Digital Rights, Privacy, and U2 Forcing it's Music on You Too

Digital rights is a fuzzy subject because we always click on the "terms of agreement" without actually reading through the endless pages of legal jargon that seeks to protect the property of the company you are buying from.


In a bold move Apple released U2's new album on every iPhone in the world (as long as you had an active iTunes account, that is). 

I didn't even know about this until just yesterday, and low and behold, U2's new album! 


So, yeah. That happened.


At first I didn't know what to think. Had U2 and Apple invaded my privacy and downloaded stuff onto my phone without my consent? Well, not exactly. Nothing about me or of mine was stolen or used without my consent. The files stay in the cloud until you agree to download it, so technically it wasn't even on my phone. 

 Even so, the prospect of what else the powers that be might be able to do with my phone without my consent is quite frightening, nothing bad happened. Hey, it was free music!

So being the consumer that I am I downloaded it and listened to the album.

I have to congratulate Bono and the rest of U2, because if they set out to create an album packed with nothing but B-sides, they succeeded in flying colors. 

Honestly, it may be one of the worst U2 albums I've ever listened to (and this coming from a U2 fan). Worse, it's simply one of the worst albums I've ever listened to, period. It had two halfway decent songs on it, and that's as nice as I'm going to get with my review of the songs.

Many people are offended that Apple pulled this stunt. I'm not. I find it an interesting use of technology, besides, they all clicked on the terms and services agreement without reading just like I did. Besides, iTunes has always (ALWAYS!) been a pain in the backside. What makes anybody think it would be any different now that they're giving away free music?

I only wish it would have been a better album with better songs.




But I am curious. What are your thoughts? Did Apple have a right to force U2 on you? 

Do you feel your privacy was breached?

Do you agree with Bono's claim that it's just a bunch of Irish guys blood, sweat and tears? Or was he mistaken, and this is the blood, sweat and tears of countless millions crying out into the night, "Nooooo! Not U2 on my play list!"

Or do you just not give a fig?

I'm interested in your thoughts. Feel free to place them in the comments section below. 


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Discussing the Historicity of Jesus with a Christian Agnostic

Image
Steven Jake, the author of the up and coming blog  TheChristian Agnostic , [1]  wrote a rather thorough response to my lengthy comment asking him about the state of the evidence regarding the historical Jesus. I am pleased he took the time to write a thorough response. I only feel that such a thorough response deserves my own more detailed response as my initial comment was merely that—a comment. So without further ado I will address some of Steven Jake’s comments and concerns. Initially Steven Jake (henceforth SJ) posted a quote from New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman claiming that there is an abundance of evidence for a historical Jesus. I merely contested this claim asking for what evidence we have that would be considered historically reliable. As I see it there is none. That doesn’t mean, however, I don’t think there  wasn’t  a historical Jesus, just that we cannot prove if there was or wasn’t and so I remain agnostic as to the historicity of Je...
Read more

Conflating Atheism and Agnosticism is a Mistake

Image
In a discussion over at Bud's blog Dead Logic , a reader asked a question I have been hearing more and more recently. It's a good question, so I thought I would do my part to try and answer it. Doesn't admitting to being an agnostic instead of an atheist FEEL like you're being wishy-washy, or not fully committing to your "belief"? ... I understand that it's only honest to say that we CAN'T be sure, but I sure do hate to show weakness (real or perceived) in an argument. Not at all.  Agnosticism deals with knowledge.  Atheism deals with belief.  The Agnostic position cannot assume whether a thing like a God could exist or not given the lack of sheer evidence for such a things existence. Therefore knowing with any given certainty just isn't possible. The agnostic then makes the claim that a definitive answer with regard to "knowing" of God's existence cannot be given either way. Atheism, however, can state with assurance t...
Read more