You allege that Ms Tillotson invited the officer to handcuff her so that she would have opportunity to complain about his battery against her person.
Nope. I surmised that Ms. Tillotson invited the officer to arrest her so she could dispel, in a court of law, his incorrect notion that an attorney interceding between their client and the police is obstruction. I really have no idea if that was her intention or not, I'm just basing it upon her tone and attitude at the time.
If she thought the officer was on the verge of a mistake, then perhaps she had no positive duty to stop him by vocalizing the unspeakable. But she did have a duty to refrain from requesting the officer commit error.
I really haven't clue as to what you are getting at there. My point was that once the detective decided to arrest her, any further objections were pointless and would be better served when brought up in front of a judge.
I'm having a really hard time wrapping my mind around this one.
Wouldn't this cop's reasoning apply anytime a person chooses to be represented by a lawyer when being questioned by police?
Also, what would the cop have done if the man in the video simply turned to the wall or hid his face. They didn't look like they were in custody at the time. Would he have charged them for resisting too, just because they didn't want to be photographed?
TD does not subscribe to that philosophy, or any philosophy for that matter, or so it appears, that cuts against the grain of what it openly advocates in so many of its stories that it tries to pass off as news versus what they actually comprise, editorial opinion.
Techdirt has ALWAYS maintained that it is an opinion blog. Not sure why you think otherwise.
The author of the article would have you accept as fact that a gag order was sought solely because the agency did not like what allegedly happened in a prior case involving another website.
Not really. Did you even read the last paragraph? Mike's opinion was prefaced with: "If it's true that this was truly the reason for the gag order...".
....if someone took and replicated this entire site every day with no links back to you...essentially a mirror, and no attribution...you'd be completely fine with that?
Yes, he would and has been fine with that. There's been a couple of sites that did exactly that. They eventually failed (well, at least I think they did since I can't find them anymore) since they can't compete with the CwF (connect with fans) of the original Techdirt.
Here's what Mike wrote about other sites using Techdirt articles in 2009:
... pretending that David Lowery is the only advocate for musicians out there.
The only time I suspect it's Lowery is when the so-called "musician advocate" cannot debate the actual issues on their merits and resorts to childish insults instead. That's Lowery's modus operandi to a tee. He's nothing more than a schoolyard bully who thinks that yelling louder wins arguments.
Thus far with your use of "pirate boy", "tech douches" and "dolts", I'm putting you in the same category as Lowery. As far as I'm concerned it doesn't really matter if you are actually Lowery or not, your comments are disregarded as insignificant and childish anyways.
But what I would never buy is a car that can be disabled by the manufacturer if they decide they don't want them on the road anymore, they don't like me, or any other reason.
Isn't that basically a built-in feature these days with new cars? They all have some form of OnStar/SYNC/UConnect/etc. in them don't they? I'm pretty sure the ability to kill your car and lock the doors with OnStar exists even if you don't pay for the service.
I still do not understand your usage of "unsustainable".
Recorded music is and has always been a small portion of an artist's income. This report on data from musicians themselves shows it to be around 25% or so for pop & rock musicians and even less for those not in the top 5% earning percentiles.
So if the listener is not going to buy it because of the streaming site, then the low royalty rate they pay adds insult to injury.
Again, that's an apple to oranges comparison. That low royalty rate is spread out over many, many years.
Calculate the total royalties for the entire span it's on the streaming service (say 20 years or so) and compare that to a one-time sale and where do you end up?
Whenever I see people using stats to slam streaming services they always leave out the fact that streaming is cumulative and ongoing. Your money keeps flowing in with streaming.
Maybe streaming isn't that great of deal for artists or maybe it is. I don't know because no one can seem to give me an actual apples to apples comparison. Comparing the profit from one month of streaming to one month of sales is meaningless because it doesn't include the cumulative profit over the lifespan of the streaming service.
I fully confess that I've not looked at very many such services and even then it was a few years back, so thing s may be different than my perception.
Same for me. Streaming hasn't caught my fancy either. Since I already have an extensive mp3 library, most of which was ripped from my wife and I's combined CD collections. When you add in the fact that I'm not very impressed with most of today's new music, then streaming just seems like another scam to pay for music I already own.
The amount streaming services pay is well documented as unsustainable....
I keep seeing this phrase tossed about and I would really like to know you mean by it. Unsustainable for what? Unsustainable to retire upon? Unsustainable to live until a new song is written? Unsustainable for your grandchildren to live on?
By your metrics a CD sale is also "unstaianable" too. Quick back-of-the-napkin math says this:
Price of CD = $15.00 Price per song = $1.25 Lifespan of CD = 10 years Estimated plays a year = 25
$1.25 divided by 250 = 0.005 per play
Then consider that a CD is a one time purchase for most. Streaming is now until forever. Then toss in the fact that a purchase from I-Tunes is also an one time purchase for a file that will never degrade like a CD.
Ugh! So much wrong with these statements. I used to work for an insurance company and believe me, the things I saw!
Ahh, that puts your comments into context.
Suffice it to say that no one has an automatic natural right to possess and operate anything that presents a clear and present danger to the public unless it is used properly and safely.
You don't really understand the term "natural rights", do you?
You forget that compulsory insurance laws came about because of the number of vehicle collisions in which vehicles were damaged beyond repair and people were killed.
Not sure about anywhere else, but compulsory insurance laws came about in my state due to heavy lobbying from insurance companies.
It is irresponsible to refuse to purchase insurance for anything that the rest of us end up being liable for by default.
It's not irresponsible, if I have the funds to cover any liability that occurs. Why was this law changed in my state? Because insurance companies didn't get their cut that way.
And as an aside, since you worked in the insurance company, can you explain why my premium increases if a make a claim? Isn't that what I paid for all these years? Why am I charged more if I actually USE the insurance I pay for?