If a person is hit by the bullet, the officer is just about always reassigned to desk duty, if not given some paid time off.
In these sorts of situations, being on administrative leave just means that you're not doing your primary job, not that you can go skiing. Think of it as more 'You've been reassigned to be internal affair's latest whipping boy'. IE you spend your time writing a very exhaustive report, being questioned by your boss, your boss's boss, being grilled by IA(with your boss defending you if you're lucky), attending counseling, supplimental training, etc...
Also, nanotechnology is a buzzword. It is not a single material, and as such there really aren't any properties that are consistent among all the many things that are considered nanotechnology
Very good point. The 'public', or average person, can only handle so many risks.
This is fairly easy for something like nuclear power - radiation is pretty much the sole considered risk. They, of course, forget about heavy metal poisoning. Asbestos, smoking? Lung cancer - many will forget about throat cancer, fire, etc...
But for nanomaterials?
There are different risks for things like nanotech lead-acid batteries than nanotech liIon, nano-silicon, nano-fuel cell battery, etc...
In many ways our nanoing everything is simply indicating that we've reached a new level of knowledge - to the point we actually have a clue as to what goes on at those small scales, so we can intelligently design rather than engage in bathtub chemistry or engineering.
I've pictured human progress and understanding of the universe like a man wandering around a vast workshop full of tools - the only problem is that there's no lighting. Before the 1700s, he wandered around blind. In the 1700s he had a match. Eventually that was upgraded to a candle and then a lantern. We're up to a flashlight now. It's not perfect by any means(said shop being the size of a large car factory), but it's still orders of magnitude further than we have been before. The scientific method is represented by adding a notebook & pencil to the man's tools.
Consider all the rational improvements that could be made through genetic improvements: we could increase tendencies to be smart, scientific, responsible, just, good-natured, conscientious, or whatever other characteristics are found to have genetic inputs.
I'd settle for reducing/eliminating genetic causes of stuff like type 1 diabetes, alzheimer's, parkinson's, blindness, and deafness. There's a lot more that are even more damaging, I know, but I'd be going for the 'most bang for the buck', IE go after the most debilitating diseases first - the ones we have good tests for, can detect early in a pregnancy, or easily test embryos for artificial insemination.
Something like Sickle cell should be way down on the list - we'd want to eliminate malaria before we eliminate this, for example.
Only after we take care of this stuff would we want to start fudging around with many of the characteristics you talked about.
AFAIK The health elements of GM seeds have not been fully investigated, nor will they be (no one investigated the health implications of new varieties created conventionally after all) so the potential for problems exists (the BSE crisis in the UK was caused in some degree by modern and more cost effective farming practices after all).
By the same token, couldn't you say that GM seeds have been more far more fully investigated than their conventional cousins?
There have been cases of non-genemod crops having to be pulled due to issues found. At least with GM varieties, they have to rather exhaustively test and justify their mods.
On the topic of nano materials and scientist's fears over them, I think that that's all to the good - those fears will result in testing/research to ensure their safety, making the end situation look to the consumer a lot like Y2K.
Recovery time for movement and cognition seemed to be around a second or two, though nobody just jumped up from it. This may be different in less controlled environments with longer shocks. I don't really know.
Even a second is plenty of time to have most of the cuffing part done.
I'm afraid I don't know when it is appropriate to draw a firearm instead of a taser, though I suspect it is a matter of department policy. I've seen them pull a taser with two officers on the scene on some clips from the TV show Cops. (I don't watch Cops, just random clips. I'm not an officer, and other than taking a concealed handgun class, I have no training. I don't own a handgun, I just took the class out of curiosity.)
Departmental policies aside, I think that a reasonable policy is to have at least two officers on scene if you're going to use a taser - a taser isn't anywhere near 100%. Even a firearm isn't 100%, but all the tasers I've seen are single shot, if you miss or the barbs don't catch, it's no longer useful until you can reload. A gun, even if you miss, should still have more rounds available to try again. Even if you hit, you need somebody to use the taser while somebody else does the physical restraining(cuffing). If a taser fails and you're the sole officer on scene, the suspect can be on you before you can pull your sidearm*.
If nothing else, a firearm usually intimidates suspects into playing quiet; more are willing to risk a taser than a lead projectile.
Personally, I think that any government official should be recordable while in the act of any public duties. And I think it should be a federal law that should be passed.
I broadly agree with you, though I'd place exemptions for classified and privacy act type stuff - we don't have to worry about the office worker quite as much. And allowing people to record stuff like intel analysis doesn't help us.
He also chewed out one of the protesters with a video camera. He wasn't trying to get the guy to stop video taping, he was trying get out of his face while talking to the other guy, and to get out of way so people wouldn't have to walk in the street to get around them.
Which is why I had a clause in my statement - as long as the fellow isn't breaking laws, he's allowed to record. Impeding traffic is a violation. Violating personal space is also another no-no. Most cameras today should have plenty of zoom to get a good picture even 15 feet away. Even without zoom, they should have enough resolution to get facial features - and the wider scope of the picture gives more useful detail. I don't think being able to see somebody's pores would be much of an added value over being able to see the whole person and a good chunk of area around him.
His job (as he saw it) was safety and atmosphere. For safety, he wanted people out of the way so everyone wasn't walking in the road that had vehicle traffic. For atmosphere, (I'm a bit fuzzy on the specifics of this) he didn't want people creating a scene with all of the swearing. I'm curious about the legality of that.
Some areas have 'fighting words' clauses in the laws that basically ban stuff like inciding a riot, words to encourage someobody to attack you, etc... Using profanity is frequently one of the tests -because profanity isn't very useful in convincing people not already sharing your viewpoint. In reality, shutting up the guy spouting profanity probably helped his cause, not detrimented it.
Anyway, it got me thinking about the camera guy. I wonder how many claims of first amendment suppression are really just officers trying to get people out of the way for safety or so they can deal with some other more pressing issue. Obviously there are all sorts of wrongful situations, but I wonder how often it's a "don't tase me bro" guy calling wolf.
I wonder as well, though some of the cases, like the officers who crossed the street to try to stop people recording(and get the video) an incident seemed pret
In my opinion, at least, it doesn't have to win in all categories - just most of them, to the point that the average user/consumer is going to be able to tell that the new OS is 'better'.
Sure, 2000 was slower than NT - but it supported things like USB much better, improved hardware detection, came with more usable features - not just eye candy.
XP by service pack 2 is like an updated 2000 - very good hardware detection, practically seamless usb support, integrated CD/DVD writing software, etc...
It took a little getting used to, but the new start menu was a very nice idea.
Currently the market is saturated and everyone who could use a PC already has one.
Pretty much. It'd be kinda looking at TV market penetration. Maybe a better term would be automobile. Everybody who wants and can afford an automobile already has one, so the only way to sell new automobiles is as upgrades, to replace damaged/worn cars, and population growth. The old sales volume/growth just can't keep up - especially given that computers don't have the orders of magnitude better performance they used to have every three years.
I've been absolutely amazed at some of the old ways some people/businesses did things. Still, it's been ~5 years since I last saw a non-computerized register.
With the advent of HDTVs, gaming consoles have enough capability to act quite functionaly as a home computer. Sure, the programming/accessories haven't quite shown up yet on the standard market, but I can see it happening. Quicken for PS4 anybody?
It's one thing to offer a home/business a new capability. It's almost as good to offer significant better performance. But is the average person going to be willing to spend thousands of dollars for the 'latest and greatest' when they find that the latest isn't actually any greater?
And this really doesn't increase security any if you shower users with 'are you sure' prompts because they become conditioned to just keep clicking 'yes'.
To the point that they click 'yes' when the rootkit comes around. Now if it had some sort of 'rootkit installation detection' and came up with the prompt 'It looks like what you're installing is a rootkit, are you sure you want to install this?', users might actually click no and give their computer person a headsup.
The main annoyance of this nature right now is access - every time I open up a database it has to warn me to be careful and that this database could contain harmful functions - Yet I built that database ON MY OWN MACHINE. It has no scripts that a default office install doesn't put in there. It's just a collection of a few tables and reports. Yet it warns me and makes me click another button - of course I'm going to keep opening stuff up! It asks every time!
Considering that from what I've seen Vista is like chopping 400mhz and half a gig of RAM out of your machine, I don't see many wanting to upgrade any time soon.
Not only that, it drives up the price of an upgrade - my new computer a couple months ago cost $1200 - and I built it myself.
While a pretty good gaming system, it's not top of the line. I could of easily spent $3k building an even better one.
What's my point? A new PS3/XBox 360 is ~$400. Or a third of what my system cost.
What's that mean? While Halo3 will push a number of consoles, the game(or games) would have to be much more compelling to push significant amounts of people to effectivly cripple their system for other games(slower performance) or perform an expensive hardware upgrade.
I mean, $400 today will get you a new good, even outstanding video card. But it won't even come close to getting you a top of the line card. It'd also pay for a very good CPU, or plenty of RAM. But CPU&RAM&Video card? Might as well build a new machine.
This is all before buying the OS.
Don't get me wrong, I really enjoy computer games, but my machine only gets replaced about once every three years - about the only upgrade I ever do is adding more ram. Still, at this point I probably won't be adding more RAM for this machine because I installed a 32bit OS*, so am limited in address space. So we'd be looking at an OS reinstall as well.
Generally, in my mind at least, if a suspect is engaging in such behavior that police are considering shooting him to prevent harm to others than he's a criminal.
From my understanding, the vast majority of these cases involve people with prior convictions - often parole violations. So yeah, they'd be criminals.
To be honest, now that I think about it it might have been a subliminal thing where I don't mind seeing a violent criminal harmed(IE no doubt that he's bad), especially if it saves innocents, but object when it's a suspect(only suspicion he's bad, even if highly likely).
I was thinking about cases like hostage situations or the guy's shooting at police, where the situation is fairly cut and dried.
Is there some kind of Heisenberg principle at work that makes tasers hurt less when they're monitored?
Yes, it's called 'The cop, being aware that he's in trouble if he abuses the taser, uses it less'.
Oh, now I understand. When you use a taser as a starter motor for your car or to light a cigarette it doesn't cause suffering. It's only when you use them to electrocute people that it constitutes a form of torture.
I think that it's a result of the UN(and many others) defining torture as 'any amount of pain/suffering'. Personally, I think that a certain amount of pain is to be expected when you resist arrest. Heck, life itself involved pain&suffering. As long as the officers don't go out of their way to cause pain/suffering beyond that needed to expeditiously arrest the suspect, it's not torture.
Yes, it can be considered something of a fine line. Still, I do not consider a submission hold, taser strike, even a baton strike in the course of a felony resisting arrest as torture. If they do it during questioning, then it's a different story.
I think that my point would be that there are relatively few dedicated torture devices - we seem to manage just fine with improvised ones. Declaring tasers one of those few dedicated devices is overblown. It has legitimate uses. Sure, if abused it's a torture device - but so isn't many of the things in your average house.
While it can be painful to be tasered, and you aren't able to move while it's happening, the shock doesn't last for long.
The disability tends to last at least a few seconds longer than the shocks; part of the operating procedure should be to hook & stuff the perp in that period.
If a person is violent enough, and an officer is alone enough, 30 shocks over 5 minutes from an officer (or two) trying to keep someone on the ground until more backup arrives is not outside of possibility.
If the officer is alone he/she should not be using the taser. The officer's sidearm is a better choice in such a situation.
It's certainly not 100%. Really dirty cops just moved further into the shadows, but it does mean the mediocre ones are less likely to fall into the wrong things.
I agree, though I also think that states should pass laws that government officials such as police officers(especially uniformed) should have the expectation of being recorded at all times while performing their duties*. IE they CAN'T confiscate or arrest somebody who recorded them while they were being stupid, just for recording them. That ordering them to stop recording is a violation as well - an illegal order.
*Caveat to prevent legalizing tapping of police bathrooms. A lawyer could probably phrase it better.
Do you mean that US military does not drop bombs on strategic targets in urban areas? How have we managed to kill 84 thousand civilians in Iraq if we "take pains to avoid that stuff"?
We take pains to avoid that sort of stuff. The terrorists/insurgents* unfortunately seem to try to take pains to ensure civilian deaths - part of the rules of warfare (as practiced by western civilizations) are NOT to put military assets around civilian ones.
Besides, I can tell that Iraqbodycount is including ALL violent deaths - not just ones by US/coalition forces.
Very first page: Baghdad: 4 bodies. Falluja: 2 bodies. Mosul: roadside bomb kills policeman; 2 bodies -a university student and her mother. Samarra: car bomb kills 3 policemen. Hilla: 2 worshippers shot dead outisde mosque. Tuz Khurmato: body found. Wajihia: body found.
Are you trying to argue that we're setting car bombs ourselves, having snipers shoot random people, or leaving bodies** out to be found by random people?
Per this page, it's 600 Iraqi civilians in 5 months. At that rate, it's 1440 per year, or more than 58 years to come up to the death toll you cited as though it was all caused by the USA. Given that, it looks like the terrorists are killing Iraqies better than four times as much as the US - even with far fewer resources.
I'm not saying that this is good - but it does show the difference between deliberately targeting civilians and collateral damage. Can collateral deaths be avoided? In my opinion, while more can be done, it would be in substantial cost in manpower, time, effort, and probably casualties - the longer the conflict runs, the more casualties there likely are going to be.
*No, they are NOT necessarily the same. **Sometimes this happens - we're not able to get to the scene(bomb/artillery fire), the body is from somebody shot from a convoy under attack that wasn't about to stop, etc...
Then you do what you do to police officers who abused their authority/powers before the advent of tasers - you discipline them, fire tehm, even convict them if the offense justifies it.
Should we remove all officer's firearms because a few have used them to commit murder?
When someone is pinned down under 6 police officers but is still trying to wiggle around, it does not warrant the use of a tazer.
You'd rather the suspect asphyxiate? Figure 150 pounds per officer, that's 900 pounds on top. Actually, 150 pounds is light, I could see 1200 pounds easy. Of course, they won't all be on the chest area, but I think you might get the point.
I've seen videos of people resisting. I'm not sure that a taser wouldn't be the lesser injuring option.
A single quick shock - and while the suspect has lost the control of his limbs, grab them and finish putting the cuffs on.
From the deaths I've heard about, they all involved multiple shocks.
A police officer's goal is to make sure nobody, including crime suspects, gets hurt on the scene.
Though the fallback position is that only the criminal gets hurt/killed. Finer than that is generally up to the officer under high pressure having to make a snap decision. There's also the problem that sometimes committing a minor harm early avoids a greater harm later.
By this I mean that a competent felony arrest is over quickly - extending it out only increases the risk of injury to all parties involved.
on the contrary are routinely commanded to kill a large number of small children and other innocent bystanders by dropping bombs.
While collateral damage happens, especially with air dropped munitions - I have to take offense at the 'routinely' part. Most militaries aren't in the business of dropping bombs on children - indeed, we take pains to avoid that stuff. When opposing forces follow the laws of war, the chances of a bomb being dropped on children is pretty low - schools aren't to be used for military purposes or storage, housing areas are low density targets, etc...
When Saddam and others turn around and use these areas as storage points for equipment and fighters - it gets complicated. Often we decide NOT to hit a target because of civilians. In at least one case we used concrete dummy bombs* to take out vehicles that Saddam had parked next to a school.
but since US soldiers are not allowed to use chemical weapons, I wouldn't make them experience effects of tear gas.
The tear gas thing is more along the lines of a training tool because we have to at least worry about chemical weapons being used on us. Tear gas is much more forgiving than nerve gas in training. Making sure people pay attention to the proper wear of their chemical suits, proper mask seal.
*Talk about expensive. The guidance package is just as expensive whether the payload is HE or concrete. HE's not much more expensive than concrete, at least to militaries. You end up hooking a $200k guidance package to a $20k bomb.
First, my reaction to the UN's declaration was that yes, a Taser can be used as a torture device. So can't a gun, knife, lead pipe, car battery, bamboo splinters, fire, torches, soldering irons, rubber shirts, spoons, etc...
Heck, even bare hands and feet can be used.
Used properly(1), a taser is not only supposed to be a substitute for a gun, it's also a substitute for pepper spray(2), baton(3), and various forms of barehanded submission techniques like beating the subject on the head until he's too disoriented to resist being handcuffed while three or four officers put their weight on him.
As for risk of death - people die suddenly all the time; for reasons that make you go 'huh'. It's kinda like how sex can kill somebody with a heart problem. The trick is, the sex was frequently just the 'last straw'. It could have been the flight of stairs a few days later, that slammed door resulting in a shock and adrenaline burst, or just going to wake up, or even just out of the blue. Heck, nominally healthy people like highschool football players have a nonzero chance of dying of heart attack. A simple hit, merely bruising could dislodge a clot or something and result in a lethal stroke. There's 300 million people in the USA. I can't find the number of arrests other than '800k' for weed. Marijuana arrests are a big chunk, but I don't think that's the majority. Most arrests are non-violent on the other hand. Let's go with 500k-1M physical force arrests - that's enough that you'll have some weird stuff pop up.
At least some tasers have recording devices in them - the police can tell how many shocks were delivered, the length of each, how far apart, etc... In at least one of the cases it WAS used as a torture device - how else can you explain 30 shocks over a 5 minute period? Still, go after that officer for torture, not ban the device. Make sure there's good training as well.
Interesting post by Lawdog on the subject of tasers and force usage.
My conclusion? Taser usage needs to be monitored; should not be used alone, should be used for it's purpose: disrupt the individual enough that other physical controls such as handcuffs can be emplaced. Should definitely not be used as a torture device. As you're using a taser, you should be arresting somebody - have the details of the usage, along with justification, be in the report.
(1)As we've already determined that improper usage can turn more devices into torture implements than can't be. (2)Still a nonzero risk of death; asthma, patients with breathing problems, and pain is longer than necessary (3)You're clubbing the person into submission - risk of death is very real, as is lasting injuries.
It said in the article that the the lawsuit admits that the band knows that Activision has a license to make the cover song.
By the wording in this article, it sounds like the band does control the copyright. In researching I've found out that they've sued about licensing of their music before.
A cover is not the same thing as deliberately contriving to fool the audience into thinking they are hearing the original band performing the song.
So? The company should make sure that when including the song that it doesn't actually sound like the song? What about all the 'scarily good' karaoke singers out there? Do they deserve to be sued? Where's the harm, even if some ignorant consumers mistake the cover song for the real one? Are the romantics afraid that the consumer will run out and by their album because they liked it?
If your cover sounds so much like the original band that a reasonable person would be confused and think that it is the original, then you are copying their likeness. This would be exasperated if you used cartoon avators in the videogame that actually LOOK LIKE the Romantics.
I watched the youtube video of the song, I'd say that the likeness would not be enough to sue - the cartoon players don't wear the same as the romantics - the main player is certainly beefier than any of the romantics. Of course, I understand you can select different characters.
You can't dress up and mimic John Lennon, act like him, sound like him and dance like him and sell music, even if they are your own original songs.
In the USA and much the rest of the world, you can just fine. Or am I somehow mistaken about all the Elvis impersonators?
If you are trying to impersonate his likeness, and people hearing you would assume it was him, and might accidentally pay you money, thinking they are getting John Lennon songs, then you are using his likeness and could be sued by his estate.
If you're not using his name or copyrights/trademarks, representing yourself as him, you're allowed to copy his style all you like.
I am sure the court will be quit lenient and liberal in interpreting what is allowed in a cover. But as far as infringing a likeness... I am not sure there will be much leniency. Likeness rights are like trademarks. If there is evidence that Activision was attempting to exploit the likeness of the romantics then they possibly went too far in law.
Other than how close the song is, the band featured during the song bears only the vaguest likeness to the romantics - the wardrobe is different, the stage arrangement is different from their music video. Resolution in the video I saw for the most part wasn't good enough to see facial features, so you end up with 'skinny white rocker' as the best description. In their music video, the romantics wear suits. In the game, the band looks to be wearing t-shirts. So the similarity is pretty much limited to '4 white guys'.
Activision licensed the song. If the Romantics were so concerned about their identity, they should have insisted on stipulations before signing the contract. I don't count 'the cover song was too good' as a valid complaint.
Anybody truly curious can look up the details of the song - including the fact that it's a cover version in the game. Credit is given.
This is basically what I said in my first post on this thread.;)
The band agreed to a price to get their song in the game. Now they're looking for more money, filing a lawsuit for no good reason.
The injunction against selling is part of the tipoff - that's to cost the company money as punishment. (It would have been cheaper to settle before we did this!).
Still by the Danegeld theory, it's cheaper to fight the occasional fight like this, because if you just pay, you never get rid of the Dane(them, and others like them, keep coming back for more money because you're an easy target).
but a successful defense doesn't necessarily preclude other suits.
Lawyers fees. No matter what, you need a lawyer to at least initiate the paperwork, arrange the settlement, etc... There are a few sharks out there, including a rather famous lawyer who apparently had either a love affair with his pants or a real hatred of a certain immigrant dry cleaners. Though I think he was truly insane, rather than looking for an easy buck.
Anyways - you have to look at it from a risk/profit angle. A company that fights 100% of it's lawsuits(and records will indicate this) will show no profit potential in suing them. Even if you manage to win, getting court costs is unlikely so you're out all that, so your profit margin is reduced. Remember, we're talking about lawsuits based on the thinnest of bases. Things like suing for false advertising and mental anguish when the store sells out of something they placed on sale - even if the ad said 'limited quantities' and laid in 10X the stock, by waiting in the store until they're all gone.
On the other hand, if the company, by policy, settles whenever possible, these people notice that as well. They flock to the easy money.
Devil's advocate here, but if the company was hit by a second suit, would that not give them the impression that defending the suits wasn't going to work...?
They weren't so stupid as to realize that their policy change would work instantly. However, when the number of baseless or trivial lawsuits drops enough in the first fiscal year that they save money, it's easy to justify.
I wasn't talking about 1 lawsuit precluding others, indeed, largish businesses, especially retail, still have to fight a number of these a year. In some cases, thousands of minor lawsuits a year. When they started saying 'take us to court', and vigorously defending themselves, the cases dropped to the dozens, then even lower.
Let's say that the scummy lawyer has been asking for 50% of what it would cost the company to defeat the suit. He gets said money through a couple letters and a meeting. That's quick, easy money. If the company isn't going to fold, he then actually has to file in court, wait for a court date, go before a judge, perhaps a jury, etc... If he doesn't win, he's out all that time and money. He isn't going to bother unless he has reason to believe that he'll make money. The plaintiff doesn't have any to speak of(and is also after profit, if the lawyer says it's a bad case, he's not going to pay to take it to court). The whole point was to get the company to settle out of court - when expenses are cheap. If the company calls it's bluff, then it makes no money.
So the case might show up like this: 100 letters from lawyers show up in a years. If the company folds - that's 100 payouts: cost 50. If they call the bluff on all of them, 90 of the letters go no further(cost.1). 10 go all the way (cost 1 each). Total cost: 19.
Having listened to both versions, besides seeming to have different mixing ratios (guitar was realllly emphasized in hero), I find myself having to ask: What do they need for it to not count as 'too close'? I mean - I'll admit that the main singer in hero was close, but I can tell the differences in side by side.
Having watched some of those karaoke and band shows on the tube* today, I know that there are people who can get scarily close when they imitate some popular bands.
I have no problems believing that a good cover band, selected somewhat selectively to imitate a popular song, being fully capable of 'scary imitation'. IE what else were they expecting? Their number turned into a rap song? For the cover band to suck, for a major production?
A cover band was probably needed as suitably separated/isolated recordings didn't exist for the song, and the band is no longer capable of playing it to their old level. We are talking about an '80s band here, and not one that's kept up either.
*Weird thought: How long until people won't know what that means?
It doesn't have to be 'paid for every copy sold'. Activision and "The Romantics" agreed on a contract. For a sum of money based on a pre-agreed formula, the company was allowed to do a cover song for the game. This sort of stuff is pretty standard, maybe not for a game, but for things like movies, karaoke, remixes, etc...
If I was judge over this case, one of the first things I'd ask if there was some stipulation in the contract as to the quality of the song. If it's not in the contract and they waited until it came out, didn't insist on having editorial control in the contract, too bad.
Normally, I'd support the band against the big company, but in this case it simply sounds like the band is trying to shake the company down for more money. You see, if they asked for too much money in the beginning, Activision would have simply not included that song and gone for a different one.
However, they know that once the game has been produced, the discs pressed and shipped to stores, that it's too late to pull the song without massive expense. So they come up with some bullshit excuse like 'the cover song is too good so it violates our copyright/trademark' I mean 'rights to it's own likeness' is NOT a protected right. They're probably hoping for a out of court settlement.
Personally, if this is the case I hope they get squashed and end up burning what they were paid to have their song in the game to pay their and Activision's lawyers. Of course all this is a reaction based on the story. I reserve the right to change my views if further information turns up that changes the situation.
This is little different than the old scam of finding some reason to sue a company(mental suffering was popular), then carefully asking for a settlement that would be less than what court costs to successfully fight it would be. Many businesses folded, paying to satisfy the accountants until it was pointed out that it was cheaper to fight 1 of these cases than to pay a hundred, which was the case. It's an old principle - you pay the Danegeld, you never got rid of the Dane.
Sounds interesting, but I think that I'd still be a bit scared of it. It's also not applicable in my case - I have no IRA to rollover(work doesn't offer them).
There are shady accountants out there, and one of the IRS's rules is that you're responsible for your taxes(and penalties), not any accountant you hire.
Though if you can show that you acted in good faith, you might be able to sue them.
Slashdot Mirror
If a person is hit by the bullet, the officer is just about always reassigned to desk duty, if not given some paid time off.
In these sorts of situations, being on administrative leave just means that you're not doing your primary job, not that you can go skiing. Think of it as more 'You've been reassigned to be internal affair's latest whipping boy'. IE you spend your time writing a very exhaustive report, being questioned by your boss, your boss's boss, being grilled by IA(with your boss defending you if you're lucky), attending counseling, supplimental training, etc...
Also, nanotechnology is a buzzword. It is not a single material, and as such there really aren't any properties that are consistent among all the many things that are considered nanotechnology
Very good point. The 'public', or average person, can only handle so many risks.
This is fairly easy for something like nuclear power - radiation is pretty much the sole considered risk. They, of course, forget about heavy metal poisoning. Asbestos, smoking? Lung cancer - many will forget about throat cancer, fire, etc...
But for nanomaterials?
There are different risks for things like nanotech lead-acid batteries than nanotech liIon, nano-silicon, nano-fuel cell battery, etc...
In many ways our nanoing everything is simply indicating that we've reached a new level of knowledge - to the point we actually have a clue as to what goes on at those small scales, so we can intelligently design rather than engage in bathtub chemistry or engineering.
I've pictured human progress and understanding of the universe like a man wandering around a vast workshop full of tools - the only problem is that there's no lighting. Before the 1700s, he wandered around blind. In the 1700s he had a match. Eventually that was upgraded to a candle and then a lantern. We're up to a flashlight now. It's not perfect by any means(said shop being the size of a large car factory), but it's still orders of magnitude further than we have been before. The scientific method is represented by adding a notebook & pencil to the man's tools.
Consider all the rational improvements that could be made through genetic improvements: we could increase tendencies to be smart, scientific, responsible, just, good-natured, conscientious, or whatever other characteristics are found to have genetic inputs.
I'd settle for reducing/eliminating genetic causes of stuff like type 1 diabetes, alzheimer's, parkinson's, blindness, and deafness. There's a lot more that are even more damaging, I know, but I'd be going for the 'most bang for the buck', IE go after the most debilitating diseases first - the ones we have good tests for, can detect early in a pregnancy, or easily test embryos for artificial insemination.
Something like Sickle cell should be way down on the list - we'd want to eliminate malaria before we eliminate this, for example.
Only after we take care of this stuff would we want to start fudging around with many of the characteristics you talked about.
AFAIK The health elements of GM seeds have not been fully investigated, nor will they be (no one investigated the health implications of new varieties created conventionally after all) so the potential for problems exists (the BSE crisis in the UK was caused in some degree by modern and more cost effective farming practices after all).
By the same token, couldn't you say that GM seeds have been more far more fully investigated than their conventional cousins?
There have been cases of non-genemod crops having to be pulled due to issues found. At least with GM varieties, they have to rather exhaustively test and justify their mods.
On the topic of nano materials and scientist's fears over them, I think that that's all to the good - those fears will result in testing/research to ensure their safety, making the end situation look to the consumer a lot like Y2K.
Recovery time for movement and cognition seemed to be around a second or two, though nobody just jumped up from it. This may be different in less controlled environments with longer shocks. I don't really know.
Even a second is plenty of time to have most of the cuffing part done.
I'm afraid I don't know when it is appropriate to draw a firearm instead of a taser, though I suspect it is a matter of department policy. I've seen them pull a taser with two officers on the scene on some clips from the TV show Cops. (I don't watch Cops, just random clips. I'm not an officer, and other than taking a concealed handgun class, I have no training. I don't own a handgun, I just took the class out of curiosity.)
Departmental policies aside, I think that a reasonable policy is to have at least two officers on scene if you're going to use a taser - a taser isn't anywhere near 100%. Even a firearm isn't 100%, but all the tasers I've seen are single shot, if you miss or the barbs don't catch, it's no longer useful until you can reload. A gun, even if you miss, should still have more rounds available to try again. Even if you hit, you need somebody to use the taser while somebody else does the physical restraining(cuffing). If a taser fails and you're the sole officer on scene, the suspect can be on you before you can pull your sidearm*.
If nothing else, a firearm usually intimidates suspects into playing quiet; more are willing to risk a taser than a lead projectile.
Personally, I think that any government official should be recordable while in the act of any public duties. And I think it should be a federal law that should be passed.
I broadly agree with you, though I'd place exemptions for classified and privacy act type stuff - we don't have to worry about the office worker quite as much. And allowing people to record stuff like intel analysis doesn't help us.
He also chewed out one of the protesters with a video camera. He wasn't trying to get the guy to stop video taping, he was trying get out of his face while talking to the other guy, and to get out of way so people wouldn't have to walk in the street to get around them.
Which is why I had a clause in my statement - as long as the fellow isn't breaking laws, he's allowed to record. Impeding traffic is a violation. Violating personal space is also another no-no. Most cameras today should have plenty of zoom to get a good picture even 15 feet away. Even without zoom, they should have enough resolution to get facial features - and the wider scope of the picture gives more useful detail. I don't think being able to see somebody's pores would be much of an added value over being able to see the whole person and a good chunk of area around him.
His job (as he saw it) was safety and atmosphere. For safety, he wanted people out of the way so everyone wasn't walking in the road that had vehicle traffic. For atmosphere, (I'm a bit fuzzy on the specifics of this) he didn't want people creating a scene with all of the swearing. I'm curious about the legality of that.
Some areas have 'fighting words' clauses in the laws that basically ban stuff like inciding a riot, words to encourage someobody to attack you, etc... Using profanity is frequently one of the tests -because profanity isn't very useful in convincing people not already sharing your viewpoint. In reality, shutting up the guy spouting profanity probably helped his cause, not detrimented it.
Anyway, it got me thinking about the camera guy. I wonder how many claims of first amendment suppression are really just officers trying to get people out of the way for safety or so they can deal with some other more pressing issue. Obviously there are all sorts of wrongful situations, but I wonder how often it's a "don't tase me bro" guy calling wolf.
I wonder as well, though some of the cases, like the officers who crossed the street to try to stop people recording(and get the video) an incident seemed pret
In my opinion, at least, it doesn't have to win in all categories - just most of them, to the point that the average user/consumer is going to be able to tell that the new OS is 'better'.
Sure, 2000 was slower than NT - but it supported things like USB much better, improved hardware detection, came with more usable features - not just eye candy.
XP by service pack 2 is like an updated 2000 - very good hardware detection, practically seamless usb support, integrated CD/DVD writing software, etc...
It took a little getting used to, but the new start menu was a very nice idea.
Currently the market is saturated and everyone who could use a PC already has one.
Pretty much. It'd be kinda looking at TV market penetration. Maybe a better term would be automobile. Everybody who wants and can afford an automobile already has one, so the only way to sell new automobiles is as upgrades, to replace damaged/worn cars, and population growth. The old sales volume/growth just can't keep up - especially given that computers don't have the orders of magnitude better performance they used to have every three years.
I've been absolutely amazed at some of the old ways some people/businesses did things. Still, it's been ~5 years since I last saw a non-computerized register.
With the advent of HDTVs, gaming consoles have enough capability to act quite functionaly as a home computer. Sure, the programming/accessories haven't quite shown up yet on the standard market, but I can see it happening. Quicken for PS4 anybody?
It's one thing to offer a home/business a new capability. It's almost as good to offer significant better performance. But is the average person going to be willing to spend thousands of dollars for the 'latest and greatest' when they find that the latest isn't actually any greater?
And this really doesn't increase security any if you shower users with 'are you sure' prompts because they become conditioned to just keep clicking 'yes'.
To the point that they click 'yes' when the rootkit comes around. Now if it had some sort of 'rootkit installation detection' and came up with the prompt 'It looks like what you're installing is a rootkit, are you sure you want to install this?', users might actually click no and give their computer person a headsup.
The main annoyance of this nature right now is access - every time I open up a database it has to warn me to be careful and that this database could contain harmful functions - Yet I built that database ON MY OWN MACHINE. It has no scripts that a default office install doesn't put in there. It's just a collection of a few tables and reports. Yet it warns me and makes me click another button - of course I'm going to keep opening stuff up! It asks every time!
Considering that from what I've seen Vista is like chopping 400mhz and half a gig of RAM out of your machine, I don't see many wanting to upgrade any time soon.
Not only that, it drives up the price of an upgrade - my new computer a couple months ago cost $1200 - and I built it myself.
While a pretty good gaming system, it's not top of the line. I could of easily spent $3k building an even better one.
What's my point? A new PS3/XBox 360 is ~$400. Or a third of what my system cost.
What's that mean? While Halo3 will push a number of consoles, the game(or games) would have to be much more compelling to push significant amounts of people to effectivly cripple their system for other games(slower performance) or perform an expensive hardware upgrade.
I mean, $400 today will get you a new good, even outstanding video card. But it won't even come close to getting you a top of the line card. It'd also pay for a very good CPU, or plenty of RAM. But CPU&RAM&Video card? Might as well build a new machine.
This is all before buying the OS.
Don't get me wrong, I really enjoy computer games, but my machine only gets replaced about once every three years - about the only upgrade I ever do is adding more ram. Still, at this point I probably won't be adding more RAM for this machine because I installed a 32bit OS*, so am limited in address space. So we'd be looking at an OS reinstall as well.
I think I'll wait.
*Remeber, 32bit is still faster today than 64bit.
Generally, in my mind at least, if a suspect is engaging in such behavior that police are considering shooting him to prevent harm to others than he's a criminal.
From my understanding, the vast majority of these cases involve people with prior convictions - often parole violations. So yeah, they'd be criminals.
To be honest, now that I think about it it might have been a subliminal thing where I don't mind seeing a violent criminal harmed(IE no doubt that he's bad), especially if it saves innocents, but object when it's a suspect(only suspicion he's bad, even if highly likely).
I was thinking about cases like hostage situations or the guy's shooting at police, where the situation is fairly cut and dried.
Is there some kind of Heisenberg principle at work that makes tasers hurt less when they're monitored?
Yes, it's called 'The cop, being aware that he's in trouble if he abuses the taser, uses it less'.
Oh, now I understand. When you use a taser as a starter motor for your car or to light a cigarette it doesn't cause suffering. It's only when you use them to electrocute people that it constitutes a form of torture.
I think that it's a result of the UN(and many others) defining torture as 'any amount of pain/suffering'. Personally, I think that a certain amount of pain is to be expected when you resist arrest. Heck, life itself involved pain&suffering. As long as the officers don't go out of their way to cause pain/suffering beyond that needed to expeditiously arrest the suspect, it's not torture.
Yes, it can be considered something of a fine line. Still, I do not consider a submission hold, taser strike, even a baton strike in the course of a felony resisting arrest as torture. If they do it during questioning, then it's a different story.
I think that my point would be that there are relatively few dedicated torture devices - we seem to manage just fine with improvised ones. Declaring tasers one of those few dedicated devices is overblown. It has legitimate uses. Sure, if abused it's a torture device - but so isn't many of the things in your average house.
While it can be painful to be tasered, and you aren't able to move while it's happening, the shock doesn't last for long.
The disability tends to last at least a few seconds longer than the shocks; part of the operating procedure should be to hook & stuff the perp in that period.
If a person is violent enough, and an officer is alone enough, 30 shocks over 5 minutes from an officer (or two) trying to keep someone on the ground until more backup arrives is not outside of possibility.
If the officer is alone he/she should not be using the taser. The officer's sidearm is a better choice in such a situation.
It's certainly not 100%. Really dirty cops just moved further into the shadows, but it does mean the mediocre ones are less likely to fall into the wrong things.
I agree, though I also think that states should pass laws that government officials such as police officers(especially uniformed) should have the expectation of being recorded at all times while performing their duties*. IE they CAN'T confiscate or arrest somebody who recorded them while they were being stupid, just for recording them. That ordering them to stop recording is a violation as well - an illegal order.
*Caveat to prevent legalizing tapping of police bathrooms. A lawyer could probably phrase it better.
Do you mean that US military does not drop bombs on strategic targets in urban areas? How have we managed to kill 84 thousand civilians in Iraq if we "take pains to avoid that stuff"?
We take pains to avoid that sort of stuff. The terrorists/insurgents* unfortunately seem to try to take pains to ensure civilian deaths - part of the rules of warfare (as practiced by western civilizations) are NOT to put military assets around civilian ones.
Besides, I can tell that Iraqbodycount is including ALL violent deaths - not just ones by US/coalition forces.
Very first page:
Baghdad: 4 bodies.
Falluja: 2 bodies.
Mosul: roadside bomb kills policeman; 2 bodies -a university student and her mother.
Samarra: car bomb kills 3 policemen.
Hilla: 2 worshippers shot dead outisde mosque.
Tuz Khurmato: body found.
Wajihia: body found.
Are you trying to argue that we're setting car bombs ourselves, having snipers shoot random people, or leaving bodies** out to be found by random people?
Per this page, it's 600 Iraqi civilians in 5 months. At that rate, it's 1440 per year, or more than 58 years to come up to the death toll you cited as though it was all caused by the USA. Given that, it looks like the terrorists are killing Iraqies better than four times as much as the US - even with far fewer resources.
I'm not saying that this is good - but it does show the difference between deliberately targeting civilians and collateral damage. Can collateral deaths be avoided? In my opinion, while more can be done, it would be in substantial cost in manpower, time, effort, and probably casualties - the longer the conflict runs, the more casualties there likely are going to be.
*No, they are NOT necessarily the same.
**Sometimes this happens - we're not able to get to the scene(bomb/artillery fire), the body is from somebody shot from a convoy under attack that wasn't about to stop, etc...
Then you do what you do to police officers who abused their authority/powers before the advent of tasers - you discipline them, fire tehm, even convict them if the offense justifies it.
Should we remove all officer's firearms because a few have used them to commit murder?
When someone is pinned down under 6 police officers but is still trying to wiggle around, it does not warrant the use of a tazer.
You'd rather the suspect asphyxiate? Figure 150 pounds per officer, that's 900 pounds on top. Actually, 150 pounds is light, I could see 1200 pounds easy. Of course, they won't all be on the chest area, but I think you might get the point.
I've seen videos of people resisting. I'm not sure that a taser wouldn't be the lesser injuring option.
A single quick shock - and while the suspect has lost the control of his limbs, grab them and finish putting the cuffs on.
From the deaths I've heard about, they all involved multiple shocks.
A police officer's goal is to make sure nobody, including crime suspects, gets hurt on the scene.
Though the fallback position is that only the criminal gets hurt/killed. Finer than that is generally up to the officer under high pressure having to make a snap decision. There's also the problem that sometimes committing a minor harm early avoids a greater harm later.
By this I mean that a competent felony arrest is over quickly - extending it out only increases the risk of injury to all parties involved.
on the contrary are routinely commanded to kill a large number of small children and other innocent bystanders by dropping bombs.
While collateral damage happens, especially with air dropped munitions - I have to take offense at the 'routinely' part. Most militaries aren't in the business of dropping bombs on children - indeed, we take pains to avoid that stuff. When opposing forces follow the laws of war, the chances of a bomb being dropped on children is pretty low - schools aren't to be used for military purposes or storage, housing areas are low density targets, etc...
When Saddam and others turn around and use these areas as storage points for equipment and fighters - it gets complicated. Often we decide NOT to hit a target because of civilians. In at least one case we used concrete dummy bombs* to take out vehicles that Saddam had parked next to a school.
but since US soldiers are not allowed to use chemical weapons, I wouldn't make them experience effects of tear gas.
The tear gas thing is more along the lines of a training tool because we have to at least worry about chemical weapons being used on us. Tear gas is much more forgiving than nerve gas in training. Making sure people pay attention to the proper wear of their chemical suits, proper mask seal.
*Talk about expensive. The guidance package is just as expensive whether the payload is HE or concrete. HE's not much more expensive than concrete, at least to militaries. You end up hooking a $200k guidance package to a $20k bomb.
First, my reaction to the UN's declaration was that yes, a Taser can be used as a torture device. So can't a gun, knife, lead pipe, car battery, bamboo splinters, fire, torches, soldering irons, rubber shirts, spoons, etc...
Heck, even bare hands and feet can be used.
Used properly(1), a taser is not only supposed to be a substitute for a gun, it's also a substitute for pepper spray(2), baton(3), and various forms of barehanded submission techniques like beating the subject on the head until he's too disoriented to resist being handcuffed while three or four officers put their weight on him.
As for risk of death - people die suddenly all the time; for reasons that make you go 'huh'. It's kinda like how sex can kill somebody with a heart problem. The trick is, the sex was frequently just the 'last straw'. It could have been the flight of stairs a few days later, that slammed door resulting in a shock and adrenaline burst, or just going to wake up, or even just out of the blue. Heck, nominally healthy people like highschool football players have a nonzero chance of dying of heart attack. A simple hit, merely bruising could dislodge a clot or something and result in a lethal stroke. There's 300 million people in the USA. I can't find the number of arrests other than '800k' for weed. Marijuana arrests are a big chunk, but I don't think that's the majority. Most arrests are non-violent on the other hand. Let's go with 500k-1M physical force arrests - that's enough that you'll have some weird stuff pop up.
At least some tasers have recording devices in them - the police can tell how many shocks were delivered, the length of each, how far apart, etc... In at least one of the cases it WAS used as a torture device - how else can you explain 30 shocks over a 5 minute period? Still, go after that officer for torture, not ban the device. Make sure there's good training as well.
Interesting post by Lawdog on the subject of tasers and force usage.
My conclusion? Taser usage needs to be monitored; should not be used alone, should be used for it's purpose: disrupt the individual enough that other physical controls such as handcuffs can be emplaced. Should definitely not be used as a torture device. As you're using a taser, you should be arresting somebody - have the details of the usage, along with justification, be in the report.
(1)As we've already determined that improper usage can turn more devices into torture implements than can't be.
(2)Still a nonzero risk of death; asthma, patients with breathing problems, and pain is longer than necessary
(3)You're clubbing the person into submission - risk of death is very real, as is lasting injuries.
It said in the article that the the lawsuit admits that the band knows that Activision has a license to make the cover song.
By the wording in this article, it sounds like the band does control the copyright. In researching I've found out that they've sued about licensing of their music before.
A cover is not the same thing as deliberately contriving to fool the audience into thinking they are hearing the original band performing the song.
So? The company should make sure that when including the song that it doesn't actually sound like the song? What about all the 'scarily good' karaoke singers out there? Do they deserve to be sued? Where's the harm, even if some ignorant consumers mistake the cover song for the real one? Are the romantics afraid that the consumer will run out and by their album because they liked it?
If your cover sounds so much like the original band that a reasonable person would be confused and think that it is the original, then you are copying their likeness. This would be exasperated if you used cartoon avators in the videogame that actually LOOK LIKE the Romantics.
I watched the youtube video of the song, I'd say that the likeness would not be enough to sue - the cartoon players don't wear the same as the romantics - the main player is certainly beefier than any of the romantics. Of course, I understand you can select different characters.
You can't dress up and mimic John Lennon, act like him, sound like him and dance like him and sell music, even if they are your own original songs.
In the USA and much the rest of the world, you can just fine. Or am I somehow mistaken about all the Elvis impersonators?
If you are trying to impersonate his likeness, and people hearing you would assume it was him, and might accidentally pay you money, thinking they are getting John Lennon songs, then you are using his likeness and could be sued by his estate.
If you're not using his name or copyrights/trademarks, representing yourself as him, you're allowed to copy his style all you like.
I am sure the court will be quit lenient and liberal in interpreting what is allowed in a cover. But as far as infringing a likeness... I am not sure there will be much leniency. Likeness rights are like trademarks. If there is evidence that Activision was attempting to exploit the likeness of the romantics then they possibly went too far in law.
Other than how close the song is, the band featured during the song bears only the vaguest likeness to the romantics - the wardrobe is different, the stage arrangement is different from their music video. Resolution in the video I saw for the most part wasn't good enough to see facial features, so you end up with 'skinny white rocker' as the best description. In their music video, the romantics wear suits. In the game, the band looks to be wearing t-shirts. So the similarity is pretty much limited to '4 white guys'.
Activision licensed the song. If the Romantics were so concerned about their identity, they should have insisted on stipulations before signing the contract. I don't count 'the cover song was too good' as a valid complaint.
Anybody truly curious can look up the details of the song - including the fact that it's a cover version in the game. Credit is given.
This is basically what I said in my first post on this thread. ;)
The band agreed to a price to get their song in the game. Now they're looking for more money, filing a lawsuit for no good reason.
The injunction against selling is part of the tipoff - that's to cost the company money as punishment. (It would have been cheaper to settle before we did this!).
Still by the Danegeld theory, it's cheaper to fight the occasional fight like this, because if you just pay, you never get rid of the Dane(them, and others like them, keep coming back for more money because you're an easy target).
Heh. In this context, we're talking about 'tube' or longer 'boob tube' IE television.
but a successful defense doesn't necessarily preclude other suits.
.1). 10 go all the way (cost 1 each). Total cost: 19.
Lawyers fees. No matter what, you need a lawyer to at least initiate the paperwork, arrange the settlement, etc... There are a few sharks out there, including a rather famous lawyer who apparently had either a love affair with his pants or a real hatred of a certain immigrant dry cleaners. Though I think he was truly insane, rather than looking for an easy buck.
Anyways - you have to look at it from a risk/profit angle. A company that fights 100% of it's lawsuits(and records will indicate this) will show no profit potential in suing them. Even if you manage to win, getting court costs is unlikely so you're out all that, so your profit margin is reduced. Remember, we're talking about lawsuits based on the thinnest of bases. Things like suing for false advertising and mental anguish when the store sells out of something they placed on sale - even if the ad said 'limited quantities' and laid in 10X the stock, by waiting in the store until they're all gone.
On the other hand, if the company, by policy, settles whenever possible, these people notice that as well. They flock to the easy money.
Devil's advocate here, but if the company was hit by a second suit, would that not give them the impression that defending the suits wasn't going to work...?
They weren't so stupid as to realize that their policy change would work instantly. However, when the number of baseless or trivial lawsuits drops enough in the first fiscal year that they save money, it's easy to justify.
I wasn't talking about 1 lawsuit precluding others, indeed, largish businesses, especially retail, still have to fight a number of these a year. In some cases, thousands of minor lawsuits a year. When they started saying 'take us to court', and vigorously defending themselves, the cases dropped to the dozens, then even lower.
Let's say that the scummy lawyer has been asking for 50% of what it would cost the company to defeat the suit. He gets said money through a couple letters and a meeting. That's quick, easy money. If the company isn't going to fold, he then actually has to file in court, wait for a court date, go before a judge, perhaps a jury, etc... If he doesn't win, he's out all that time and money. He isn't going to bother unless he has reason to believe that he'll make money. The plaintiff doesn't have any to speak of(and is also after profit, if the lawyer says it's a bad case, he's not going to pay to take it to court). The whole point was to get the company to settle out of court - when expenses are cheap. If the company calls it's bluff, then it makes no money.
So the case might show up like this: 100 letters from lawyers show up in a years. If the company folds - that's 100 payouts: cost 50. If they call the bluff on all of them, 90 of the letters go no further(cost
Eventually even the letters would dry up.
Having listened to both versions, besides seeming to have different mixing ratios (guitar was realllly emphasized in hero), I find myself having to ask: What do they need for it to not count as 'too close'? I mean - I'll admit that the main singer in hero was close, but I can tell the differences in side by side.
Having watched some of those karaoke and band shows on the tube* today, I know that there are people who can get scarily close when they imitate some popular bands.
I have no problems believing that a good cover band, selected somewhat selectively to imitate a popular song, being fully capable of 'scary imitation'. IE what else were they expecting? Their number turned into a rap song? For the cover band to suck, for a major production?
A cover band was probably needed as suitably separated/isolated recordings didn't exist for the song, and the band is no longer capable of playing it to their old level. We are talking about an '80s band here, and not one that's kept up either.
*Weird thought: How long until people won't know what that means?
It doesn't have to be 'paid for every copy sold'. Activision and "The Romantics" agreed on a contract. For a sum of money based on a pre-agreed formula, the company was allowed to do a cover song for the game. This sort of stuff is pretty standard, maybe not for a game, but for things like movies, karaoke, remixes, etc...
If I was judge over this case, one of the first things I'd ask if there was some stipulation in the contract as to the quality of the song. If it's not in the contract and they waited until it came out, didn't insist on having editorial control in the contract, too bad.
Normally, I'd support the band against the big company, but in this case it simply sounds like the band is trying to shake the company down for more money. You see, if they asked for too much money in the beginning, Activision would have simply not included that song and gone for a different one.
However, they know that once the game has been produced, the discs pressed and shipped to stores, that it's too late to pull the song without massive expense. So they come up with some bullshit excuse like 'the cover song is too good so it violates our copyright/trademark' I mean 'rights to it's own likeness' is NOT a protected right. They're probably hoping for a out of court settlement.
Personally, if this is the case I hope they get squashed and end up burning what they were paid to have their song in the game to pay their and Activision's lawyers. Of course all this is a reaction based on the story. I reserve the right to change my views if further information turns up that changes the situation.
This is little different than the old scam of finding some reason to sue a company(mental suffering was popular), then carefully asking for a settlement that would be less than what court costs to successfully fight it would be. Many businesses folded, paying to satisfy the accountants until it was pointed out that it was cheaper to fight 1 of these cases than to pay a hundred, which was the case. It's an old principle - you pay the Danegeld, you never got rid of the Dane.
Sounds interesting, but I think that I'd still be a bit scared of it. It's also not applicable in my case - I have no IRA to rollover(work doesn't offer them).
There are shady accountants out there, and one of the IRS's rules is that you're responsible for your taxes(and penalties), not any accountant you hire.
Though if you can show that you acted in good faith, you might be able to sue them.