While we all agree that the contracts record labels put out are incredibly one sided, the fact is, yes they did have an alternative. They could go get a different job. Make music on the side in their free time.
No matter how powerful the record labels might have been, there was always another choice.
Also, comparing what these artists are doing with a contract they signed that agreed to release albums, vs aggrieved employees who are almost always on a contract that openly allows either party to terminate in whenever they want without care or concern for the reasons, is mixing 2 completely different things.
These artists are breaking a contract they willingly entered into, and in doing so, breaking the law. Aggrieved employees would not be breaking any laws by choosing to break a contract that says they can terminate it anytime they want.
No one said anything about worrying who your company is getting sold to. Of course that is a perfectly legitimate concern.
What is not ok is fussing and whining like some 2 year old and throwing a tantrum because it's not going how you want it to. The artists here are choosing to be dishonest by intentionally breaking a contract they willingly entered into.
Whether you agree with your employers decisions or not does not give you free license to be dishonest with them, or in any way make that kind of behavior justifiable.
You're right, I have no feelings whatsoever for the sad sap that makes his life dependent on screwing his customers and refusing to listen when they beg to give him services that they would love to pay for. Poor you.
If you had a ton of each (I mean dozens of gallons, at least), you could get a nice geyser of very hot water...but beyond that, not much else is going to happen. They will neutralize eachother too quickly to get much, if any, acid spraying anywhere.
Considering that many common acids are Hydrogen based, the end result of acid-base combinations is actually mostly water. Then again, considering how horrible H2O is for you, maybe you have a point I'm not seeing?
Sites will post anything they want, they just won't depend on the DNS system anymore to do it.
This is what Mike means when he says that this bill will break the internet. The only reason websites are so easy to find currently is because we've tied IP addresses to nice strings of text.
The minute they start banning sites, everything will go underground. The internet will fragment, but it will still be there. Just not nearly as useful as it should be. It will be back to the early days of it's creation when it was really nothing more than a wide area local network.
I can't even begin to read through all these comments, but I can't pass this up without giving my piece.
First, the cops in these videos did absolutely nothing wrong. Yes, they used force to subdue the individuals. Every single thing they did follows what they are trained to do to subdue a person resisting arrest with the least amount of injury and risk possible. Anyone complaining at the force they used is pretending the problem is something other than what it really is.
These officers were doing what they're supposed to do: defend the law. The people protesting were breaking the law and refused to follow their instructions, and then went further by resisting arrest.
Do I agree with what the law says here? No, of course not. Do I think these people were wrong in protesting? No, of course not. The only thing they were wrong in was refusing to follow law enforcement.
Our legal system needs to be followed. If there are laws we don't agree with, we need to work to get them changed. This kind of protest could have been done without breaking the law it was protesting.
Organizing and participating in protests is legal. Breaking the law is not. Do not pretend that because it was a protest that they should somehow be allowed to break the law.
Does the law need to be changed? Definitely. But we need to go about it without breaking the law. It can be done.
If we think that breaking the law is ok just because we don't agree with it, we are no better than those who removed our freedom by making that law in the first place.
....to learn from the past so that we don't make the same mistakes again and again and again and again....
If a paywall model is ever found that is actually valuable to the user in any way, I'm sure Mike will praise it. None of the paywalls mentioned here have ever even tried to do that, and many have even been stupid enough to try locking up content that is easily available in many other places.
So you say Mike is wrong.....and then you completely agree with him???? I'm lost.
As to what your saying, it just makes me laugh and remember my economics class where we learned how to prove that this is absolutely true. Pricing closer to the cost of the item will begin to increase sales exponentially, in the end making greater profit.
But then again, every single business major in my class completely failed to understand the graphs used to show this relationship....so I guess I shouldn't be surprised that none in the business market seem to believe it.
That's funny, I've tried rereading my post a few times. Please enlighten me as to where I attacked your freedom to view it if you choose?
I'll defend your freedom to live your life as you like anytime you want, whether I agree with what you're doing or not. My statement only pointed to the fact of how harmful this choice is, not to your right to do it anyway.
Third, how can anyone think for a second that treating women (sorry, but that seems to be the most common form of it out there) and/or men as base objects good for nothing but self gratification and in any sick way imaginable is NOT harmful to the way a person views those around them I will never understand.
I do agree that it is not always responsible for the crimes quoted, but it IS a degrading and harmful thing that should be avoided.