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.
You can insist, if you like, that America should not be spying on her allies, but then I get to insist that you grow up, because that's exactly the kind of work you want the NSA doing.
The idea has an honorable pedigree, at least. Anyone interested in such matters ought to be familiar with the historical significance of the phrase, "Gentlemen do not read each other's mail."
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.
Remember you're talking about the guy who declared, in so many words, that users don't really care about privacy and privacy means whatever he says it means. So yes, he really is as arrogant as that!
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!
Seriously? Come on! How many times do people have to say it?!?
Don't feed the trolls. Just click "report" and move on!
The only reason they keep coming in and crapping all over these articles is because we keep legitimizing it by treating their crap like serious discussion.
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?
On the post: Taylor Swift's Streaming Rant Nearly Identical To Garth Brooks' Used CD Rant
Re: Re: not much of a marketing degree
Argh. I fail at proofreading. And Techdirt fails at providing a much-needed Edit feature for comments.
On the post: Taylor Swift's Streaming Rant Nearly Identical To Garth Brooks' Used CD Rant
Re: not much of a marketing degree
On the post: Taylor Swift's Streaming Rant Nearly Identical To Garth Brooks' Used CD Rant
Re: not much of a marketing degree
The film ended up not falling through, unfortunately, and without it to provide context, the album ended up just looking really weird.
On the post: Wikileaks Latest Info-Dump Shows, Again, That The NSA Indeed Engages In Economic Espionage Against Allies
The idea has an honorable pedigree, at least. Anyone interested in such matters ought to be familiar with the historical significance of the phrase, "Gentlemen do not read each other's mail."
On the post: Taylor Swift's Streaming Rant Nearly Identical To Garth Brooks' Used CD Rant
Re:
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.
On the post: UK Prevent Strategy For Identifying Potential Terrorists Identifies 3 Year Old Because Of Course It Did
On the post: 4th Amendment Lives: Court Tells US Government Get A Warrant If It Wants Mobile Phone Location Info
Wasn't she the judge who presided over the travesty of Apple's patent-trolling of Samsung?
On the post: DailyDirt: Colonizing Space
Re: Can't Think of a Bigger Waste of Money
On the post: Judge Bars Anti-Abortion Group From Releasing Video... Raising Serious First Amendment Questions
Re: Release the videos
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?
On the post: Australian Librarians Start 'Cooking For Copyright' Campaign To Change Law For Unpublished Works
Re: Re:
On the post: Australian Librarians Start 'Cooking For Copyright' Campaign To Change Law For Unpublished Works
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.
On the post: Everyone's A Bad Guy: German Regulator Orders Facebook To Drop Its Stupid 'Real Name' Policy
Re:
On the post: Warner Music's Response To Evidence Of Happy Birthday In The Public Domain: Who Really Knows Anything, Really?
Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Jul 29th, 2015 @ 1:13pm
On the post: Warner Music's Response To Evidence Of Happy Birthday In The Public Domain: Who Really Knows Anything, Really?
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...
On the post: Vizio Latest Manufacturer To Offer More Ways For TVs To Watch Purchasers
Re: Wouldn't be so bad if they gave you the TV
Then along came a model where viewers did pay for it... but did the ads go away? We should be so lucky!
On the post: Study Of Spain's 'Google Tax' On News Shows How Much Damage It Has Done
Re: Re: out_of_the_blue is a corporatist!
Don't feed the trolls. Just click "report" and move on!
The only reason they keep coming in and crapping all over these articles is because we keep legitimizing it by treating their crap like serious discussion.
On the post: India's New Net Neutrality Guidelines Suggest Facebook's Internet.org Is Just Glorified Collusion
Google: Don't Be Evil.
Facebook: Don't even bother pretending we're not evil.
Looks like at least some people are catching on...
On the post: Judge Slams Meddling Sheriff Thomas Dart For Likely First Amendment Attack On Backpage
Re: Re:
On the post: Eight Years After Bogus Expulsion Over Supposed 'Threat,' Former Student Obtains $900k Settlement From University
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.
On the post: Judge Slams Meddling Sheriff Thomas Dart For Likely First Amendment Attack On Backpage
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?
Next >>