Well, if my target audience both pays for and "pirates" movies, does it make sense to sour the paying for movies to them? As well as to those who do not "pirate" movies?
Take a group of people you know is willing and able to access the content without paying, as well as by paying, and then make the paid content a less pleasant experience without affecting the free content. What could go wrong?
Four of my closest friends living in close proximity to cell towers and electric power supply stations and who relied heavily on wireless communications have died from brain tumors in North Canton, Ohio, USA.
That is way too small and non-random a sample to conclude anything.
Might as well give GEMA what they want. Notice and stay down means everything gets taken down - even the stuff GEMA wants up.
That could be dangerous though. If they agree to notice and stay down, they're basically saying they will keep that content down, and so if it slips through and gets back up somewhere, they could be extra super duper liable. If I were Google I would fight this to the end and then if I lost, consider whether I could afford to continue doing business in Germany. I wouldn't agree to notice and stay down except as a last resort.
If everyone is a defacto member of GEMA whether they like it or not (as you later claim), then how is this not GEMA's fault?
I think the point is that GEMA offered to license the music (on completely unrealistic terms), so it's not just GEMA's fault, it's a matter of both parties not having agreed on terms. Technically this is true.
"they believe that the intense light causes art to fade"
There are beliefs, and then there is science:
I didn't read the study but to be fair that's definitely a better safe than sorry situation as there's little harm in banning flashes but if they do cause damage it could be irreparable damage to irreplaceable artifacts. I imagine restrictions will continue until it's clearly demonstrated there is no risk.
Studies link wireless radiation to attention problems, increased rates of autism and more. The World Health Organization (WHO) says that WiFi is a Class 2B carcinogen in the same category as lead and DDT, but their own scientists are now saying there is evidence this type of radiation in more harmful than originally thought and that it should be classified in the same category as tobacco, asbestos and benzene.
Oh the irony of "blaming anti-americanism" while pointing out that America is the worst offender of "people who don't understand a technology should not be allowed to make laws about it".
That makes no sense. What does one have to do with the other? You're saying we should only mention anti-Americanism if the US doesn't also do another unrelated thing that the anti-Americanists are doing? Totally illogical.
The presumption was that if it was easy for an angered populous to overthrow a current administration violently that they might tread carefully.
But how do you square that with the other parts of the constitution? If they really wanted to make it easy, why are all the relevant sections of the body of the Constitution (ie not the Bill of Rights) trying to make it difficult and discouraging it? From what I've read, they gave it all a lot of very careful thought, so it is strange that they would intentionally set up two parts of the Constitution against each other. It seems much simpler that armed revolution is not in fact the purpose of the 2nd.