scumofsociety said:
Andy Chalk said:
Hang on...that's not what it says at all. Nowhere does the article say "Insurers blame fatal stage collapse on illegal music sharing" They are saying that insurance experts say that concerts in general are larger these days because of file sharing [edit: oh hang on, no they aren't, they say it's because of falling record sales, filesharing isn't mentioned] and therefore if something goes wrong there will be more people in the firing line. Still probably bullshit but really, you are twisting things massively. Again. Booo! Down with your misleading titles! There's some ridiculous spin around here alright.
EDIT: In fact, reading through it again even the shitty, completely quoteless, non sourced original article only mentions falling record sales, nothing about illegal downloading.
Yeah i understood the same too, i guess some nuances were lost in translation *cough* yeah right *cough*
It says the stage crash might not have been caused
just by the storm but because artists need to make bigger live shows, with bigger stages and more stuff on it, the consequences are much more dramatic when something goes wrong.
They don't say the stage crash was caused by piracy, not by any stretch of the imagination.I think it had more to do with the 170km/h winds and rain you know...
"La pluie et le vent ne les detruisent pas plus qu'avant, mais quand elle tombent ca fais beaucoup plus de degats"
Wind and rain don't destroy stages anymore than they used to but when they do fall it makes a lot more damage
Sensationalism much ?
Edit: the source "article" is also crap, it dosen't even report the
numbers right. original article 5 dead, boingboing says 4...what they had trouble translating a number? gimme a break...
Edit2: and the picture of the original article actually comes from Le Figaro, a very right-leaning paper, would you be surprised if for example Fox News said some shit like that ? no huh?