Is It Better To *Require* Or *Request* Something In Return For Free Content?

from the the-debate-goes-on dept

Over at Music Think Tank there's a blog post provocatively titled: Why Music Should Never Be Given Away For "Free", which brings up a point I've heard multiple times from various music industry marketers (many of whom I generally agree with). They say it is okay to give away music without a monetary transaction taking place, but instead you should demand something else in return. In this post, he suggests requiring an email address, a retweet or a Facebook share in order to get free music.

I definitely understand the general rationale for this line of thinking, but I'm afraid that people are going too far with it, and it's actually harming the value of free music in some cases. Obviously, it's great if you can get something (monetarily or not) in exchange for the music, but putting up a barrier can also be harmful. First of all, if it's truly a brand new fan who hasn't heard your work, they might not be willing to commit to you in that way. Especially when it comes to Tweeting or Facebooking an artist. If I don't know the artist, there's no way I'm mentioning them to all of the people who follow me on various social networks. On the flip side, when I do see friends who make those kinds of Tweets, they feel like spam. They're not at all convincing and they don't feel authentic. They feel forced. Honestly, when I see people post social networking messages in exchange for free tracks, it actually makes me less interested in the musical act, because I feel like they need to beg for attention, rather than letting the fans organically give them attention.

Finally, part of the reason the whole "free music" world exploded the way it did was because of the massive simplicity and lack of friction in music sharing, which made music discovery and promotion much more seamless and easy. Putting required friction back into the process seems like a mistake, and will likely just drive fans (or potential fans) either to other artists or back to the same file sharing systems that remove that friction. That doesn't help anyone.

So rather than requiring an explicit exchange, it always seems a hell of a lot more effective to offer the content for free, but ask for the exchange as a voluntary setup: "If you like these songs, tell your friends or sign up for our mailing list" or something like that. This way it's not forced. It's not inauthentic. It's not friction. It's about trusting the listeners, rather than trying to force them to act in a certain way.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    icon
    crade (profile), Jul 8th, 2010 @ 11:10am

    Not all music is worth something to everyone. The basic service that was once covered by radio (and isn't anymore) is to provide new music for free, with no restrictions, in such a way that still enticed people to want to pay and without turning people off by making them feel forced or restricted.
    The general concept of word of mouth promotion of music worked the same way (listening to music at a friend's house). I'm not sure how since they have become obsessed with fighting piracy they decided that these things never played any real role and are not only expendable but actually harmful, but I think they are wrong.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jul 8th, 2010 @ 11:23am

      Re:

      music was never free. when you listen to the radio, you are subject to ads and other things that take away from your attention. if you want the music without ads, you pay for xm or similar. more importantly, for those making music, they are paid when their music is on the air, so nothing is truly free.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        A Dan (profile), Jul 8th, 2010 @ 11:28am

        Re: Re:

        What about public radio? Does that not exist?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        ChurchHatesTucker (profile), Jul 8th, 2010 @ 11:32am

        Re: Re:

        "music was never free. when you listen to the radio, you are subject to ads and other things that take away from your attention. if you want the music without ads, you pay for xm or similar. more importantly, for those making music, they are paid when their music is on the air, so nothing is truly free."

        Why are the children so clueless?

        Yes, there is free music out there. Check Jamendo or Radio Free Hipster. It's a great way to get exposure without any commitments.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        crade (profile), Jul 8th, 2010 @ 11:52am

        Re: Re:

        Those making music did not get paid for having their music on the radio. In fact the reverse was often true.

        The ads if there were any were to support costs of running the radio station, not paid to musicians.

        Of course there are many other forms of free music, but the point I was trying to make is that it felt free to the customers, not that it must actually be free in every sense of the word. Customers will not invest in something blindly. Having the posibility of overhearing an advertisement is not investment. I could potentially see an advertisement anywhere. Forcing someone to do something is an investment.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Gwiz, Jul 8th, 2010 @ 2:03pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Those making music did not get paid for having their music on the radio.

          But the collection agencies (especially in the UK) surely get paid.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Jul 8th, 2010 @ 11:55am

        Re: Re:

        music was never free. when you listen to the radio, you are subject to ads and other things that take away from your attention. if you want the music without ads, you pay for xm or similar. more importantly, for those making music, they are paid when their music is on the air, so nothing is truly free.


        This is an argument that can only exist through the lack of understanding of the nuances of the word "free".

        Something can be free to the producer (costs no money to produce) or free to the consumer (costs no money to listen to) or both.

        The "free" music discussed was clearly in the latter sense. I can turn on the radio and listen without paying anything.

        Your argument is a strawman which hinges on conflating the two meanings. He didn't say the music was free to produce. He said it was free to consume.



        I guess calling for critical thinking is too much to ask for from TAM...

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Jul 8th, 2010 @ 12:02pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          i dont know about tam but for myself, free is free of any requirement. asking people for an email address or making them listen to ads is not free. it is without monetary cost, but it isnt free.

          plus, how did the radio cost you to buy? the power to run it?

          there is a whole lot of free that isnt free, you are just not seeing the costs.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            crade (profile), Jul 8th, 2010 @ 12:08pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            You forgot about the energy you expended reaching over and turning the radio on.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            SomeGuy (profile), Jul 8th, 2010 @ 12:15pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            You've created a tautology; between actual costs, set up costs, costs paid by someone else, time invested, opportunity costs, caloric costs, etc. ad nausiem, yes -- nothing is ever free.

            Absurdism aside, though, that's not what most people think of when they think of "free."

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        DataShade (profile), Jul 8th, 2010 @ 12:17pm

        Re: Re:

        Didn't record labels functionally bribe stations to carry their music back before the internet made distribution costs approach zero?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Jul 8th, 2010 @ 1:59pm

        Re: Re:

        They are paid fractions of a cent and if the collection agency even count the artist, because they are not open only God knows what they do.

        And you be wrong about music not being free, from the perspective of people listening it is free, they don't actually have to pay money if it wasn't nobody would listen.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Richard (profile), Jul 8th, 2010 @ 3:18pm

        Re: Re:

        music was never free. when you listen to the radio, you are subject to ads and other things that take away from your attention. if you want the music without ads, you pay for xm or similar. more importantly, for those making music, they are paid when their music is on the air, so nothing is truly free.

        Never listened to a busker?

        Music is sometimes free - and sometimes it is a negative - ie you would pay to stop it.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      dfx (profile), Jul 8th, 2010 @ 11:55am

      Re:

      agreed.

      However, it's not okay when they want your email for this. They are basically saying - we absolutely will not give you something for free - we require something in return. They take your email (seemingly harmless to the unaware) and sign you up for email solicitations or sell your email to some other company to do exactly that.

      it's not a welcome concept and is a contribution to the mass of spam people get.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        SomeGuy (profile), Jul 8th, 2010 @ 12:17pm

        Re: Re:

        With a robust email filter, or a dummy address, such a "cost" is easily mitigated.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          The Infamous Joe (profile), Jul 8th, 2010 @ 12:53pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Not to mention, if word gets out that so-and-so band spams you with email when you sign up for their music, people will stop signing up for their music.

          The free market naturally solves these things.

          I like the idea of an email address for music. The artist can send a follow-up email after a week asking for feedback, as well as saying that if you like what you heard, please take time to pimp them on the social networking site(s) of the your choice.

          I don't know if it would be sustainable, but who knows?

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    DataShade (profile), Jul 8th, 2010 @ 11:48am

    I once contacted Stephen Notley, the man who makes the webcomic Bob the Angry Flower (http://angryflower.com) for permission to use cropped-down or edited versions of a couple of his strips as icons for message boards etc. His response was to simply say "go ahead! Just tell people where it comes from if they ask =)"

    Which seems pretty reasonable.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 8th, 2010 @ 11:51am

    Music in Jamendo or other free music aren't clearly as good as music by the big records. The only person worth downloading music from is the artist "Brad Sucks". His musics are the best you will find.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Richard (profile), Jul 8th, 2010 @ 3:20pm

      Re:

      Music in Jamendo or other free music aren't clearly as good as music by the big records. The only person worth downloading music from is the artist "Brad Sucks". His musics are the best you will find.

      Not true - really really not true.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jul 8th, 2010 @ 10:45pm

      Re:

      Wait what?

      Brad sucks is the worst of the better artists on jamendo.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      REAPER user, Jul 9th, 2010 @ 3:00pm

      Re:

      "The only person worth downloading music from is the artist "Brad Sucks". His musics are the best you will find."

      You mean the "Brad Sucks" who did the demo track that is bundled with the great REAPER DAW (check it out, musicians and "others") software?

      Brad Sucks RULES!!!!

      In a really, really annoying way.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Jon Ostrow - MicControl, Jul 8th, 2010 @ 11:59am

    Thank You Tech Dirt!

    Thank you Mike for reading my article on Music Think Tank (it was originally a guest post for Tight Mix Blog) and feeling strongly enough about it to write about it here on Tech Dirt! Yes it is a controversial issue, and there are those who will feel that sending out a message it spam - these three options are not meant to be set in stone, rather a jumping off point to find out from the community what is considered to be an acceptable and effective way to take part in a mutually beneficial exchange between artist and fan (or even potential fan for that matter).

    Please feel free to reach out to me via Twitter (@miccontrol) if you have any feed back for me (good or bad) about the article.

    Thank you again for the reference!
    Jon Ostrow

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Hulser (profile), Jul 8th, 2010 @ 12:20pm

      Re: Thank You Tech Dirt!

      Hello Jon. It's nice to see such a polite response to a post that disagreed with your post, but...

      Your comment "these three options are not meant to be set in stone, rather a jumping off point" seems to directly contractict the title of your post: Why Music Should Never Be Given Away For "Free".

      Is this another case where an overzelous editor decided to change your title in the hopes of grabbing more attention?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Jon Ostrow - MicControl, Jul 8th, 2010 @ 12:34pm

        Re: Re: Thank You Tech Dirt!

        No, that title is all my own. Im curious how you think that my comment contradicts the title though? I still completely believe that some form of social currency should be used in exchange for music IF an artist has already made the decision to give their music away for free. But, any maybe this is where there is a misconception, I don't feel that the 3 examples that I gave (email, tweet, FB share) are the only ones out there for people to use. Rather the three examples I offer are simply a jumping off point for people to discuss more effective ways that have been tested and approved. The article as a whole is meant to be a jumping off point. Does that help? Thanks for reaching out!

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          crade (profile), Jul 8th, 2010 @ 12:44pm

          Re: Re: Re: Thank You Tech Dirt!

          What if the form of social currency was simply advertising the music so that people would be enticed to pay to see the band live? Would that work?

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Jon Ostrow - MicControl, Jul 8th, 2010 @ 12:55pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Thank You Tech Dirt!

            @crade social currency and advertising are two different things. the term 'currency' implies an exchange. Though I will point out that the idea for this article stems from my belief that album sales will no longer be the main source of revenue for artists, but will be (and is already in the process of) shifting towards the live performance sector becoming the main revenue driver. The idea of exchanging a track for social currency gives an artist the possibility of having a stronger presence online (tweet or FB ideas) or gives them the ability to reach out to those interested enough to share their email address. In both cases (ideally, as this will not work for everyone) it gives artists the ability to use the increase in long-term engagement and demand to leverage stronger ticket sales. Do artists really believe that if they JUST give their track away, people will eventually become a loyal fan and will attend all of their shows? Absolutely not! Sure some people will not want to give an email address or share a tweet, but those people will likely not become loyal fans anyway so they are irrelevant. This mutual exchange of social currency gives artists a way to seek out fans who are actually interested in their music, and gives them a way to stay in touch with them.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              crade (profile), Jul 8th, 2010 @ 1:22pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Thank You Tech Dirt!

              Unfortunately, I believe your concept of an exchange requires the customer making a blind investment before knowing whether the investment is worthwhile to them or not. I do not think that would work except in the case of previously known artists.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                identicon
                Jon Ostrow - MicControl, Jul 8th, 2010 @ 1:30pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Thank You Tech Dirt!

                Absoultely not! There is nothing blind about this 'investment'. As I mentioned below in response to someone else's comment - we are not talking about streaming, we are talking about giving music away. I am a strong believer that all music should be stream-able FOR FREE, as there is no ownership in streaming music. You should never have to pay (in any sense of the word) to stream music. And as you may notice in the example I used within the article, Bandcamp, who allows you to download a track in exchange for an email address is also giving the listener the opportunity to stream the track IN FULL before decided to make the exchange.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  crade (profile), Jul 8th, 2010 @ 2:07pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Thank You Tech Dirt!

                  Oh, I see, I did not realize you were making such a distinction. I don't think I fully understand it. You are allowing people to listen to music for free, but you don't consider this to be giving it away because there is nothing physical for them to hold? Or because they don't have control over the source? Or is it that there are limited devices that can play streaming music, so you don't want to give for free the ability to move to other devices that don't do that? I don't get it, to me it is still free music, just in a different format.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    identicon
                    Jon Ostrow - MicControl, Jul 8th, 2010 @ 2:40pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Thank You Tech Dirt!

                    I don't consider streaming music to be free because you are not giving the music away, simply letting people listen to it. It is the same principle as the radio. By that logic, anyone who listens to music on the radio should have to pay for it. Format makes no difference - you can listen to the radio in a car, on a walkman, in your house, etc. But there is no ownership exchange and that is truly what is in question here.

                    ... I also just want to thank you for continuing this conversation with me. I wrote the article so that I could talk to people about this and so that others could express their opinions. Its nice having a conversation with someone who doesn't immediately call me a jackass because I have a conflicting opinion.

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    •  
                      icon
                      crade (profile), Jul 8th, 2010 @ 3:00pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Thank You Tech Dirt!

                      I consider the radio to provide me with free music as well. However, the radio is limited in that I cannot choose what to listen to.

                      It's just that the concept of ownership is sort of an abstract concept and not a tangible good to be exchanging for. When you are talking about something that is in infinite supply that you already have unlimited access to, I don't see how "ownership" is anything more than a label. It is like telling me I can eat the cake, but I can't "own it" unless I give you something. It doesn't compute to me :).

                       

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      •  
                        identicon
                        Jon Ostrow - MicControl, Jul 8th, 2010 @ 3:04pm

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Thank You Tech Dirt!

                        Actually its more like test-driving a car. You can drive it all you want, but it ain't yours :-) Unless you have free-will to do whatever you'd like with the track (within reason) it is not yours. I do see your point though, that streaming your music does give you unlimited access, but it is still bound to that streaming player.

                         

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        •  
                          icon
                          crade (profile), Jul 8th, 2010 @ 3:18pm

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Thank You Tech Dirt!

                          If I could really test drive a car and drive it "all I want", then I would definately not own a car.

                          " but it is still bound to that streaming player."
                          Well thats what I was getting at with the limiting to certain devices stuff. The trouble I see with that is that the devices that can adapt to play streaming music. I think we will find as technology advances that the concept of listening vs. copying is a red herring.

                           

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    •  
                      identicon
                      Ac, Jul 9th, 2010 @ 3:38am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Thank You Tech Dirt!

                      "I don't consider streaming music to be free because you are not giving the music away, simply letting people listen to it."


                      You do know that there are many free browser plugins that allow anyone to record and save streaming audio (video versions of these also exist) ???

                      That said, most streams are pretty low quality audio.

                       

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Jul 8th, 2010 @ 2:23pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Thank You Tech Dirt!

              Putting any barrier between the music and fans is just that a barrier it limits the field, for small artists that is a problem, for bigger ones it may not be as word of mouth counteract that barrier.

              Besides is bad security practice to give away any real information over the internet.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              nasch (profile), Jul 9th, 2010 @ 7:55am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Thank You Tech Dirt!

              Sure some people will not want to give an email address or share a tweet, but those people will likely not become loyal fans anyway so they are irrelevant.

              This seems to be unfounded speculation. What is it about this person that makes them unlikely to become a fan? Perhaps they don't like non-personal email and don't want to give a fake address. Maybe they don't use social networking at all.

              If you require something from them they don't want to give, there's no way they'll become a fan. The artist should carefully consider whether that's worth it, when people who are really interested in the band will often sign up for the newsletter anyway, and will tell their friends about it anyway.

              And just so you feel more comfortable: you're such a jackass! ;-)

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Jul 8th, 2010 @ 2:10pm

          Re: Re: Re: Thank You Tech Dirt!

          What grabbing the attention to your product doesn't count anymore?

          Why it needs to be anything else?

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 8th, 2010 @ 12:03pm

    If you *require* anything, it is not free. The price might not be monetary, but there is a price.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      jjmsan (profile), Jul 8th, 2010 @ 12:19pm

      Re:

      Making the same stupid point over and over again does not make it less stupid just boring. For example anything you do requires you invest your time, therefore nothing can be free. So can we please stop the it is not really free because... comments?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Jul 8th, 2010 @ 12:32pm

        Re: Re:

        Fine, how about this one:

        If you have to give anything to the one who has the content, it is not free.

        That is, even if you have to rent your own jet airplane from an unrelated third party to go to the location where you can get the content, but does not have to give anything to the one who has the content, it is still free (but very inconvenient). But if you have to give anything to the one with the content, even if it is just telling your name, it is not free.

        Being less extreme, investing your time, your bandwidth, your electricity, etc, does not make it not free. Investing your time (etc.) in a way specifically prescribed by the one with the content makes it not free.

        But this is taking the argument to the "splitting hairs" point, so I will stop now.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Thomas (profile), Jul 8th, 2010 @ 12:16pm

    A little story

    Someone I know on a social website posted a link to her son's music on a music website I had not heard of before. I went there and listened to the music, and then started to explore the site. It had free streaming, some free downloads, and some radio categories you could stream. I picked a genre and started listening. I thought it was pretty good, right up until I got to the band that limited their song to a 30 second clip unless you signed up with them - giving them your email address. "Screw it." The song started out pretty cool, but if I can't even stream a whole song, forget it. I promptly forgot the band name and the website. There's a lot of music out there wanting to be heard, and you have to give me a little something if you want my business.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Jon Ostrow - MicControl, Jul 8th, 2010 @ 12:38pm

      Re: A little story

      I completely agree with you - streaming should ALWAYS be completely free. Reverbnation does this with their player many of the times and drives me NUTS! My article, however, was referring to those artists who have already decide to GIVE their music away, NOT stream, but give away. Big difference. In that case, there are much better ways of creating a mutually beneficial exchange for music than it is to simply give the music away. Unless you have a large following of loyal fans, giving that music away will be the last you hear from them. However, charging someone for a stream using social currency is just idiotic. You MUST allow people to experience your music before making a decision to listen. You'll notice that the example that I used to change DL for email address is the Bandcamp widget, which allows you to stream the entire song before deciding to download it.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    bob, Jul 8th, 2010 @ 12:24pm

    Well Bubba I Know That One

    *Require* Or *Request*
    *NOT FREE* Or *FREE*
    SIMPLE!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 8th, 2010 @ 4:44pm

    Keep in mind that there are also people like me who stop listening to streams if Video DownloadHelper doesn't successfully capture an MP3 download link within a few seconds of starting the player. (My policy is that it's better to have never heard a track than to be hooked on it and have to decide whether it's worth what the artist is charging... especially since iTunes doesn't work on Linux, Amazon doesn't sell MP3s to Canada, and I'm the epitome of "poor university student"... yes, I've been burned before.)

    The one or two times I actually gave an e-mail rather than just clicking "Close Tab", it was a Mailinator disposable one that I checked once for the download link and then never checked again. I also have a facility for generating self-expiring e-mails on my private domain (mixed in with the permanent ones) to side-step blocks on such services.

    If they're not willing to give me my music for free, there are plenty of other artists who will. (and plenty of sites like ModArchive, FuMP, and OCRemix with either direct download links or DownloadHelper-vulnerable streaming widgets)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Steven Finch, Jul 9th, 2010 @ 1:42pm

    I think with this article you have really hit the nail on the head. Just because there is no monetary transaction, doesnt mean you can put other barriers in the way because users will then not want the free music.

    I think the music industry is really going about this the wrong way. Instead of debating free services, you should focus more efforts on providing great alternatives to Pirating music. The majority of the industry still uses pirate sites and if they can convert the major, then it starts to make a lot more sense (especially in an advertising sense).

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Kumar S, Aug 10th, 2010 @ 1:11pm

    Earning revenue with free digital music

    I suggest the artists should be using some paid per download service to distribute the content online and still make some money out of it. They may also request the users to share the download link on their social profiles in case they like it. This should solve the problem to some extent.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This