quote: While he was being treated at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C., he was asked to do an interview with Brian Williams of "NBC Nightly News."
The footage was subsequently licensed to Moore's film, which the complaint states "denounces the United States military action in Iraq" by attacking President Bush.
quote:The complaint seeks compensatory damages of $25 million, punitive damages of $75 million and additional damages of $75 million.
Alright. I understand what a jackass Michael Moore can be, even when I agree with him, I think he's a bombastic blowhard who does good when then pisses it all away with his general attitude.
But come on. Where in the hell did this guy even come up with those numbers? What formula could he possibly have used to make him think he deserves that kind of money? It smacks of naked greed if you ask me. He knows how much the film made, and he wants to cash in.
It's stupid lawsuits like this that ruin it for everyone. It convinces just a few more people that an "I deserve as much as I can get" attitude towards life is perfectly acceptable. It's what makes people sue for hundreds of thousands of dollars or hundreds of millions for purely selfish reasons.
Violations of the law shouldn't be a get rich quick scheme for bastards like this, they should account for fair compensation. Who's to decide what's fair? I honestly don't know, but I think everyone can agree that it's nowhere near what he thinks it is.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Well on the one hand, $100,000,000.00 is clearly vastly disproportionate to any harm done to him by Moore. Hell, $1,000.00 would be, really.
But if the law is violated, things can get a bit different. For one thing, what if NBC has violated the law? Should they not be punished? And if they should be punished, should the punishment actually sting, to encourage them not to do it again? Clearly a dollar amount that actually met the real harm done to the man would be less than nothing to a vast organization like NBC.
I imagine that's part of the reason the sum is so high, but I have a difficult time imagining that when he decided to sue, his eyes weren't replaced with big ole dollar signs.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
I don't think that he'll be able to win. Once he gave NBC permission to tape an him, he lost all rights on what they can do with that tape. NBC now owns that footage, and if they choose to license it he doesn't get a say. I sucks, but that's what happens when you agree to have a part of your life filmed by a company.
Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Remember the little 5 year old who called 911 when his mother was dying and was told to stop playing with the phone? They're suing for a million dollars. That's not enough in my opinion. $175 million sounds about right.
I remembered reading the article somewhere, but this is the only one who I could find.
You see, the lawsuit with the little boy I can agree with.
But yeah, when you agree to be filmed for something, you do agree to let the company pretty much do whatever they want with the footage. If they DID splice it to make it look bad, that would be one thing, but if they didn't...
At the same time you have to aim higher than you believe you can get in order to get a reasonable amount. If the man sued for say 1,000,000 he would probably get a few hundred thousand. The press this story could possibly generate, and the subsequent increase in viewership for Moores new documentary could easily make up for a few hundred thousand.
It reminds me of those 2 guys who said Dan Brown stole their stories. Their books sold out during the period of the law suit. Its one of the reasons we have laws against prisoners profiteering from their crimes.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Hope the guy wins and teaches Moore a lesson about misrepresentation.
We don't know if it's misrepresentation. What we do know that is that it is representation without the soldier's permission.
I like Michael Moore, not everything he does and every way he does it, but his causes are dear to him, and for the most part, I think that they are good causes, and he puts his money and art where his mouth is. There is virtue and wisdom there, even if there is often a lack of taste.
Personally, I wish more people would have had similar courage and wisdom after Powell's UN demonstration, or I wish more people would have pointed out our own domestic problems with crime and our inability to solve them, where the criminals, teachers, and cops all speak english, or that constitutional democracy with universal sufferage is new in the history of the world-- it's even new to the US-- and introduces almost as many problems as it solves because it legitimizes individual claims for self-respect. Back when there were Lords and voters on one hand, and serfs, unwashed masses of servants, and untouchables on the other, the aspirations of the latter groups didn't have to be taken seriously and could be submerged under toil or restrained by law.
Now that we give those people the vote, and the expectation for them to vote intelligently, that freedom and leisure is going to come with a desire for self-respect. How one appeases all of those egos is a grand experiment in this world.