Personally, if government agencies are going to try and spy on me, I would prefer that they do so in as useless manner as possible, even if it is wasteful with regards to money. Money can be replaced, privacy, not so much.
If I cared for their music perhaps, but somehow I don't see someone used to how the major labels have worked getting even remotely close to what I consider reasonable terms(decent price, able to listen before buying, no DRM, no account needed for purchase).
Yet it also means big firms no longer totally control their own narratives, and companies can quickly become helpless bystanders in their own story.
Companies no longer being in total control of the narrative, that's a good thing for consumers. If the company is able to throw out whatever spin they want, then they get to control the reaction and public perception of their product and/or company, and as should be obvious, if they can control those perceptions, then they will never be bad, even if the product and/or company is.
With companies no longer in full control there though, companies have to be a lot more careful about their spin. Make claims that don't stand up, or worse flat out lie, and they will be called out on it. As such they very much have a 'be honest or be forced to be honest' threat hanging over their heads, and that's all for the better I'd say.
“The challenge is to get everyone to respect music again, to recognize its value,” said Jay Z, whose real name is Shawn Carter. “Water is free. Music is $6 but no one wants to pay for music. You should drink free water from the tap — it’s a beautiful thing. And if you want to hear the most beautiful song, then support the artist.”
I have no problem supporting artists, and in fact have picked up a good number of albums and singles over the past few years after listening to them(often multiple times), but here's the thing:
My support? It comes on my terms.
I'll pay what I think is reasonable, and if I'm going to be buying, I'm not going to accept being burdened with any 'You must be a criminal' restrictions like DRM.
Make it easy and reasonable for me to pay, and I am far more likely to do so. Make it difficult and expensive to pay, and I'll just ignore what you're offering and move on to someone who'll offer me terms I'll accept.
And of course neither one of them will likely see so much as a week in jail, if that, because if they were tried it would make the agencies look bad.
As a result, they'll likely be offered a 'deal'('Shut up and hand over the money and you won't be charged with anything more than a misdemeanor'), the matter will be brushed under the rug and they'll be transferred to another department, where no-one knows what they've done.
In generally it would probably be a good idea to require a warrant for any data considered sensitive enough that the public is barred from seeing it.
If someone from the public cannot just go browsing through a database on a whim, neither should anyone else be able to without stating a good reason for it, putting that reason on paper for others to see, and having a third party make sure that the reason is acceptable.
So I'm curious, where you live, do you get to vote on whether or not individual police officers are hired? Do you get to veto any potential hires that you don't like? Do you get to do full research into the backgrounds and records of potential police hires? If an officer acts up, are you capable of firing them, either on your own, or through a vote of some kind?
If you answered 'No' to the above questions, then I'm wondering why exactly you want the public, who are already being screwed over by corrupt cops like the ones in this story, to be 'punished' even more, while the actual offenders get off without having to pay a cent.
Here's the thing though: Ultimately, it doesn't matter.
Whether it was a real attack or a staged one, what mattered was what came after it, both in the government, and among the public. That was were the real damage to the country took place after all, so focusing on 'Was the attack a real one, or was it staged?' is missing the forest for the trees.
A pirate isn't buying from you now, but if your work interests him/her enough, they may in the future.
Someone who purposely avoids your work, whether it be due to the fact that your creations are crap according to them, or because you yourself are the kind of person they want to avoid giving money and/or attention to is never going to buy from you, at least if they can avoid it.
Really? You were doing so well there, and then that last line... it's bad enough that the maximalists bring up rape and murder and slavery and act like copyright infringement is just as bad as the above, you really don't need to follow their example.
"The current generation of writers, performers and interpreters of music cannot have their livelihoods destroyed by advances in technology which allow persons to breach their constitutional rights with impunity.”
If one person, or even many people, pirate a particular song, or book, or movie, then other people are still free to buy that song/book/movie. Other people are still free to listen/read/watch.
Nothing about piracy stops that. One person's copyright infringement does not, in any way, stop another person from paying or getting something the 'legitimate' way.
As such, the only way that he could claim that piracy is 'destroying constitutional rights', is if he thinks that people have a constitutional right to be paid for each and every single use of their creation(or, as I'm sure is the majority of the cases, the creation of some poor sod that has signed their rights to you). A 'constitutional right to profit' basically, something I'm surprised that another country managed to beat the US to.
He further rejected requests to refer this matter to the European Court of Justice, insisting that his interpretation of the law is plenty.
Yeah, given they would probably stomp this ruling flat both because if you want to punish someone it's generally required to actually prove guilt first, and because the internet is vital enough these days kicking someone off it would be like shutting off their water or electricity, I don't imagine he would be too happy to have another judge show how wrong he is here.
Given their silence in the face of corruption and/or abuse of power and authority is a big part of the problem, I don't see any problem with that. Might suck for them sure, but maybe if they were willing to hold their own accountable, and speak up when another officer crosses the line of acceptable behavior, then perhaps it wouldn't happen so often, and the police wouldn't be sued so often.
Trying for funniest comment of the week are we? They'll never see a cent, unless the labels decided to take on any legal fees they incur to what the bands 'owe', in which case they'll see it on their bill.
And, of course, the local police union has greeted this decision with assertions that the officers involved did nothing wrong and that Judge Stewart is nothing more than an armchair quarterback,
When video evidence shows police engaging in... well, let's be nice and call it 'misconduct' for little more than refusal to grovel sufficiently...
When the facts are so contrary to what the cops claim happened that it is blatantly obvious that the cops are lying...
When even a judge isn't willing to buy the 'official' story it's so disconnected from reality...
The police and their unions still dig in and insist that cops never do anything wrong, and to even question them is unacceptable, refusing to even entertain the idea that an officer might ever step out of line and need to be held accountable for their actions. Police your own, show that you are willing to hold those amongst you who abuse their position accountable for their actions, and then, maybe, people might begin to start to trust police again. Until then, stop whining that the public doesn't trust you to act properly, you brought that on yourself.
While they're at it, they should prosecute the power companies, a whole lot of crime is carried out that requires electricity, crime that wouldn't be possible without it, so clearly they are accomplices as well.
Just a tiny difference between drugs and infringing files. You know, just a bit. In either case though, seizing assets of someone based on accusation alone, someone who has never stepped foot in a given country, is not something that should be done or accepted.
Open up that particular can of worms, and you could have any country on the planet seizing funds or assets, from US companies or people, or anyone else on the planet, and then justifying their theft by claiming that the accused refusing to travel to their country is evidence enough of their guilt.