Well these figures are different from past figures I have seen from gross market income figures such as from iTunes, Spotify, Amazon sales and such, which then said RIAA labels got about 47% of sales while the independents got 53%. I am sure that difference is even wider by now.
These results are the same though in that the RIAA labels are smaller, indie musicians are booming, where in general the music market is very healthy.
The RIAA labels did hit the perfect storm in their earlier refusal to go digital, DRM etc, then huge indie competition who could record their own album starting from $200.
Keep in mind that the RIAA labels dropping from 880 to 190 bands was often a bloodbath of self interest. Labels closed, contracts terminated, copyrights sold on to other labels often under UMG. Now the music could be sold without having to pay the musicians anything when they now had no rights by copyright or by contract.
Life is not so bad for RIAA labels now where there is less risk in musicians who become indie famous first. They are often still the gateway keepers to TV and Radio.
I am also sure many musicians still dream to be the next Lady Gaga and to be handed a million dollar recording contract. Just a shame such fame comes built on much trickery and blood.
I am actually pro-EU myself when I understand the aspects.
I would believe though the day the UK Government actually hold a referendum that they would be pretty damned desperate and at the end of the line.
I would also believe the voters would have so much contempt for Government referendum delays that they would vote simply to cause the Government some pain. You have feared us for years so truly fear us now.
This is just a joke when the UK Government will never do a referendum on the EU. We have already been owed one for decades on if we should be in the EU and things like the Euro.
They never ask the public when they just don't want to hear the answer. Government after Government on both sides just barge on into Europe regardless.
This is nothing new when to say around 2017 means into the next Government where the entire rulebook changes and long enough for people to forget about their referendum agreement now. By 2017 they will say sure a referendum around 2021.
All this is about is the main parties trying to minimise losing voters to the UKIP in the next election. So they are simply lying to people as they have always done. Had they been serious then within 2 years and already printing the forms they would do.
"According to the Sheriff, only three deputies used batons (and then hit Silva only in approved areas -- i.e., not the head). The coroner's report mentions "signs of blunt force trauma" to the left side of Silva's head, which could possibly be explained by the kicking witnessed by onlookers. Whatever hit Silva's head (or whatever Silva's head hit), it was non-lethal -- no skull fractures or brain injury."
Clearly there is a huge discrepancy between family member observation shortly after his death and the coroner's autopsy report that clearly highlights that one of these two parties was lying.
Should that be the coroner then an independent autopsy is extremely advisable.
I would hope that the family of the deceased now seek an independent autopsy to validate or to reject these findings.
One aspect that does concern me is that in one earlier news story said one relative that visited the deceased stated that his nose had been broken. While he is not a medical expert no nose damage was stated in this report.
Also it is not just a question of if he had some heart disease but if the Police Officers involved used the correct measure of force to restrain him. Every degree of violence beyond that is one step closer to killing him.
Finally deleting evidence is a separate crime that should get the people responsible fired.
Their claim that the cell phone could have been a gun is totally bogus and they know it. You can see from their own behaviour that they had zero concerns about threat to their own lives where they just saw it as a phone and where they did not want to be recorded.
Had they really thought a gun then they would soon draw their own handguns while ordering them down on the ground spread eagle style.
So all we have here is abuse of the law to censor. You would think cops would want to teach a bunch of kids better lessons in this high technology world.
Prenda really are following the ACS:Law example these days.
Let is remember that ACS:Law in the UK was making a good £1 million to £2 million on speculative invoicing. Andrew Crossley the only lawyer involved, before his downfall, had just purchased a new car and was working on a deal to buy a new luxury house.
Most interesting is that only a few months later when he lost his Court case against suspect infringers, where Speculative Invoicing came to an end, and he was punished by the SDT, that he did declare bankruptcy. Riches to rags in a short space of time.
My point is that I am sure a wise Prenda would shift all their profit to offshore tax havens away from USA eyes and knowledge where they declare bankruptcy as the punishment come rolling in.
It is not so hard living a bankrupt life when you can just take a really long holiday to spend your millions in untraceable cash, bearer bonds, gold bars and gemstones.
Outside our little Copyright War in this technology field then public ignorance between copyright and patents seems quite high. TechDirt have of course reported on this ignorance often when it comes to news services who should know better.
Knowing the difference between laws helps to avoid confusion over the difference between murder and rape, theft and fraud, copyright and patents.
As I have said before I would have called a lawyer even if it had been nearly 3am. The only defence against overpowering authority is someone intelligent and wise on the ways of the law. Then yes to fight them in Court to make the Judge fully aware of the situation and not their one sided story.
Here today it is clarified that the law says the Police cannot use a warrant to seize a by-standers property if a news story is to be reported. Only a Subpoena can be used and that of course gives people time to do their thing.
It is also true that detaining someone in their home for hours is not on the good side of the law. Police Officers are not even allowed in your house without a warrant unless you invite them in.
So all a case of not knowing the law, not taking up their lawful rights, then allowing the Police to bully them and to abuse the law in order to delete critical evidence against them. To win there is only one choice... to be an even bigger bully and annoyance.
Well 1, 3 and 5 would be invalid when even Police Officers have Fourth Amendment rights meaning their privacy cannot be violated by the Government until there are facts to indicate that they may have been involved in a crime.
Number 2 does not seem too useful when Police Officers can lie but sure if their sanity is questioned then they can be sent off to be evaluated.
Number 4 seems a fair request and part of the job agreement but weekly seems a bit too intrusive where random checks can work better.
This whole case though is about cops not following established procedure rules, and even in breaking the law, where they will indeed be judged and fairly punished for what they have done.
I would hope to see in this case that the system works with no changes needed beyond reminding Police Officers to actually follow the law and standard procedures.
Yes it seems she did go out to passively annoy where they should have really just told her to back off (if not f**k off).
It also seems to me that if a device has two SD cards then one of them is a clear decoy. This is a nice addition to fight unlawful seizure but clearly this is a sign that she aimed to get arrested.
With all that said she did not do anything wrong when she did not interfere in their work. I am quite sure that upholding the law does not involve charging people with false crimes when they could have handled her in a more social way.
One would think that it would be an idea for them to obtain public approval (or at least technological approval) before they submit their final approval into the political system when TPP come to release the TPPA.
Due to the large shift in Copyright laws then it is indeed foolish to include 80 pages on Intellectual Property. Let us keep in mind that even if there is one single unacceptable point in TPPA then the whole document would need to be scrapped where years of work would then be lost. These documents can't have late amendments unlike common law proposals can meaning that they should aim to high general happiness to begin with.
They should really have kicked intellectual property out of the entire discussion when they only go and ruin the party for everyone else. Maybe those rest should now open their own trade discussion where IP is banned.
Well if they want to release unacceptable trash then how about the radical idea of not releasing it? If they aim another ACTA+ then clearly this will not pass democratic approval.
Let us keep in mind that high on the Copyright Cartel's wish list is the ability to completely by-pass the WTO. That was indeed a large part of ACTA to form their own international club filled full of the very worst copyright enforcements ideas, along with the ability unify national copyright laws into one unified international copyright law, subject to their sole desires.
Instead what you have here is the US empowering their Embassy in the Ukraine to summon high ranking Government officials and then threatening trade sanctions against the Ukraine should not radical reform of their copyright laws be soon achieved. Unfortunately officials do much fear being held responsible for US trade sanctions and quickly fold where details of such backroom deals rarely become public. None has ever yet turned to the WTO for protection and few realise that the US actioning trade sanctions on an EU country can soon have the entire EU respond with their own united sanctions.
So the US is really in a losing position but since they have a history of winning then this shows what bullying the threats can achieve. Yes I am sorry to say before the year is up that the Ukraine is likely to roll out hash new enforcement measures.
The Police cannot take away your phone without a Court order to seize it. One of those two did refuse to hand it over and so was not allowed to leave for about 6hrs until such a Court order arrived.
Long enough for a lawyer to do some damage I am sure. If you are being detained the Police refusing to allow you to contact a lawyer seems another violation. Others could also contact a lawyer on your behalf when you still have a voice.
I also highly doubt the Police can arrest a witness in such a situation. This could be in front of family and friends and to arrest them for wanting their rights under the law?
Sure if you can backup the data it should be done as quickly as possible but my point is about if the Police arrive early and deny you using your phone before you can. So this is all about protecting the evidence from people who wish it deleted.
Certainly at nearly 2am this is a very bad time for both lawyers and judges. I am sure though it would not take long for one to understand your urgency and to know who exactly to contact to put a certain seizure order on hold.
The only other method I can think of is if you have the numbers to over-power the Police to allow you the time to complete the backup. A very risky move though most likely ending in mass beatings and arrests but maybe one backup.
I am well aware what you said and your point but here you are trying to make out all they did was quite reasonable. So the Police beat a guy to death and then on purpose delete the video evidence, twice.
I am sure everyone involved wants the truth to come out and the whole truth. Is not deleting the video evidence not trying to hide the truth? Is it not better for them to be open and honest and to follow the rules?
Unlike the days of Rodney King technology has now much improved where cameras are everywhere. Then damned right for the FBI to be involved when the Police just proved themselves untrustworthy. That fact won't make the public happy.