BTW if you have any doubt about Garth Brooks's marketing prowess, listen to the original version of his most iconic song, and then compare what he did to it. Without altering the tune or the lyrics, Garth turned a completely typical, boring country song about making an embarrassing social blunder and going off to hide in a bottle afterwards into an anthem that resonated so strongly with listeners that it turned him from a singer into a superstar virtually overnight. That's the power of understanding your target audience.
"The Chris Gaines stunt" sounds a lot less crazy/stupid when you know the rest of the story: it was a marketing stunt that was meant to promote an upcoming movie starring Garth Brooks as rocker Chris Gaines.
The film ended up not falling through, unfortunately, and without it to provide context, the album ended up just looking really weird.
Garth, on the other hand, was already college graduate, with a degree in marketing, before he began his career as a recording artist. This is actually a big part of the reason he was so successful: he had formal training in a field whose concept translate quite well to showmanship, an area that pretty much everyone agrees he is phenomenal at, whether or not they enjoy his music. It helped him reshape the entire face of country music, and to a lesser degree American music in general.
Taylor Swift, as popular as she is, has never been anywhere close to as influential as Garth Brooks. She mainly tends to come across as Yet Another Pretty Young Teenybopper--a perception that the subject matter she sings about does little to counter.
the more people learn about embryonic stem cell research, the more they like it.
That depends on what they're learning. Last I heard--and admittedly this was a few years ago--despite all the research that had been done, and all the endless talk about how much "promise" embryonic stem cell research holds, it has never actually produced a single viable treatment, and even if it did, it would carry with it a lot of the same baggage as donor transplants do. (Rejection and the necessity for immunosuppression, etc.)
Meanwhile, adult stem cell research--essentially cloning the patient's own tissue--not only uses the patient's own DNA and carries zero risk of rejection, but has also been shown to actually produce real results, where embryonic stem cell research never has.
I'm not one given to conspiracy theories, but stuff like this just makes me wonder. Adult stem cell technology has been proven to work. Embryonic stem cell technology has been (all but) proven not to work. And yet you always hear people in the media talking about embryonic stem cell research, and you almost never hear them talk about adult stem cell research. It might almost make you think that it's not about the research at all, but a campaign to alter the public's perception of the inherent value of the life in an embryo.
But who would be so cynical as to do something like that?
Ms McKerracher said changing the law would allow historians access to soldiers' diaries from World War I, for example.
That line makes me a little bit uncomfortable.
If the soldier left behind a diary that was never published, and it's still around, it's quite reasonable to suppose that only one copy exists and it's in the possession of the soldier's heirs or next of kin. How exactly does Ms. McKerracher expect for that to work? Will the historians have a right to force the current owner to produce a copy?
For all our talk of how copyright infringement is not theft, that does feel uncomfortably like theft to me.
I can't help but wonder if they're related to Harold Hill, the infamous musical con man, whose story is related in the 1962 Warner movie The Music Man? It seems appropriate enough, seeing as how they're trying to pull a major music con here...
Sounds like the same racket the cable companies have been pulling for decades. Advertising originated as a way to pay for broadcast TV, because it was broadcast for free and the viewers weren't paying for it.
Then along came a model where viewers did pay for it... but did the ads go away? We should be so lucky!
Barnes was awarded $50,000 in damages for which the court determined that Zaccari was personally liable, sending a message to public college administrators that there can be real, personal costs for abuses.
Sounds like a good start. When we start applying the same standard to CEOs and Board of Directors members, then I'll be truly impressed.
Separately, the court notes that even if Dart is correct that those ads are not protected by the First Amendment, that's up to a court to decide, not Dart on his own. That's called due process.
I can follow (and agree with) most of this, but that line throws me for a bit of a loop. Doesn't United States v. Williams, specifically cited in here by the court, mean that a court already has decided, and these guys consider it a valid precedent?