Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
A WHO’S WHO of the music glitterati gathered in New York last night to help the first couple of music, Jay Z and Beyonce, launch the rapper and music mogul’s new music service Tidal.
The streaming platform is set to go head to head with established players like Spotify and Pandora Radio in an increasingly heated market, although having so many gazillionaire megastars behind it at launch will do no harm.
Also, Jay Z and Beyonce succeed at everything they do, so their confidence in their product is fairly understandable.
The service is co-owned by Kanye West, Daft Punk, Alicia Keys, and Madonna among others, all of whom were in attendance. Not content with launching the service, the musicians also signed a declaration heralding ‘a whole new era’.
Other stars who were in attendance at the event included Chris Martin and Rihanna.
Tidal is billing itself as the first service of its kind that’s owned by the artists. Other streaming services, particularly Spotify, have come in for intense criticism for the rather small royalties they pay the artists whose music they’re streaming.
Last year Taylor Swift for example pulled her entire catalogue from Spotify in a row over royalties.
Swift’s music will be available on Tidal, although her most recent release 1989 is nowhere to be found.
How Tidal will address artist compensation is not yet known, although partner Alicia Keys did say at the event that owners ‘believe it’s in everyone’s interest to preserve music’.
It’s twice as expensive as its rivals at €19.99 per month which will make it interesting seeing how it does.
Its chief selling point, other than the celebs endorsing it, is the ‘lossless’ nature of its streams – i.e. all streams are in high fidelity; music streamed off Spotify for example is processed at a far lower level of audio quality - albeit a lower level of sound quality option is available for €9.99.
As to how Tidal works in practice, its interface appears to be very similar to that of Spotify. It’s search engine needs a little work though – Jay Z can only be found on it by putting a hyphen in his name (the rapper officially removed the hyphen in 2013).
Tidal is available in 31 countries at present, with another six to be added by June this year.
Jay Z’s move into streaming was long expected. Earlier this month his company Project Panther Bidco acquired more than 90% of Swedish streaming service Aspiro AB for €50 million.
In the run up to the launch the stars involved had been turning their social media profile pictures blue in solidarity for the project.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
This case showed exactly what is right with due process.. Mr dwyer got his chance to tell his story, was assumed innocent and the prosecution then proved his guilt. Now he’ll rot in jail and everyone knows he did it
Reality is more gruesome than a movie could ever be.
The jury system relies heavily on the assumed ability of the jurors to be able to comprehend complex legal matters that are sometimes crucial to a case.A juror is not obliged to offer any proof of his or hers understanding of such a matter.That could lead and has done in many cases to an ‘incorrect’ verdict.While the appeal system cleans up most of these errors, I wonder if it is time to test jurors for simple comprehension skills rather than let them lose on long costly trials that lead to long costly appeals….etc.It is the best system to have… A jury system ,But it needs to be reviewed.
Claiming to understand reasonable doubt and actually understanding it are two different things.
What parameters would you use to decide that Alan? Sounds to me like the process of jury selection would be so complex as to be unworkable and appeals more likely to succeed due to technicalities concerning juror selection.
Agree completely with you. The selection should at the very least be based on educational standards.I know that sounds elitist and even snobbish. It is not intended to be so.A very good friend of mine took literacy classes about 8/9 years ago.He had served on a jury and there were requirements to ‘read’ some of the evidence in the jury room afterwards.He admitted that he struggled to do so and could not understand half of what he read.Even the ensuing debate among the jurors was double dutch to him in parts.He said he was to embarrassed to admit this. I do not believe his experience to be unique.
I cannot offer a solution,Though I still believe there to be a problem.
This IS a difficult question. However, having an education is not the same as having intelligence or even comprehension. I know several people with degrees, but little real understanding of their subject. A degree gan be obtained with a good memory, or even using memory tricks. In the Elaine O’Hara case, I do think there IS reasonable doubt. The Master/slave relationship is not nearly as uncommon as many people believe. Dolcett or killing, can easilly be a fantasy, but there is a huge difference between having a fantasy as extreme as that, and actually doing it. I think it is a definite possibility that Elaine took her own life, telling Dwyer where, and that he burried her. That doesn’t absolve him from responsibility though, as I do believe it likely that he pushed her in that direction, and failed to report her death.
It doesn’t sound like the concept of reasonable doubt is very complicated at all to be honest.
On the face of it, no. But in practice it becomes exponentially more complex as more and more issues come into play.
I disagree Alan. Reasonable doubt is exactly that, reasonable. It is a subjective concept that a jury of one’s peers is assumed to understand. That is the whole basis of a jury trial. It only becomes complex when one attempts to explain a meaning or definition around it.
Hope he rots in hell
There is no hell. I hope he rots in his head!
It is not the same as a philosophical doubt…but it is often compared to a doubt about making a major decision e.g. marriage..buying a house…..at the very least you must be pretty sure or happy to go ahead.
He looks strange and was into weird sex = guilty
He doesn’t look strange at all to be honest and plenty of people are into weird sex but aren’t murderers.
In cases like these, most people would prefer to wrongfully convict a weirdo than to have weirdo murderer running free. Smoke and fire. Lots of smoke with this weirdo, hence he is almost certainly guilty!
Wish the media didn’t focus on this case as much as it did.
If you understand what a Theory is in the scientific sense, then there should be no problem understanding the premises of reasonable doubt.
It really is actually simple.
That was a good and helpful explanation. Thanks.
have your say