Brilliant article - and I don't really see the bias.
When Napster and similar services allowed people to share music, the RIAA responded by suing people they "caught" doing this, regardless of the obscurity of the tracks.
That strategy was so effective that sharing increased instead of decreasing.
Back then, I asked why the RIAA didn't create a way to download music that one could pay for. It would make life easier.
Apple and others found that way, but even then the RIAA and various labels fought against it. Finally, iTunes and other services came out.
But now music is shifting again. As the article says, we let Pandora stream our mix. I guess I'm old fashioned - I usually like listening to specific songs. I accept, though, that I'm part of a dying breed. Owning music is a rarity. I still love holding onto that album or CD. But streaming or instant music/movie is what people want now. We are indeed users, not fans, listeners, watchers or even patrons. We use and toss.
U2 can afford not to have a big hit album. That means that U2, of all bands, can afford to experiment with new release strategies. Maybe this strategy will work when all the bickering is done, maybe it won't. But either way, it's something new. And other artists should be praising U2 for it - not tearing them apart, like Sharon Osbourne. Because believe me, if she thinks just dropping an album or having a hit song is enough these days, she's way out of touch.