I am a data point. So suck on that!
Or the FBI show up at the suspects houses (well, they aren't actually guilty of anything yet) and start asking questions. I'm sure that would simmer down any plans from the group just knowing that the FBI has them on their radar.
I paid fairly little for the download and purchased the physical disc when it came out. I wonder how many of the 62% went out and bought the physical afterward? Essentially that throws your theory out with the trash.
Yep! Right now the labels dole out the dimes to the artists and keep the dollars. What is the difference to the artist if he gets dimes direct-from-fans or through the sham of a label contract? Unfortunately for your position the artists bypassing the labels are getting those "lost dollars" back.
Great! Now I have to wait 'til the end to find out who double-crossed who. =[
Why should Torontons have to purchase an app that was developed with taxpayer money? Why doesn't the city government embrace common sense? If the vandalism bugs me so much I might as well spend the $3 on paint and do it myself instead of purchasing an app for $2 (iDevice required otherwise, purchase iDevice $200-$600 with ~$2500 two-year voice and data agreement), reporting the vandalism, and waiting 2.5 years for it to be cleaned up.
SO theft is "indispensable to culture", how abut create your own music, not steal others and try to profit from it
Maybe the culture doesn't consider it "theft"...rendering copyright irrelevant...hence the point of Leigh's post.
Actually, I have never heard of The Band until this post. Maybe I have heard one of the songs before but I couldn't identify it.
if it wasn't being used by radio stations to attract listeners to sell ads, etc.
Too bad radio stations didn't pay to play music...Payola...remember that? Not only was the music ad supported but the music itself was an ad for the bands played.
By your logic, Techdirt should only have ads on posts that I have not read. If I have read a post, the ads should go away and never come back.
Just to point you to the contradiction of your philosophy here, you claim that we pay to listen to The Band's songs from the radio by listening to the advert. In fact, every time we hear their songs we listen to the ads which are sometimes the same or different. As The Band stopped creating relevant music, the radio station played them less and less and eventually is no longer 'consumed'. The ad income decreases and sales drop for that particular song/album. Ads on a blog post probably get the most eyeballs the first few hours after posting but tend to fade off after a day and become nearly ignored after a week or two. But every time in the off chance that somebody is searching they check out the post and an ad shows up...just as if the radio station decided to play 'a classic'. It is still ad supported.
Pot...kettle.
Nothing promotes elegance and prestige of a residential bathroom more than the choice to exclusively use a urinal for #1 and a toilet for #2.
Is somebody gonna have to put tape over their tattoos should they vaguely promote some brand or something?
Wait a minute! Did the camera crews of the Olympics start following athletes into the restrooms to go have it out with a rival athlete, sort of like "professional" wrestling?
He typed it and posted it...technically never said it (to you nor I, anyways).
Copyrights are "FOR THE ARTISTS!!!"...dead or alive?..the labels don't care.
The Australian court ruling is lacking, because it fails to explain how to deal with this sort of situation in a way that is meaningful for everyone. Just legally throwing up your arms and saying there is nothing to do is not acceptable.
What ideas have the content industry come up with for stopping piracy? Make the ISP's figure it out!? ISP's are not cops or judges...funny, neither is the content industry? Therefore, their accusations of infringement cannot be taken to have any legal standing and iiNet treated them properly. Great, common sense ruling! Sorry for your butthurt.
Re:
No! You are!
/uber-partisan-playground-name-call-fest