Nah, more dangerous. People rarely die of spider bite down here in Australia. Been like 8 deaths to the world’s most deadly spider over recorded history. Sure, that number is probably artificially low cos back in the old days some bites would’ve just been written off as a heart attack etc, but it’s still surprisingly low compared to say deaths by cow etc.
You don’t get to tell us what you think is a Redditor thing to do. We’ve all spent time there, we know how it all works, we don’t need you to tell us how it works.
I’m not the person you’re replying to, but I am Australian and can give my 2 cents, what the grey market sellers are selling them for here in Australia anyway. Hell, wouldn’t mind paying a bit more than that too. I just want to buy it legit so I have all the warranty protections etc.
No, they effect everyone. By publishing the mod, the creator told the world exactly how they feel about this subject. If it were the case as you put it, then they’d just create the mod and use it solely for themselves and not tell anyone. It’s still despicable, but at least they aren’t going to hurt anyone as no-one can stumble across it. Instead, they made a choice and the backlash they’ve received is a consequence of that choice.
Oh, for sure. They’ve also done a piss poor job at rectifying it. My point is that this isn’t the Russians stealing shit as the other two commenters seemed to think it was for some reason. They didn’t have to kick anyone out, the place had already been evacuated and then fucked up by the war. They likely think this saves face in some way (and let’s be honest, to some people it probably does save face. Even Russia has supporters these days). Anyway, yeah, we don’t need to make shit up to make the world seem like a hellhole, reality does just fine at illustrating that already.
You know that it was recently an active warzone and blasted to shit right? This is Russia’s attempt to fix up the destruction so people can live there again. Context is given in the op post…
Same end result, the money doesn’t come from the gross though. Well, it does indirectly cos the studio has to get the money from somewhere, but their contracts usually aren’t written in such a manner as they directly get the gross percentage straight to their bank account like a movie actor would (if movies ever actually made any money on the books). Which is all rather simplified, but I think it illustrates what I mean.
As for the contract length, yes the standard sign on time is 5yrs, but those contracts are renegotiated at the end of every season. There is a term for the conditions kicking in I referred to earlier but I’ve forgotten it and my google fu is failing me. Not every actors contract has them, but many do. To follow the friends example, kinda a moo point though, the point is that they get screwed if the studio can get away with it.
Lol, you’ve spent 20yrs in this industry and don’t know what advertising is? Do you work as a receptionist for your company? And if you are an advertiser, you’re terrible at it if you think that was them proposing they use the ADA to enforce any sort of judgement. All they said that is that it would cost more to defend than to follow the ADA. They were referring to them rather than invoking them like you have done. You are terrible at parsing nuance from a comment - I apologise for trying to speak to you as someone with an equal intelligence to mine, my mistake…
Advertising isn’t covered by the ADA. That’s the beginning and end of it. Yes, they should. No, they don’t have to. Just like liquor stores don’t have to hide their advertising. You’ve also assumed way too much about how broad the website accessibility statues are. They are very narrow, and the case you’ve presented is not covered by them. Websites aren’t required to censor their content for fear it may trigger a response in a disabled person. They are only required to ensure that the website is accessible to the disabled person. If what you proposed were the case, then no alcohol manufacturer or store would be able to have a website.
The person you are replying to said nothing about the ADA. That was OP. I dunno why you’re bothering to argue with this person, you’re clearly out of your depth since it’s painfully obvious you don’t even know what advertising is.
Your third point isn’t as sound as the other two. Paying out on gross instead of net is more commonly done with movies. In fact, many tv series die around the season 3 mark because that’s when conditions usually kick in on the regular casts contracts and they start making bank and the studios simply don’t want to pay that much.
You’re still wrong. The law mandates how websites should operate too so everyone can access them (which isn’t unique to the US either), and the article you linked even says that the case was covered by the ADA and no special interpretation was necessary (you may be confused by Domino’s horseshit response). The act does not mandate how advertising should and shouldn’t be conducted. The ADA covers quite a bit of ground. Might be worth looking it up before you spout off next time…