1. The 'trend' you refer to is not one that is limited to those that have used 'free' models. Many, many bands that started more than 20 years ago are no longer producing as much content as they used to. Considering many 'drudge' jobs have a 20 or 30 year retirement, it shouldn't be that hard to understand why these bands are ready to be done with doing what they've been doing. Bands which stay active until they're geriatric are the exception, not the rule.
If both bands were saying "Wow, we can't afford to produce another album because we're broke..." that would be a valid argument for saying 'free' doesn't work. Instead they're saying "We're bored, tired and old. We're going to find something new to try." That doesn't mean the experiment was a failure... in fact it makes no statements about the experiment at all. Any conclusion to the opposite is an unsupported inference.
2. The Sun is a tabloid. Like the 'Star' or the 'National Enquirer'. From time to time they break a real story, but for the most part it's typical tabloid pap like "Look at the cellulite on X's knees!!!". That's not exactly a foundation of journalistic excellence...
Um, why are they his 'countrymen'? Because he's black? These are Nigerians... that makes them from Nigeria. Obama's ancestry is Kenyan, from Kenya. It's kinda like calling a Finn a Swede or a Brit just because they happen to be pale and from northern Europe.
My apologies for the clarification, but this is America and you're a moron... so I wanted to make sure you didn't think 'Nigerian' is a PC substitute for 'ni**er'.
Re: It's not "infringement" if they're giving it away
Ex Post Facto approval is NOT approval. The company was not aware of the information being posted at the time of post. Only companies who are vigilant identify the infringement after the fact. It REMAINS an infringing clip until it is officially sanctioned.
To use your analogy, if I walk off with promotional material that wasn't explicitly given to me... that's THEFT.
For those that aren't actively pursuing content, it remains infringement. Just because you borrow my stuff and I don't know, doesn't mean that I'm happy about it.
In that sense, in order for it to be considered legal content, the content owner AND the content poster need to communicate posting rights BEFORE the posting.
Ummm, because you paid the "inflated" price you justified the price point. If you didn't think it was worth it, don't pay it. Value is always what the market will pay, and not a penny more.
The purpose of music labels has always been to create new markets and monetize an intangible product. As a result, content providers have always operated outside of the standard economic systems. With limited exceptions, there is no supply curve, only a demand curve... and that demand curve rarely is generated in a vaccuum.
In the case of RB and GH, Bronfman has a bit of a point. Demand exists for much of the WB (and every other) label as a result of the actions they took to create the demand.
RB and GH leverage the existing demand in order to sell their product. If that wasn't the case, GH wouldn't have released an Aerosmith version and RB/GH wouldn't post the most commonly known songs in prominent locations on the packaging.
With that said, Bronfman is a bit of an idiot too. Instead of asking for more cash, he should exchange licensing for well known content for the addition of lesser known content. The mere presence of a band in the RB/GH universe adds value to that band through enhanced exposure and name recognition... which is the WHOLE point of a record label.
Really? Banned by international law? A 10 man committee made a recommendation to consider tasing torture. Without the benefit of trials, medical studies or even proper examination of evidence. They made the determination "using a taser hurts, so it's torture".
Myself, I think that committee ought to go back and read the United Nations Conventions Against Torture. Since I know you haven't, I'll quote it for you:
"any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions."
So, um... even according to the UN, in order for it to be torture there has to be pain provided as ordered by the government, WHICH IS NOT PART OF "LAWFUL SANCTIONS".
If cops indiscriminately tased random citizens, that would be considered torture. Tazing a suspect who represents a significant risk to the officer or the general public is incidental damage as a result of a LAWFUL SANCTION.
Good thing no one in the UN ever has a political motive. Or apparently bothers to read thier own charter. It might get in the way of a juicy headline.
Probable cause (a reasonable belief that a person has committed a crime) is certainly in operation when a police officer witnesses a suspect resist arrest. That's not an "innocent until proven guilty" situation.
To Gurney: Your "diabetic coma victim" is one of those "questionable" cases I mentioned. At face value, I would agree this was probably an inappropriate use of a taser. However, the decision to tase him was made with all due diligence, while following the documented procedures. Considering the police force was operating in a heightened security environment (an environment in which 4 seperate bombings occurred over the next week), it's a level of response I can find acceptable if not appropriate.
Second guessing someone's actions years later, after you know all the facts is easy.
Police officers don't see a person walking down the street and tase them. They get used by police officers attempting to subdue a suspect who is resisting... if you're concerned about potential repercussions of being tased, COMPLY.
Do "innocent" people get tased? Nope. It happens when they're being idiots and refuse to cooperate with a police officer discharging his duty; which means they have committed a crime. Do cops use them too often? Possibly. Is it because people are idiots? Absolutely.
However, I'd rather see someone get tased then subdued by force. Would we have had a Rodney King if the officers involved had been armed with Tasers? Probably not. Would you rather be shocked by a "less than lethal" amount of electricity or "subdued" by 5 baton-wielding cops?
As for "excited delirium", well I expect that getting shocked can cause unexpected death. But even still, it's not a question of the "effectiveness" of the taser... it becomes a question of departmental procedure. Instead of throwing a tased suspect in to the drunk tank, they should follow the Navy's lead and throw them in to medical observation.
For those of you that argue the taser gets used too often, I would look at the circumstances they are used in. For every "questionable" use, there are at least 50 in which the suspect and officers avoided potential harm. And frankly I'll happily trade a couple of Darwinian rejects who think it's ok to fight authority for a few less officer funerals each year.
For me the question here is no different than a storefront playing objectionable music. If they are playing it at legal volumes, the content is irrelevant. A free market will address whether or not it pays to use the noise generator.
As for legislating against it, why? No one is hurt. It may make some patrons or passersby uncomfortable, but they remain undamaged. It's likely that younger customers (and those with acute hearing) will avoid the store. If the store's bottom line can afford it, great. If not, the devices will come down pretty quickly.
Besides, ambience is a major selling factor for most boutique shops. Owners provide an atmosphere which caters to a certain clientele. Those atmospheres are just as effective at repeling certain customers. I think everyone has walked in to a store to realize within seconds "I don't belong here".
If an "undesirable" customer comes in they won't be ordered to leave, but they are provided an environment that makes them less likely to enter. The Mosquito does just this without significantly changing the appeal of the shop to most of its custom.
As for the "country club" comment earlier... its most definitely not illegal (at least in the states, and I suspect in the UK too) to create an environment that makes people feel uncomfortable. It's just generally bad for business.