I'm sorry, can you please point out the contradiction more clearly, I re-read both articles and still don't see one.
Why do TD haters/shill apologist closed minded scroats always refer to Mike by his last name?
Labels look back and say 'what could we have done, there is no good technology to help us monetise', but all they have done for the past 10 years is stifle everything that has come along.
Please point out where in the above post Mike complained about anything, arse-hat.
those that have been blessed with more talent than you.
seeing as he's the biggest piracy apologist on the net,
[citation(s) needed]
Reading a paper for free in a waiting room sounds like theft to me.
No, you misunderstood.
The transparency only relates to your clothes when trying to board an aircraft.
Yes, sales of recorded music have dropped. Since its not piracy, it must be something else.
Could it be that the earlier generation have finished replacing their records and tapes with CDs, and no longer need to buy it again? Yes.
Could it be that other parts of the music business, such as live concerts and merchandise are growing? Yes.
Could it be competition from other sources of entertainment such as video games and movies have been growing? Yes.
Could it be that near ubiquity from personalized music streaming like Pandora that play what customers want to hear instead of the same couple dozen songs (radio)? Yes.
Could it just be that so much music these days is shit?
People still enjoy the music, they still value it, they still want it. In fact, they want more and more of it, people have huge music collections that would have been unthinkable even 10 years ago.
You hit the nail on the head - it is the people that put the value on music. Not the greedy shysters in their corporate lairs.
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't copyright about the expression, not the idea?
Having to pay for a lawyer and waste your own time when you did nothing wrong is rubbish though.
The argument shouldn't be that distribution over the internet is zero, but it is certainly negligible.
One server as you described could host 100,000s of songs and 'send' them to millions of people every year. Certainly magnitudes cheaper than sending a CD to each and every person who orders one..
Interesting thought..
If your computer has a virus and you send an email containing the virus are you infringing on the programmers copyrights?
You've used the wrong numbers..
1 x 40,036,695,896* = 40,036,695,896
1,000,000 x 40,036,695,896* = total cost of copyright infringement in the US EVERY DAY!
*this number must be correct as I plucked it out of thin air.
I have to say that I believe the first guy who got 9 free dollars for ever dollar put in the machine should not have been arrested
I agree. How was he to know it wasn't the expected behaviour of the machine? It's not his responsibility to ensure the machine is behaving sanely, just to put his money in and maybe get some out.
I can imagine six digital things a day.
Go!
Re: Re: Fair Use
There is no "presumption of infringement" just because a copyright holder says so.
LOL!