Console ad-ons have rarely had much success, which makes me doubt that that either company was ever very serious about launching the product. If they were serious about it they would probably ultimately have launched a standalone console that could play both CD and cartridges instead of a CD ad-on for the SNES.
Except Nintendo did launch a CD ad-on that they developed initially with Sony and then put out with Phillips.
It works just if you removed taxes on work and income and replaced them completely with taxes on property. It is logical that this will cause people to behave in ways that are suboptimal for society as a whole.
So you're telling me that it's optimal for society as a whole for my roommate to pay no taxes because he doesn't own property? That doesn't make sense...
1999 called and wants its meme back. Seriously, have you actually used any modern Linux distros? Hey, good news, it has gotten so easy to install and use, you don't even need to install it! Download any of a dozen LiveCD / DVD / BRD / Thumbdrive versions, burn it to the appropriate media, and reboot. Bam! You have a fully functional modern OS at your fingertips. Give it a try, and if you don't like it, it comes with a 100% money back guarantee.
Seriously, even Gentoo (notorious for having one of the more complex installs) has a graphical installer as of somewhere near 5 years ago. I don't understand where the original poster is coming from...
That is fucking ridiculous (not saying it's illegal, just ridiculous). The DJ paid fees to be able to play the music, and they expect the restaurant to also pay fees?
I stopped reading after this because you didn't follow the link or read the text. The DJ paid the same fee you do for a CD. Period. End of story. (S)He may have paid for the PA equipment as well. That has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that someone is using this for entertainment in his place of business as a way to encourage more business.
[Having now taken the moment to read your piss poor analogy, let me throw a more apt one at you]
It's more like if I write a book and then someone creates a movie from that book, should I have a right to proceeds from the movie? According to your analogy, I should just get nothing because the movie studio bought a single copy of my book, even though now, billions could have my story out there and, to many of them, a book that a movie they've seen isn't worth reading, so I shouldn't make money off of them.
I don't for a second believe that the DJ actually paid the fees, in fact, it seems the owner merely assumed (s)he did. And even if (s)he did, (s)he did so for performance within (her/)his own venue, as it's how (her/)his business has to be run. A restaurant owner who ignores this cost of doing business should get sued. The sad part is, it appears that this particular situation only came about because this owner refuses to be educated on his responsibilities and decided that settling didn't make sense. Hell, it seems like he didn't even seek out legal advice.
Some people mistakenly assume that musicians and entertainers must obtain licenses to perform copyrighted music or that businesses where music is performed can shift their responsibility to musicians or entertainers. The law says all who participate in, or are responsible for, performances of music are legally responsible. Since it is the business owner who obtains the ultimate benefit from the performance, it is the business owner who obtains the license. Music license fees are one of the many costs of doing business.
it's not the musicians, it's the business. Same reason (or should be, but often isn't) business owners charge a cover when music is being played in the venue (although, often times said cover is also paid to the musicians themselves).
"How many times do they want to get paid for the stupid music?"
Dunno. How many times do you want to get paid for serving the same stupid meals?
Sure, we all hate the MAFIAA, but it's rather odd how you feel capitalism is suddenly a one-way street.
Not exactly an apples-to-apples comparison.. Each new meal requires new material, each play of a song does not.
If the DJ did indeed pay a fee to play said songs, then I don't see why another should be paid by the restaurant owner.
Odds are rather good that the DJ did not pay the fee that is associated with entertaining an audience. Most DJs are unaware that's any different from buying the CD itself.
The fact that he probably even advertised (not made clear FTA) that there was a DJ playing makes the restaurant far more culpable as an "entertainment" venue than merely a restaurant. As many other posters have pointed out, this was used as a form of entertainment and should be treated as such. I don't necessarily like the tactics, nor necessarily agree with the sum, but at least, for a change, the musician gets a solid chunk of it.
But a native English speaker (are you?) is almost certainly going to pronounce "waze" identically to "ways".
Actually, no. At first glace I would pronounce it with a hard Z sound, more like "was".
Are you saying no to the (are you?) in the previous post? Because, like most native english speakers, I'd pronounce waze like daze, gaze, laze, blaze, haze, etc. Which is homophonic to ways.
Our business in life is not to succeed but to continue to fail in high spirits. -- Robert Louis Stevenson
