Employee wireless discounts are the herald of employment for some. Having the ability to carry around snazzy phone that comes with all the bells and whistles included in the service is great. Having your employer foot the bill is even better. AT&T simply can’t stand the whole niceness image apparently and would much rather have you hate them. The latest ding against America’s favorite-to-hate carrier centers around their AT&T Premier Sponsorship Program. This program will charge you $72 (over the course of a 2-year plan) simply to use the discount. Paying off that stolen $72 will take roughly 6-8 months depending on your plan and account. Not quite the deal it’s marketed as is it? Even if you don’t use this service, are you tired of all of their behind-the-scenes policies and downright sh**** service?
Source: Consumerist, AT&T Sponsorship Program, Image Source
While the legallity of Miss. Thomas’s actions were always in doubt, the real focus of the cases, (at least in my point of view), was how many songs would she be fined for and how much? Sadly, the judge and jury apparently don’t know the meaning of the word “reasonable” as the fine per song for Jamie climbed from the already proposterous $9,250 to a plain money grabbing $80,000 per song bringing the grand total to $1.92 million (24 songs x $80,000). From the reactions by Jamie and her lawyer, it appears that their will be an appeal as well as a seperate trial as to the legallity of such over-inflated fines. There is not a single piece of music anywhere that is worth more than $10 for a single song. $80,000, your simply ridiculous and out of touch with reality. While it is pretty obvious the Jamie download some songs, I hope she can at least get the fine down. As she stated:
Good luck trying to get it from me… it’s like squeezing blood from a turnip
After lengthy trials and appeals with more on the horizon, I don’t think the labels are going to be able to get anywhere near the awarded amount anytime soon. You?
Source: Ars Technica
Breathalyzers are a drunks worst nightmare. While some may be able to disguise their intoxicated prediciment through the use of gums, foods, other drinks, or other objects, once the cop whips out a breathalyser it’s all over. Or is it? For some time now, breathalyzers have come under scrutiny from many a prosecution arguing and fighting to see the source code that powers these modern day taddle tales. However the manufacturer, CMI, has time and time again vehemently refused citing “industry and company secrets” prevent them from doing so. So, who smells a fresh pie of BS baking in the oven? I do and boy am I hungry. So now that the Minnesota Supreme Court has ruled that the source code must be turned over, CMI is going to happily comply right?
