News organizations compete with each other to make the big scoop and this causes them to jump to conclusions before the details are fully confirmed. Once the first news channel or paper takes the risk everyone else jumps in and reports the same sketchy story. This has led to many sources wrongly reporting the death of a celebrity or spreading spoof news stories and making asses of themselves.
You would think that the nation that first bravely stood alone against the Nazis would not adopt the same kind of censorship that Hitler used. What's next, jailing reporters the government doesn't like? Who gets to determine who is extreme? There can be no democracy without freedom of speech. Are government agents going to be scouring every Facebook and twitter post?
I have to partially retract some of this. Upon doing some reading I found that Jimi did get violent when he was drinking and using drugs and was arrested several times. Still, couldn't they just portray what really happened instead of just making one up?
I just have to wonder what is wrong with taking the life of an interesting person and making an interesting movie about it. It is indeed rare to find a film about an historical person or event that is even remotely accurate. Do they really have to turn a brilliant musical icon into a violent abuser when it just never happened? I find that offensive and an insult to my intelligence. It doesn't have to be a documentary to just make a movie at least close to reality. Maybe the Hendrix family would have been more open to license his music if they hadn't portrayed him as a monster.
The outrageous fees the big name artists charge is a boon for lesser known artists. A friend I grew up with, Gerard McMahon (records under the name G Tom Mac) has had his music featured in dozens of hit movies and TV shows since the 80's. He's best known for the song "Cry Little Sister" from the movie Lost Boys. He has a considerable fan base all from this exposure. He has written and performed with artists like Chicago, Kiss, Roger Daltery and many others. He has millions of YouTube hits. I'm sure he doesn't get anywhere near what A-list artists charge in licensing fees and that is why his songs are used so much. I'm betting he makes as much or even more than better known artists by the quantity of his work being bought. The list on Wikipedia is nowhere near complete. Most of the music you hear on TV and movies are from artists like him. Why pay millions for a Michael Jackson or the Rolling Stones track when you can get great music for a fraction of their rates?
I've been burned more than a few time when I heard a great song on the radio and went out and bought the CD and realized it was the only good song on it. On Rhapsody you can hear a song before you decide to buy it.
I'm already a fan since I was 12. I had everything they ever recorded on vinyl and nearly everything now on CD. For a long time there have not been a lot of new fans because their music is too expensive to be heard much beyond my generation. I wonder which would be more profitable for the copyright holders; A few million on the very rare occasions a movie or TV show are willing to spend that much or millions more fans. Exposure = sales.
It is amazing the the most revolutionary rock band in history is so limited in finding new fans. Similar to this, the movie "Backbeat" could only use songs the Beatles covered because they could not afford any Lennon/McCartney songs. When the movie "Ferris Beuller's Day Off" used "Twist and Shout" it became a hit again 20 years after it first charted. How many new fans and 2nd hits could there be if movies and TV could afford to license their songs? I subscribe to Rhapsody and when I did a search for the Beatles all that came up out of the hundreds of their recordings was a few early album tracks and the work they did with Tony Sheridan. They could have paying customers downloading that instead will choose to pirate. My great grandchildren will be in their mid 50's when they are public domain.
There was another justification for the shooting. The suspect was running toward a busy intersection where civilians could have been caught in the crossfire. Also he could have carjacked someone stopped at the light. That didn't silence the critics saying "Why didn't he just shoot him in the leg?" That is not what they are trained to do. They are to stop the threat by shooting center of mass.
A few months ago there was a police shooting in Wichita KS and it was fortunate for the officer that it was seen on surveillance video. When a suspect was seen leaving a break in he was ordered to stop and he ran and fired a shot at the cop. Instead of shooting back he ordered him to drop the gun but he turned and pointed the gun again. It was then that the cop shot and killed him. Still, even though it was very clear that this shooting was justified there was a lot of whining because the suspect was black and the cop was white. People were saying "would he have shot him if he was white"? The question should have been would he have shot him if he wasn't pointing a gun at him to fire a second shot. The officer was cleared and returned to duty. If it had not been for the cameras this dumb criminal's family would have probably sued the city for millions.
I don't think they would have taken the video down if they did have a license. They have a legal department that would have sued him over it just because they can.
I have no idea who this guy is but I love that he called them on their bullshit. Actually the video could be possibly be derivative enough to be covered by fair use but we all know Disney doesn't believe in fair use by anyone but them. Snow White was written in the early 1800's and is public domain. Don't you dare make a Snow White character that even remotely resembles theirs or you will be sued. This is only to show what blatant hypocrites they are. Otherwise I really don't think he would have ever given two shits about this video with his music being used by Disney.
Regardless of his intention, if he was ramming the cop cars there was considerable risk he could cause a fatal accident. On crime shows you often see someone pointing a gun at the cops and someone bravely talks them into surrendering. That's bullshit. Point a gun at a cop and you will be shot no matter whether you intend to pull the trigger or not.
OK, maybe you could justify shooting the driver although there are certainly better options. Did they try spike strips or maybe a pit maneuver? Did they try to shoot out his tires or radiator?
My question is why did the passenger have to die? Did he have a weapon? He probably spent the whole chase pleading with the driver to stop. Last I heard it is not a crime to ride in a car with an idiot.
OK, court order is incorrect. Just an order that is civilly enforceable. I'm guessing most people obey because they sign away all rights to contest her decisions. I doubt any judge would consider an appeal after it has been waived. She may be retired as a judge but she is more than qualified. She had nearly 30 years experience as a prosecutor and a judge.
The participants on her show sign legally binding agreements to abide by her decisions. A violation may not be a criminal offense but it certainly would lead to civil liability. The show covers the monetary judgements but she often orders the return of property.
On the post: Judge Issues $5 Million Award To Dow Jones In Hot News Case... But It's Meaningless
Breaking stories are often wrong
On the post: Thought Crime: UK Leadership Wants To Ban Predicted 'Extremists' From Social Media, TV, Events
Re: Re: This all worked out so well for Hitler!
On the post: Thought Crime: UK Leadership Wants To Ban Predicted 'Extremists' From Social Media, TV, Events
This all worked out so well for Hitler!
On the post: Jimi Hendrix Biopic Opens Today... Without Any Jimi Hendrix Music, Thanks To Copyright
Re: Re:
On the post: Jimi Hendrix Biopic Opens Today... Without Any Jimi Hendrix Music, Thanks To Copyright
Re:
On the post: Jimi Hendrix Biopic Opens Today... Without Any Jimi Hendrix Music, Thanks To Copyright
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTdF7dvNCDo
On the post: Jimi Hendrix Biopic Opens Today... Without Any Jimi Hendrix Music, Thanks To Copyright
Re: Re: Re: The Beatles
On the post: Jimi Hendrix Biopic Opens Today... Without Any Jimi Hendrix Music, Thanks To Copyright
Re: Re: The Beatles
On the post: Jimi Hendrix Biopic Opens Today... Without Any Jimi Hendrix Music, Thanks To Copyright
The Beatles
On the post: Cameras Watching Cops: Still A Good Idea
Re: Cameras can help cops when they are right
On the post: Cameras Watching Cops: Still A Good Idea
Re: Re: Cameras can help cops when they are right
On the post: Cameras Watching Cops: Still A Good Idea
Cameras can help cops when they are right
On the post: In The FCC's Own Words: Chairman Wheeler Has Proposed Online Discrimination, Paid Prioritization, And Exclusive Deals
On the post: DHS Wants To Expand 'See Something, Say Something' To Retailers Selling You Pressure Cookers
What's next?
On the post: It Appears Mickey Mouse May Have Picked An Intellectual Property Fight With The Wrong Mau5
Re: Re:
On the post: It Appears Mickey Mouse May Have Picked An Intellectual Property Fight With The Wrong Mau5
On the post: The Judicial System's Blessing Of Police Use Of Excessive Force Makes It Nearly Impossible To Hold Bad Cops Accountable
Re: Re:
On the post: The Judicial System's Blessing Of Police Use Of Excessive Force Makes It Nearly Impossible To Hold Bad Cops Accountable
My question is why did the passenger have to die? Did he have a weapon? He probably spent the whole chase pleading with the driver to stop. Last I heard it is not a crime to ride in a car with an idiot.
On the post: Putting Body Cameras On Cops Won't Fix Misconduct, But It's A Good Start
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Putting Body Cameras On Cops Won't Fix Misconduct, But It's A Good Start
Re: Re:
Next >>