unfortunately, probably only your first 3 purchases counted.
No, the first three purchases from EACH RETAILER whose sales are used to calculate the official charts count. That means, if you used all 8 main retailers carrying the track (iTunes, Amazon, Tesco, Play, 7Digital, We7, HMV, TuneTribe) that were definitely known to be counted, you could in theory download up to 24 copies just for yourself.
On top of this you could 'gift' as many as 3 copies from any retailers who allowed this (iTunes and 7Digital definitely did, not sure of the others) and they counted as separate downloads as you only paid for them and others did the downloading.
Personally I only bought 11 copies (including gifting it), and kept some in reserve in case they were really needed for a concerted push at the end. For every track I've downloaded I donated 10 times it's price to Shelter... and current donations stand at over 80,000 quid and rising! Well done all involved
Evidentiary in the name of the '3 strikes' provision is it's origin (at least in it's corporate form). I'm supposing the idea of '3 strikes' refers to baseball, which is only played in a couple of countries AFAIK. It's certainly not a game very much played around the rest of the world (US, Japan... anywhere else other than on US bases in other countries?)
If it had been called 'caught and bowled', 'lbw' or other cricket reference then it would have been unmistakably British in origin.
True again, but that didn't change the perceived necessity of invading those countries (*). In fact, many European nations probably objected simply because they had figured out that the US was going to invade no matter what, so opposing the invasions let them gain political points domestically, avoid paying, and still get what they wanted. The reason things worked out that way was because Bush was a moron.
(*) I think both invasions were a mistake, but the people supporting them genuninely thought it was necessary at the time.
I think you'll find the reasons that the majority of Europeans (not European nations) were against those wars was because: (A) They were illegal under international law and (B) The ensuing wars would result in the deaths of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of innocent civilians who never did anything to us - amongst others. Any 'nation' or government who represented the views of their citizens were in fact just doing their job properly. There were notable examples of governments giving the finger to their electorate, such as the British government of the war criminal Tony B-Liar, but as a whole, the bigger part of the population of Europe was against the unnecessary murder of millions of civilians.
To date it hasn't been shown that any of the warmongers who started these illegal wars felt they were 'necessary' for any reason. They may have said they felt it, but these are proven liars, so the balance of probability lies with the idea that their claimed feelings over the matter were merely another lie, and that's even before you consider that mere 'feelings' about how you act do not usurp the law.
To deny this obvious state of affairs is shamefully naive and the reason these b*stards keep getting away with their crimes. I mean, COME ON PEOPLE!!!
Surely that's to distinguish direction that the signal applies to, particularly when there are separate signals for a lane turning than for a lane carrying straight on.
Here in the UK we generally have these arrows to indicate either a 'filter' on just the green light in addition to the main green light (where you are turning across the oncoming traffic and their signal has just turned to red, or hasn't yet turned to green).
Although there are occasions where the directional indicator arrow is used for all 3 colours, especially where a multitude of light clusters make a junction particularly confusing for anyone unfamiliar with the road layout.
Conversely to TFA, I've noticed that whenever traffic lights fail over here, traffic has a greater tendency to flow much better, because the majority of people's natural courtesy to each other allows for them to 'take turns' crossing a 4 (or more) way junction.
Additionally - to be covered by the PRS' services, an artist must first register with them. Whichever name is used (whether the artists' actual name[s] or a band name) is the one the royalties are collected under. Therefore, if a BAND register (say, 'The Beatles') and all tracks released are credited to 'The Beatles', then the PRS will collect on those tracks alone, distributing money equally to all members of the band. They would not collect on tracks credited to 'Lennon' or 'McCartney' unless those names had been specifically registered with them. This is why some bands fall out over royalties, because a couple of members may be credited as writing the songs (melody/lyrics) and get all the royalties whilst the others get nothing for those tracks despite having written their respective instrument's parts.
So if you've not registered yourself or your band with the PRS and are performing your own original material, then they have absolutely NO business with you at all. They shouldn't automatically think they have a 'right' to police all music, because they're far from being so ubiquitous.
Does anyone else think it's ironic that the PRS (Performing Rights Society) whose job it is to collect royalties on behalf of artists is trying to charge a performing artist money?
So just imagine if she had been singing her own material and paid the PRS the required fee - just how much would she see of that money from the PRS when they came to pay out her due royalty earnings? It'd be interesting to know how big a cut they take!
Recent investments will yield a slight profit.