I don’t think any of the battery powered devices can handle the continuous ONVIF data stream, because that protocol predates all of the on-device motion detection the new devices have.

They did readjust his mask after he was restrained. Of course he had put it down so he could shout better.

All that and you forgot to mention the miss distance. Which is 8.9 times the moon’s orbit. (From EarthSky’s article.)

The contract doesn’t just say pay x% for theater sales. It also spells out that the initial release is in theaters only. And Marvel’s chief counsel (i.e. a top lawyer working for Disney) admitted in a 2019 email that a contract negotiated under the assumption of theatrical release must be renegotiated if they change…

I think that $30 fee was decided because of how many people would watch in a typical household, or even a watch party among friends. So it’s expensive, yes, but not so much when compared to the multiple theater tickets that would be required for multiple people. Sucks for those who are single, though, or even a couple…

The quote about “both parties understood” is this:

Yesterday’s article says ScarJo’s lawyers asked Disney multiple times going back to 2019 to discuss contract changes to account for streaming. Disney refused. The contract as it stands only allowed a theatrical release. They even had an email from Disney/Marvel’s lawyers recognizing that they needed to discuss this…

It’s also a question of how much they pay for the D+ purchases. Most streaming residuals are very small, because there’s only so much you can divide the $10 monthly when it’s used to watch 10 movies and 30 episodes of various shows. BUT D+ Premium is a whole $30 on top of that, and those who paid it this month wanted…

A verbal contract is still an enforceable contract. An email saying that both sides agree on how to interpret the contract is binding, as well.

as far back as 2019, quoting an email from Marvel Chief Counsel Dave Galluzzi included in the suit that says Marvel “understand that should the plan change, we would need to discuss this with [Johansson] and come to an understanding as the deal is based on a series of (very large) box office bonuses.”

No, they paid her a percentage of the film’s theater profit. They did not pay any percent of the extra $30 Disney collected for Premium Access for this movie. Anybody paying for Premium Access in July so far did it to watch exactly one movie, Black Widow. (Jungle Cruise is coming out tomorrow, so it doesn’t qualify…

HOW it was released is part of the contract, too. That’s what was broken.

ScarJo is only a millionaire. Disney literally has more than 1,000 times as much money as she does. They made 20 billion in profit last year. They can afford to pay her what’s due without touching their bottom line more than 0.1%

Residuals (at the time the contract was signed) would be assumed to be for streaming 6 months after release, at a very low rate, due to the assumption that streaming subscription is not pay-per-view like a movie theater is. But the D+ Premium $30 price for seeing a first-run film should really change that calculation. …

The contract required a theatrical release, not joint theatrical and streaming. They broke the contract. They could have avoided breaking it by renegotiating. They were under no legal obligation to renegotiate, but as long as they did not, they DID have a legal obligation to honor it as-is. Which they did not.

Anything that involves politics is part psychological. There’s also an element of pride in hosting it, which is also psychological. And the people that make the bid often don’t have to worry about the consequences in 10 years, since they might be out of office by then. Logic is maybe less than half of the equation,…

You are speaking logically. And you’re entirely correct at that level. But you can’t ignore the psychological component that drives decisions like this.

But to the question of “why bid,” the exceptions are important to the “why.” Just like people buy lotto tickets, thinking they will be the winner. Everyone thinks they will be the new exception.

They get paid in exposure. /s

It has been ruled illegal to force you to provide a password. (Because that is a form of testimony) But if the key is a physical thing (a file or USB stick) they can force you to provide it. And if it’s a cloud service, they can issue a warrant to the third party.