1. kickstarter for the project before you release
2. liciencing (including the money megaupload paid per download)
4. sponsorship (after you build your brand)
5. custom gigs (ala dan bull write a song for you)
6. shout out (as in buy my song and i will put your name in my next thank you song-- again ala dan bull)
reverse the transaction
use the current piracy as a promo for your next KICKSTARTER campaign
an how many of those people had not heard radio head and simple gave them a try because the content is free.
you might want to read the statement you are responding too
I truly believe most fans will support the artists they like.
people who haven't decided if they like the band yet are not fans.
They won't be fans until the next album.
Oh and btw radio head now has all those people on their mailing list.
And they made more money selling those new fans tickets/merchandise/old albums/ pushing them to their youtube videos and collecting ad payments/ then they would have made selling them the album at full price given the standard record deals.
fair use allows you to use copyright material WITHOUT the permission of the copyright holder. It the trade off every copyright holder agrees to when they were granted the monopoly rights to CONTROL how their content is distributed in every OTHER case.
Your own argument about not using copyright material EXPLICITLY take away that right away from the public.
"contextual wrapping the "licence" within the scope of providing the service advertised would also allow them do what they need to do to provide the service, without taking more rights than they actually need."
Google over stepped the bounds with their blanket auto licencing
drop box didn't
You argued they "need" to have that "blanket" licence
which is of course patently false
they only need to have a licence for the scope of the service ("again, only to provide the Services")
really then why doesn't competing cloud drive services don't have the exact same wording.
"Your Stuff & Your Privacy: By using our Services you provide us with information, files, and folders that you submit to Dropbox (together, "your stuff"). You retain full ownership to your stuff. We don't claim any ownership to any of it. These Terms do not grant us any rights to your stuff or intellectual property except for the limited rights that are needed to run the Services, as explained below."
Your Content: Except for material that we license to you, we don't claim ownership of the content you provide on the service. Your content remains your content. We also don't control, verify, or endorse the content that you and others make available on the service."
contextual wrapping the "licence" within the scope of providing the service advertised would also allow them do what they need to do to provide the service, without taking more rights than they actually need.