There are two issues here that he mentions in his full blog posts.
1) Comcast did NOT make it very clear that the limit includes uploads as well as downloads.
2) Comcast did not answer his question about what his bandwidth was being used on when he asked after the first time it happened. They didn't even tell him it includes uploads and downloads.
It wasn't until after the second time it happened and he SPECIFICALLY ASKED if it included uploads that they told him it did. He later tried to find the information about the data caps and had a very difficult time doing so.
They want us to pay multiple times again, or perhaps still.
So basically it is a file storage service for music you have already purchased for your own enjoyment that allows you to access said music anywhere for your own enjoyment (yes, it's possible some files some people upload could be pirated).
The music industry wants us, or perhaps Amazon, to pay for it again if you use this service.
It's the same old argument that they lost before about ripping music to MP3 players.
What if I set up my own streaming server at home that did the same thing (just for me and I wouldn't give the password out)?
By their logic I should pay for the music again.
One More Thing (Re: From the Original Article (I wish Techdirt had included this as well).)
I am not advocating piracy or giving away everything for free. DRM or No DRM, localization or no localization, there will still be jerks who refuse to pay for things and pirate, but by selling things at a reasonable price in a reasonable time frame in a convenient manner things will be better in the long run for everyone involved and you will decrease the amount of piracy.
From the Original Article (I wish Techdirt had included this as well).
The last paragraph: "When The Streets and their record label choose to make the Computer and Blues mp3s available for purchase in the US, I will go buy the record legally. Until then, I'm a pirate."
To all saying he should have just bought the CD. I'm sorry but that is not what people want these days, any more than people want horse drawn buggies to get around. Many reasons have already been given for why CDs are not preferred by many, environment, shipping, time, space, etc. Things change and the industry is not adapting.
Also if he had bought the CD, ripped it, then given it away or resold it, it would be worse than what he did now. The only time you can give away or resell a CD is if you are not still keeping a copy of the music for yourself.
There are a lot of comments about the cost of the commercial version, and after reading the full story on Instructables the cynic in me wondered how long until the creator of this improved product is sued by the creator of the original commercial one because of a patent.
It seems ANY burger that size left exposed to open air will not rot. Only thicker burgers with more moisture allow for mold or bacterial growth when left exposed to open air. And conversely even McDonald's Happy Meal burgers will rot if placed in a container where the moisture is trapped. Presumably this also applies to humid environments in general and to other similarly sized burgers.
In other words, as stated in the Gizmodo article, "The scientific method! It's a beautiful thing."
PS. I am in no way endorsing McDonald's food as good/healthy food. I do however endorse the scientific method with controls and the whole bit.