|
|
Posted by Rich on 02/11/06 06:42
On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 00:37:59 -0500, Derek Janssen
<ejanss@nospam.comcast.net> wrote:
>Zodiac wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>READ THE FULL AP Article
>>>>>>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060210/ap_on_bi_ge/netflix_throttling&printer=1;_ylt=Ajb9rLRcR59idFRUwJVOqqxv24cA;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MXN1bHE0BHNlYwN0bWE-
>>>>>
>>>>>And notice how most of the complainers uncannily fall into the
>>>>>"B-but...they SAID 'Unlimited rentals'!--WHY can't I rent 20 movies a
>>>>>month, why, why, why??" lockstep.
>>>>
>>>>So the consumer has to figure out what a company means by "unlimited" ?
>>>>Maybe they mean slightly unlimited.
>>>
>>>Maybe they'll either:
>>>A) remember that the "unlimited" term dates back to the single-rental
>>>days, or
>>>B) that it distinguishes from the bare 2-out plan that only gives you four
>>>movies a month, set.
>>>
>>>Much the same theory as when a restaurant advertises "All You Can Eat",
>>>they assume MOST of their traditional customers will interpret it in the
>>>*proper* fashion... :)
>>
>> I reckon you need a *proper* kick in the nuts ;o)
>
>Well, just saying, in legal terms, nobody ever actually *SUED* a
>restaurant for not giving them All They Could Eat, as clearly advertised--
>
>--Oh, wait, sorry, there was that Homer Simpson episode...
>Guess we do have legal precedent. ;)
>
>Derek Janssen (law is the jurisprudence of man)
>ejanss@comcast.net
Netflix should have set specific limits, but then false advertising is
much less effective when you tell the truth. :)
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|