: CountZero
Do you give money you earn working to charity?

Yes I do (and I actually produce something of value not redistribute money for a living). Apparently you must not or it wouldn't seem like such an outlandish idea to you...

Lawyers... earn... That's a good one... ROTFLMAO!!

BTW nice move on the lawyers' parts... They get $500,000 while the class gets $750,000. So out of a 1.25million award they get 40% Sweet deal for them.

This instance is good, but my dad had two settlements one for DirecTV and one with AT&T and both times the lawyers get paid money and customers are stuck with coupons. Coupons that were only good it you bought more from AT&T and DirecTV, that is when a lawyer should not get paid.

I propose a lawyer has to be paid in the same currency as the victims.

the FATAL flaw in that proposal is that these cases would never be brought to court if that was how it worked. and thus the consumers would get nothing. a coupon is better than nothing.

 

[labgeek]

Not true...

Many lawyers will take on cases Pro Bono - "for the good".

It may however help weed out the cr@p cases where the only people being served are the lawyers themselves. Even the named plaintiffs in this one only get $1000.

Personally, I'd like to see more responsibility be put on the lawyers. Bring a cr@p case to court - THEY pay, not the client, THEM... or a 3 strikes rule. 3 cr@p cases = no more practicing law.

 

[AlWella]

The time I spent reading this was worth more than $5 =(

I did sell all of the movies listed, but no ticket stubs to prove it... Waste of time...

 

[tokamak]

Originally posted by: crimson117

Originally posted by: govtcheez75
I always wondered who those "reviewers" were that said such great things about crappy movies that I've never heard of. I just assumed that they made them up.

With the thousands of newspapers and magazines that do their own movie reviews, it's usually very easy to find 3 nice, short, complimentary quotes to put in a trailer.

Apparently that was too hard for Sony for those movies 🙂

ANY positive review for Vertical Horizon had to have been bogus 😀

BTW, what's with the lawyer hate? The purpose of lawsuits is to protect the public - in this case Sony will have to think twice about trying to screw you into seeing their crappy movies again because they got hit for $1.25 million. What, do you guys work for Sony or something?

 

[Gilby]

Originally posted by: tokamak

BTW, what's with the lawyer hate? The purpose of lawsuits is to protect the public - in this case Sony will have to think twice about trying to screw you into seeing their crappy movies again because they got hit for $1.25 million. What, do you guys work for Sony or something?

Nope. They're just spouting the anti-Judge, anti-Jury, anti-Lawyer, anti-Consumer corporate republican line.

As the court system is the only thing acting as a check on corps these days, it obviously has to go.

 

[gspyer]

Originally posted by: Gilby

Originally posted by: tokamak

BTW, what's with the lawyer hate? The purpose of lawsuits is to protect the public - in this case Sony will have to think twice about trying to screw you into seeing their crappy movies again because they got hit for $1.25 million. What, do you guys work for Sony or something?

Nope. They're just spouting the anti-Judge, anti-Jury, anti-Lawyer, anti-Consumer corporate republican line.

As the court system is the only thing acting as a check on corps these days, it obviously has to go.

Maybe you just don't understand how the movie business works. $1.2 million is nothing for several movies. That just a few hundred thousand per movie. That is the PRICE of running a single primetime ad for a week on an average show or a single ad during a hit show.

So Sony won't think twice at all. This is worth nothing to them. Sony Picture is just thinking numbers. Simple. You can do the math too. Let's say that it costs $200k for this lawsuit per movie. Sony just needs to decide if it a false review quote is worth more than $200k in ticket sale. (And in most cases it is.)

The fact of the matter is these lawyer cashed in quick. Because they knew Sony would settle for that $1.2 million and they could get their 40% now, instead of really punishing Sony and really fighting this case for $12 million. At $12 million, it would actually matter to Sony.

Simply put it is greedy lawyers, the lawyer wanted their garanteed 40% now than actually do the "public good".