OK, the initial costs are actually rather large. But, on the large scale, the costs are lower than physical alternatives, require much less resources to maintain, and have an extremely larger deployment area thanks to the Internet. In short, it may not be exactly zero, but it's very, very, VERY cheap compared with alternatives.
A medium-quality microphone: $100. A good (GNU+)Linux distribution: Almost free if downloaded. A decent computer: Less than $1500. Internet and CDs: Under $20. Using sites like Jamendo, Libre.FM or the Internet Archive to host the songs: Almost free for both sides. Promoting the album: Word-of-mouth is free, ads are really cheap (under $10 per month), and social networking does wonders. All in all, almost anyone can make a successful album with a month's salary. And the cost can be easily recovered (and even multiplied) if those meager costs are crowdfunded beforehand!
If the name Pirate Party rubs them the wrong way, why don't they use an alternate name? The Communist Party did it all the time. What about, let's say, the Kopimi Party?
Fine, more music free to download! But still, there is no word on whether this album will be free to share and remix. Could someone tell me whether Palmer intends to embrace copyleft or not?
What about CCMixter? It's pretty much exactly what he talks about: someone uploads the song (with or without stems), someone else remixes it, and the remix links back to the original stems. It's awesome and I've used it more than once.
CC-BY-SA or it didn't happen for me.
And that's why I try to read works by authors dead before January 1st, 1912 (since the longest copyright term in Earth is life+100 years - better safe than sorry). Or else, works by authors that *continually* use CC-BY-SA or "higher".
If I only knew how to speak Polish, the first thing I'd do would be to translate the books and host them in Wikimedia Commons, then adapt them to my country, then print some and convince some teachers to use it. All thanks to the CC-BY license.
Go figure, yesterday I wrote a blog-post (in Spanish, but I can translate it) about how the public domain has become untrustable: https://azkware.wordpress.com/2012/04/02/por-que-el-dominio-publico-se-ha-vuelto-inconfiable/
As a matter of fact, I offered to translate Your Face Is A Saxophone to Spanish. The subs are ready and the dubs (yes, the dubs!) are in casting phase. If this series weren't free to translate, who knows whether someone would have tried to subtitle it, let alone dub it.
In a way they did think about the children, now the acronym is SUCK.
The problem is that the printable kit is itself nonfree with its noncommercial restriction. I may almost bet the restriction was imposed to prevent the big businesses it's crossing over to raze the project with their sue cannons, but still I consider both sides to be in the same category.
Now that the band is boycotting its usual distribution ways, someone with good knowledge should convince them to switch their music to CC-BY-SA or better.
If it?s not available under 100% your terms, you have the free-and-clear option of not having it.
A well indoctrinated consumer would promptly purchase a cable subscription.
But still... why didn't he purchase an HBO subscription like a moral-compliant person?
Deist, actually. He believed in the concept of a superior entity, it's just that he just thought that religions had a wrong conception of it. Thus his culling of supernatural details off the Bible.
Is common sense dead?
And to think that Richard M. Stallman has been doing that all of his life - and advocating us to do exactly that (no joke, just check his website).
Re: This.
So, does that mean that your copyleft movie is *still* proprietary and privative? And how long must we wait until the songs go into the public domain?