A net income of $5.4bn in 2023 off a revenue of $34bn, both of which showed healthy annual growth, says that they are doing something right.
Baby Reindeer (Netflix)
- Thread starter Voley
- Start date
Do you think it'll actually go to trial? Or she'll take a massive wedge out of court and fade back into obscurity?
What do you mean by “massive wedge”? How much do you think is massive?
I could see them offering her 50k or 100k to go away, if that’s what you mean.
Silas Loom
Man with glasses
A net income of $5.4bn in 2023 off a revenue of $34bn, both of which showed healthy annual growth, says that they are doing something right.
Netflix revenue by Business of Apps - Infogram
infogram.com
I should add in fairness that although I have found that the algorithm fails me completely, Mrs Loom has been served an unbroken sequence of several dozen films in which a lone woman is terrorised by either a sinister man, a sinister child, or a sinister house.
Are you actually reading anything other than your own words? She isn’t allowed to sue for anything other than emotional distress. Nothing punitive. The judge has ruled out punitive damages. The single thing she’s allowed to sue for has limited payout.
They thought they could get a lot more so they rolled the dice. They lost, despite the headlines from journalists who have no experience of law, who seem to think she’s already won.
emanymton
A cat politely sat on the flaming gardener.
My favourite example from Amazon was the time I bought a new bracket for a blind, it then spent 6 months advertising blind brackets to me.
The judgement allows her claim of "Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress" to proceed as well as the claim for Defamation.
We'll have to wait and see - but I think she'll get more than $50-$100k. The judgement says in discussion of the IIED element, "The series states that the Plaintiff is a convicted criminal who sexually and violently assaulted Gadd. These statements may rise to the level of extreme and outrageous conduct."
We'll have to wait and see - but I think she'll get more than $50-$100k. The judgement says in discussion of the IIED element, "The series states that the Plaintiff is a convicted criminal who sexually and violently assaulted Gadd. These statements may rise to the level of extreme and outrageous conduct."
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
if you believe her. But why would you?
Chz
Stark Raving Sane
I quite like Google's "You've bought one car, why not buy a second one?" advertising.
What a fucking idiot
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
It is exactly the same points tho, isn't it? You were made to look silly over them then and nothing has changed now.
Thora
Differently Ethical
Did Gadd say those things were true?
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
I believe he has said she did rather more than just pinch his bum. Beyond that, I dont know, but I am rather wary of trusting the word of someone who minimised her misbehaviour in various other ways.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
whats your point? It doesn't matter in the slightest if he is a brilliantly or a godawful comedian. You are incredibly keen to minimise the abuse he took. Why?
He's a racist, sexist, homophobic pig based on that clip. And a total fantasist based on his TV series but other than that, yes he has my complete sympathy.
editor
hiraethified
Did you think the TV series was racist, sexist or homophobic?
Nope. But his 'stand-up' is. He's filthy, sorry. I can't believe people are even giggling at that shit. It's awful. Fucking hookers in Anne Frank's house on coke?
Of course his previous record of being a sexist pig won't affect the court case. But his fantasy of a fan wanking him off in public, which did make the show and is untrue...? Do you think that's right?
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
total fantasist? So he wasn't raped? She did nothing? I'm sorry he isn't a perfect victim for you, but thats not actually relevant.
The nature of his comedy is utterly irrelevant, its victim blaming shite.
You also need to get your head around the concepts of a 'personna' and of 'irony.'
Ah yes, the Russell Brand defence.... good stuff
Yes. I've watched it.
It didn't happen. But was alleged to be a 'true story'
He was not sexually abused by this woman.
Plumdaff
joy in people
You described a depiction of a sexual assault, fictional or otherwise, as "his fantasy of a fan wanking him off in public".
I find that repellent.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
wow, you know this do you? Any other abuse victims you want to decide aren't victims? Based upon...nothing. I didnt think you could make yourself more a shit, yet somehow you managed it.
Similar threads
