An artist that isn't copied probably isn't much of an artist.
What kind of a answer is that?
I'm sure Apple has figured out how to make a bundle from this... somehow...
Techdirt shows people how to profit despite piracy, not profit from piracy, and that's where your whole argruement fails.
You seem to think the only proper response to piracy is to condemn and rail against it until it goes away, and any other thought is endorsing it, but all Techdirt is saying is accept the fact that it's not going away and figuring out how to deal with it.
I would say that's an option Techdirt proposes, but doesn't insist that all artists follow it. Some could sell their music and not do anything about it being free because of the effort involved. Not all artist are out to maximize sales of recordings. Some get paid in other ways. My local symphony is a great example.
And people can listen to music free if it's on the radio, but most of what I listen to is never played on the radio. And singing in the shower? Maybe if you've heard my music elsewhere you might sing it in the shower. There is still music out there I can only get if I purchase it - usually used so it's not profiting the artist.
Techdirt doesn't insist that an artist offer their music for free. It's always up to the artist (although more likely the publisher which owns the copyright) to choose how they offer their work.
What Techdirt says is that the music will be available for free whether the artist likes it or not, either through file sharing, public libraries, or trading with friends, and the artist must consider how they deal with that. The response initially was to just make it more and more illegal and futilely trying to make it go away, jeopardizing the open nature of the internet in the process. That's what Techdirt is against.
U2 has decided to find someone besides the fans to foot the bill, which is exactly the kind of business model exploration that Techdirt encourages. They've turned to a corporate benefactor the way classical composers once turned to royalty.
Now it's a question of whether Apple spent their money wisely and can this work for other artists in the future.
i.e. It's not censorship until the policy is monopolized.
just say his name three times and he'll appear.
So in New Orleans I can get a pizza delivered to me cheaper than taking a cab to the nearest pizza place. Makes sense.
Because Disney isn't an attention whore?
Aren't you just so cute calling him "dead rodent" instead of Deadmau5? Proud of that one are you?
Last I heard, anyone can buy a domain and put up a website and host a video - even ISIS.
It's not the responsibility of private companies to host every video that's offered to them, and Youtube has some clearly established guidelines about real violence.
The only real free speech question is if ISIS should be allowed to host the video themselves.
I'm in Kansas City and I have 4 choices. Google Fiber, Time Warner, AT&T, and Consolidated Communications.
Except it's a common tactic to bring up terrorism and child porn whenever copyright is mentioned so that people will eventually think that legislation for the former should include the latter too, or as a way to get a measure passed so a politician doesn't look like he supports child porn.
Apple software comes with Apple hardware. That's a pretty good way to protect imaginary property.
or...
"For years, the entertainment industry's dream was that the internet was more like television."
They've effectively banned the Bible by putting it in the reference section.
So the guy that flies in the face of copyright is not going to start playing the trademark game?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Free is in the eye of beholder
Music has zero marginal cost (due to having all I want availabe to me at the public library)
I've been getting plenty of free music since 1985 from the library, and before that I only listened to the radio - more free music.
You talk like music was never free until mp3s were invented, but the music industry has always thrived despite easy access to free music.