"Bono calls for control over internet downloads"

[Niceman]

Bono should be spending his time talking about music, and let's leave it at that for a bit.....

 

[BVS]

Part of what has been suggested is that ISP's pay copyright holders a tariff which the ISP's will no doubt pass on to the customer. As someone who does not download music, why should I have to pay a tariff for internet access because the music industry fucked up their initial response to .

Well you can create higher end packages for those that do download a lot.

I keep hearing this "because the music industry fucked up their initial response", that makes no sense. How would any response thwart the downloading of "free music" especially when so many like yourself don't even see it as stealing.

Bono's a rich rock star who made his money under the old system. Am I particularly bothered that the next generation of musicians might not be so rich, not really. The idea of copyright is a relatively new concept and for almost the total span of human history musicians were paid for performance. Not for the first time Bono is talking out of his increasingly large arse.

Well it's not even that they might not be "as rich" it's that we'll lose a whole generation of studio musicians and never have another Cole Porter again.

When you go to a movie theater you pay the same price for the multi-million dollar blockbuster as you do low budget film. And what about books? They're just words, why pay for them? It's a fucked up way of thinking, that this entitled generation has...

 

[popshopper]

Well you can create higher end packages for those that do download a lot.

I keep hearing this "because the music industry fucked up their initial response", that makes no sense. How would any response thwart the downloading of "free music" especially when so many like yourself don't even see it as stealing.




Well it's not even that they might not be "as rich" it's that we'll lose a whole generation of studio musicians and never have another Cole Porter again.

When you go to a movie theater you pay the same price for the multi-million dollar blockbuster as you do low budget film. And what about books? They're just words, why pay for them? It's a fucked up way of thinking, that this entitled generation has...

I use a lot of bandwidth, whether it be to download legal free or paid for content. Why should I have to pay twice, or at all for content I don't receive. Why should an artist get paid because someone somewhere has an internet connection which is merely capable of downloading music or films, and why should that person have to pay extra for something which is fundamentally the fault of the content providers themselves. Like it or not they've failed to protect their content adequately (not that they haven't tried, now they're simply trying to pass the buck to ISP)

Any system based on bandwidth use is a blunt instrument and ultimately unfair.

So what if we don't get another Cole Porter? Or U2? They're vestiges of a system which is on it's last legs, and here's the rub it's hardly been around for a century. People have been making music for thousands of years before copyright. It's getting cheaper and cheaper to record and distribute music, so what if the economies of scale are different, and producing music may not be the gateway to becoming a multi-millionaire?

 

[Jeannieco]

Bono is being skewered over on Twitter about this. He is a trending topic.

People can be so vile. Whatever.

 

[U2girl]

It's far too early to come to any conclusive opinion about the downloading/file-sharing phenomenon (indeed, it's also too early to come to any final opinion about the effects of digital information & computers, since they've only been popular for 25 years).

One thing about the spread of computer-geeks, the Internet, and file sharing --- they have collectively shown that, in the digital-info era, bottom-up movements (starting from the people) are going to be more powerful than top-down initiatives of governments. This underscores how governments are completely incapable of meeting the world's environmental needs, as if the Copenhagen farce was needed to drive that point home.

At some point, I have to assume that governments will find a way to charge people for digital forms of entertainment, but in the meantime I doubt it hurts the small artists much. I disagree with Bono here. Smaller, independently-signed artists who have no top 100 singles, no appearances on television, and no radio play are not really worried about people downloading their music. They make their money from live appearances.

I was initially hopeful -- about 6 or 7 years ago -- that the downloading revolution would...er, revolutionize live performance, by putting the onus back on the ability to perform live, since that domain is the one aspect of major-label music that cannot be downloaded. However, the continued proliferation of 'American Idol' type pseudo-music vile trash has proven me wrong (so far).

I predict that at some point soon, a new phenomenon will emerge of local artists, who travel no further than their own counties, performing live and only performing live. The very idea of making records and promoting them will become associated only with the corporate world and will be discredited by college/indie-rock fans. The "cool" groups of the future will play live and make no records.

Sorry, didn't mean to come across all William S. Burroughs on your asses.

The future may well be bands putting the music on their site for free, and making all their money on live shows. (very few artists will still make money on albums)

But until then ?

The "industry needs to adapt" line is thrown around frequently, but how exactly do they compete with something as quickly and freely accessible as internet music ? People do not want to pay for something they can get for free, clearly.

An internet (acess) tax is one of the more plausible ideas. Think of it like paying a reasonble amount extra to get extra service (such as certain TV programmes, for example).

 

[Niceman]

An internet tax is NOT plausible. As bandwidth gets cheaper and cheaper that would become more and more ridiculous.

Yes, in the future the money in music will be from performances. Is that a bad thing? The record companies get cut out of the equation..... One hit wonders won't make any money. A band will have to make you care enough to buy a fancy deluxe edition or go and see them or they won't get a dime. is that a bad thing????

 

[U2girl]

We'll see...it's one possibility.

Live performances can get taped and leaked on the internet too, and tours may not be financially a good idea in times of recession like now.

 

[popshopper]

The future may well be bands putting the music on their site for free, and making all their money on live shows. (very few artists will still make money on albums)

But until then ?

The "industry needs to adapt" line is thrown around frequently, but how exactly do they compete with something as quickly and freely accessible as internet music ? People do not want to pay for something they can get for free, clearly.

An internet (acess) tax is one of the more plausible ideas. Think of it like paying a reasonble amount extra to get extra service (such as certain TV programmes, for example).

Why should a tax be levied for distribution to a profit making non-governmental companies? Or even a tax in name?

Should we raise a tax to support every industry whose business model is outdated?

Again unless they give access to content, I fail to see what the general public (you know the ones who largely don't illegally download) would be actually be paying for? Edge's new yacht?

 

[MikeyJB]

Sometimes I really think Bono does not help himself at all.

 

[BVS]

which is fundamentally the fault of the content providers themselves. Like it or not they've failed to protect their content adequately

I don't know what you do for a living but if someone came up with a means to take your service or product without pay then it's your fault?

Software is going to be next... Maybe once Microsoft begins feeling the hit they'll come up with something.

 

[partygirl43]

I think Bono was pretty smart about it, he didn't talk specifically about downloading music he's talking about intellectual property in general. Trust me when this starts effecting the movie industry or software companies, you'll all be joining Bono because you'll know your job is at stake next. Soon a big portion of your jobs will have an element of intellectual property and if you aren't proactive you'll be seeing your industries change drastically.

This is interesting....he's still trying to cover his a##. I read over on (gawker.com) that Bono own quite a bit of intellectual property---mainly Irish intellectual property.

I think its a losing proposition---he should just STFU on this one. There's no way to NOT look like the whiny rich rock star.

 

[last unicorn]

Bono should be spending his time talking about music, and let's leave it at that for a bit.....

Actually, this issue is about music.

I'm an author, I care for copyright issues as well, I think I have the right to take part in a discussion about how artistic content is handled in the times of the internet because it affects me and my work as an artist as well.

Sometimes I really think Bono does not help himself at all.

I'm sure he's not doing it to "help himself". He's just making use of his freedom of opinion and this is his opinion and it seems to be an opinion widely considered unpopular. I accept it, I don't have to agree with it.

 

[last unicorn]

Bono is being skewered over on Twitter about this. He is a trending topic.

People can be so vile. Whatever.

You're still surprised about Bono getting bashed whenever he opens his mouth or choses to right a piece? You shouldn't be. I'm not reading any comments on this, I have my own opinion and I don't need to be convinced that many people out there hate him and U2. Do I feel bothered by it? No. I accept that this is his opinion and he has every right to articulate it, just like anyone else has every right to disagree with him (or anyone else they chose).

I'm neither surprised nor bothered by Bono speaking out on this issue. He made his position clear quite a long time ago and I don't expect it to change. I don't need to agree with everything he (or anyone in my favourite band) is saying or doing.

 

[coolian2]

to a degree i can totally agree with bono. certainly in regards to the younger artists who need every sale.

the problem with the music industry in particular is they've never been able to grasp how to maximise the advantages of the internet. they also aren't helped by the lingering ill-will directed towards them for how they first handled music and the digital age.

 

[Jeannieco]

You're still surprised about Bono getting bashed whenever he opens his mouth or choses to right a piece? You shouldn't be. I'm not reading any comments on this, I have my own opinion and I don't need to be convinced that many people out there hate him and U2. Do I feel bothered by it? No. I accept that this is his opinion and he has every right to articulate it, just like anyone else has every right to disagree with him (or anyone else they chose).

I'm neither surprised nor bothered by Bono speaking out on this issue. He made his position clear quite a long time ago and I don't expect it to change. I don't need to agree with everything he (or anyone in my favourite band) is saying or doing.

Wow, why so defensive? No I am not surprised that Bono gets bashed everytime he opens his mouth. All I have to do is come here and see that.

I was just making a comment that he was being attacked specifically on Twitter and I found the few comments that I saw to be incredibly vile. My opinion was on the bashing, not what Bono said.

Did I say people didn't have the right to express themselves? No.

I also have the right to express or defend ( which I did not ) my views. I was just making an observation. Geez.

 

[Jimmy Jazz]

Anyone who disses Bono on this is obviously missing the point, I think he puts his case forward extremly well and using the 'China' example is very smart. If the technology can be used for something so evil it can also be used for something that is good.

I think using China an example just shows exactly why the kind internet control he's talking about shouldn't be done.

If it was a perfect world and there was no chance of this kind of monitoring being used for more sinister purposes or excessive punishment of people who don't deserve it, then I might take Bono's side. But it's not a perfect world. I'd rather not have ISPs tracking every little thing I download.

I think downloading albums that can easily be purchased is wrong. But plenty of bands don't mind their live shows being downloaded for free. I'd be willing to bet ISPs and the music industry would think differently though - where do you draw the line?

All you need to do is look at stuff that's already happened, like this article - an ordinary woman who now owes almost 2 million dollars to the RIAA for sharing 24 songs.

With ISPs tracking and reporting people for downloading music, this kind of stuff would be rampant. Do you really want to end up being sued for millions of dollars because, for instance, your kid used your computer to download a Britney Spears album without you knowing it?

 

[purpleoscar]

It's obvious that companies haven't figured out how to use the internet yet. I always buy what I like when I download it and delete what I don't like. I spend plenty on CDs but I like to make sure that I like it and not rely on hype. There's nothing worse than plunking 20 bucks on something and find out it only has 1 good song on it. iTunes was a step forward but I think premium sound is necessary to go farther:

Can Dr. Dre and Jimmy Iovine Rescue Sound? How Interscope Is Rethinking the Record Business : Rolling Stone : Rock and Roll Daily

“There’s two things happening at once, it’s very important that we fix digital sound,” Iovine tells Rolling Stone of the state of the record biz. “Digital sound is damaging music, it’s damaging the artists. It’s so degrading. We’re the first industry to ever downgrade the quality of our product. It’s crazy. You go from a master [recording] to a CD quality, which is somewhat downgrading in the first place. Then you go to a computer where these gigantic companies spend 50 cents on the sound [for each unit]. Then you rip it onto an MP3. It’s like taking the Beatles remasters and playing them through a portable television.”

Also I like what Naxos does with their website. I can log on from the library website and listen to albums fully (no 30 sec BS clips) and I've bought many CDs that way. Classical music in particular has many artists making the same music over and over again and I want to compare the best recordings and have been able to via the internet. I want to be able to hear something (not underpressue in a store) to see if I like it before I buy it. I also want better sound quality and I'm willing to pay MORE for the original master sound quality.

It's true that something has to be done with IPs but trying before you buy in a convenient way I think will still be key.

 

[BVS]

I think using China an example just shows exactly why the kind internet control he's talking about shouldn't be done.

You're still blowing his China example out of proportion and not getting his point. He's not saying anything about controling content, he's just saying that the technology is obviously there to monitor...

 

[BVS]

I keep hearing this "because the music industry fucked up their initial response", that makes no sense. How would any response thwart the downloading of "free music" especially when so many like yourself don't even see it as stealing.

So how come no one ever answers this? Yet it comes up as an excuse all the time... How is this the industry's fault?

 

[Jimmy Jazz]

You're still blowing his China example out of proportion and not getting his point. He's not saying anything about controling content, he's just saying that the technology is obviously there to monitor...

Oh ok, don't worry everybody - Bono doesn't want you to be controlled - just monitored 24/7.

 

[BVS]

Oh ok, don't worry everybody - Bono doesn't want you to be controlled - just monitored 24/7.

Well first of all, you already are... Sicy knows exactly where you are.

Secondly that's always been the case with intellectual property. Why should music be treated any differently then what you do for a living?

 

[Jimmy Jazz]

Well first of all, you already are... Sicy knows exactly where you are.

Secondly that's always been the case with intellectual property. Why should music be treated any differently then what you do for a living?

I just don't like the idea of the internet being monitored by any entity to stop people from downloading music illegally. It would be like if in order to stop shoplifting, the government put cameras in everybody's homes.

It's a tricky situation and I don't think there's any right answer yet. As far as Bono goes, I think he means well but it's disappointing to see him putting more faith in corporations then he does average people. It may not be that extreme, but anything that brings us a step closer to living in an Orwellian society is a bad thing in my book.

 

[Niceman]

Actually, this issue is about music.

I'm an author, I care for copyright issues as well, I think I have the right to take part in a discussion about how artistic content is handled in the times of the internet because it affects me and my work as an artist as well.

I'm sure he's not doing it to "help himself". He's just making use of his freedom of opinion and this is his opinion and it seems to be an opinion widely considered unpopular. I accept it, I don't have to agree with it.

No, it isn't about music. It's about the music business. The distinction is important.

There is no reasonable way in a free society to prevent file sharing, and there won't be. Going forward musicians will make their money from merchandising and performing, and whining about that will not change anything.

I'm an author too! I just hope ink and paper stay expensive, because downloading texts is not the same experience as reading a book. But the effect doesn't change the fact that file sharing has started and will only get easier. There is no way to stop it in a free society. All Bono does here is make himself look like a rich man complaining he isn't getting enough money. A big blunder in my opinion..... Didn't he just get in trouble for saying radio stations should have to pay to play songs?????

 

[U2387]

I just don't like the idea of the internet being monitored by any entity to stop people from downloading music illegally. It would be like if in order to stop shoplifting, the government put cameras in everybody's homes.

It's a tricky situation and I don't think there's any right answer yet. As far as Bono goes, I think he means well but it's disappointing to see him putting more faith in corporations then he does average people. It may not be that extreme, but anything that brings us a step closer to living in an Orwellian society is a bad thing in my book.

This has nothing to do with an Orwellian society or monitoring the browsing habits of particular individuals. It has to do with monitoring websites. If a website that is known to make music available for download w/o compensating the artist springs up, then it would be looked into, made to comply or be shut down. The government has always been involved in regulating the internet to some extent... how do you think you are able to make secure online purchases via credit card?? There is no legal compliance that must be met by the ISP and the owner of the domain there? Of course there is, security compliance, credit card company regulation, etc.

It is amazing what people like Popshopper assume from one article. Where did Bono ever talk about a tax applied to everyone? Where did he talk about installing some kind of back door in your computer where the government can monitor every little thing you do? This can be done in a relatively simple, non intrusive way. If the site does not compensate the artist, shut them down. How that would work from a technical standpoint, I am not sure, but it can be done.

Just like proposals in the US to verify, via credit card, that you are 18 to access a pornography site. Child porn sites in the US, as Bono states, have been aggressively monitored and shut down.

We have been monitoring internet sites for years, as it is used by a small minority of people to extend the criminal activity that takes place in the non digital world. We have experts at the FBI, CIA, etc whose only job is to focus on cyber crime.

This does not mean we live in an Orwellian society where the govt can see everything we do, but it does mean that, just like when we are out in the real world, we will get noticed if we are up to no good. Try a little experiment: look up "how to make a bomb," then look up how to inflict mass casualties, then look up how to assassinate, then look up flight schools, then look up the Sears tower, Lincoln Tunnel, US Capital and The White House, then download aerial photos of Pres Obama's homes. See how quick you get a visit from the feds, and a business card reading "J Cheever Loophole, criminal defense."

In other words, you will only bring scrutiny upon your ISP to in turn give you up as the user if you are doing something you shouldn't be doing online.

 

[digitize]

I have to disagree with Bono on bandwidth being the issue as much as accessibility... with MP3 being the de facto standard for digital audio, it takes very little technical skill or knowledge to download an entire band's discography in one day. However, there are no real de facto standards for movie downloading, and most formats will cause some sort of quality loss, and it generally takes a lot more knowledge to deal with downloading movies. People will say "screw it" because of that and just subscribe to Netflix.

Software has another issue... that issue being that few people actually need to download software illegally, save for the 1% of the population that are very nerdy (such as myself), are willing to deal with BitTorrent and pirated software, and have a need for more than what is installed by OEMs.

 

[U2387]

I use a lot of bandwidth, whether it be to download legal free or paid for content. Why should I have to pay twice, or at all for content I don't receive. Why should an artist get paid because someone somewhere has an internet connection which is merely capable of downloading music or films, and why should that person have to pay extra for something which is fundamentally the fault of the content providers themselves. Like it or not they've failed to protect their content adequately (not that they haven't tried, now they're simply trying to pass the buck to ISP)

Any system based on bandwidth use is a blunt instrument and ultimately unfair.

So what if we don't get another Cole Porter? Or U2? They're vestiges of a system which is on it's last legs, and here's the rub it's hardly been around for a century. People have been making music for thousands of years before copyright. It's getting cheaper and cheaper to record and distribute music, so what if the economies of scale are different, and producing music may not be the gateway to becoming a multi-millionaire?

Where did Bono suggest a tax? Just because some companies have made this ISP tax proposal does not mean the U2 are on board. Many times, people want to accomplish a goal and disagree on the particulars of the method.

Plus, taxing the Internet has proven to be a complete non starter among all ideological groups in the US. In other words, it is going nowhere.

 

[CTU2fan]

You guys are pretty funny. Bono's an ass because he'd like to see the curtailing of theft of his and other artists' work. Bono's wrong, and if it leads to any internet control/monitoring by the gov't or my ISP I'm going to be pissed. Well guess what? If it happens, focus your anger where it belongs...at the theives who've abused the net with file sharing.

Personally, I d/l like crazy. Music, TV shows, DVD's, pre-release DVD screeners...my modem's smoking 24/7. But I'm 100% wrong for doing it, and I freely admit that. For people to complain as if Bono or Lars Ulrich or Elton John (wasn't it Sir Elton who wanted the internet closed?) are wrong about this is silly. Their work is being stolen, and they'd like something done about it. So "the industry needs to adapt"? What if that adaptation turns out to be getting together with Hollywood, Microsoft, and Apple (lord knows Jobs squeezes each nickel 'til the buffalo shits) and pushes for the monitoring, taxation, or pay-by-the-bandwidth ideas that get kicked around?

BVS is 100% correct. It's all about entitlement, and it's pathetic.

 

[U2387]

An internet tax is NOT plausible. As bandwidth gets cheaper and cheaper that would become more and more ridiculous.

Yes, in the future the money in music will be from performances. Is that a bad thing? The record companies get cut out of the equation..... One hit wonders won't make any money. A band will have to make you care enough to buy a fancy deluxe edition or go and see them or they won't get a dime. is that a bad thing????

I agree, an internet tax is not plausible. Take note, everyone who is putting this idea in Bono's mouth, Niceman says its not plausible, Congress says it is not plausible, everyone agrees, and we can stop accusing Bono of advocating it!

I would like to agree with what you say about live performances, but I can not. First, the live music industry has taken a major hit right along with the record industry. Even when I started working security in Boston in 2006, a great night for a band was a sell out of our 20,000 capacity shed for one night. Now a great night is 11-14,000. The smaller venues where the up and comers go, in 2006, I would be there 5 nights per week, now I am lucky if it is 2. The 3K seat Orpheum Theatre, The 5K seat outdoor tent, used to sell out at least 10 gigs per season, now its 1 or 2 max, and these are the older acts like John Fogerty.

The only acts that seem to do really well(aside from U2, McCartney, Bruce or The Stones or Madonna of course) are acts that the record companies are promoting the shit out of now. The acts you hear on the radio. Coldplay, Lady GaGa, Jonas Brothers, Taylor Swift, Kings of Leon, Jay Z.

So, with very little knowledge of how the industry works conceded, I still have to say that its the acts that are being promoted like crazy by the record companies, plus played on the airwaves, that are selling tickets. It seems you still need these mediums to get noticed enough for people to think about shelling out money to see you live.

As for the record companies failing to adapt, I agree with BVS. Just because they failed means that U2 or others should not be compensated for their work?? I am definitely the least tech-savvy 22 yr old in the world, but couldn't the record companies each figure out an i-tunes like way of both putting music out digitally and compensating the artist?? I say find a way to translate current laws and principles into the digital world, and U2 and others can push the record companies to do this. Light a fire under their ass, U2 has some leverage given the deals McGuiness has worked out, even with record companies. They own and control everything, very few bands have worked out the same. This may be why U2 feel they are obligated to speak out on this issue, they can tell the record companies to go jump in a lake whereas with most bands, it is the other way around. You can be sure if more bands were, from a business standpoint, in a position to speak their minds about this issue, than they would.

Its a case of U2 and Bono once again getting bashed for being good, smart businesspeople and not dumb ass, drug addicted 5 or 10 years lasting rock stars.

 

[ozeeko]

My view is simple:

Artists SHOULD get paid for what they create. Call me oldfashioned, but before the days of limewire i was perfectly fine with going to the record store and buying an album. Hell, i still do that, unless it's something i can't find anyway, which then i hit up Amazon.

Do i download a lot of music illegally? Yes, i do. But if it was all stopped, it wouldn't ruin my life. I'd just go back to what i was doing originally.

So i definitely agree with Bono on this one.

How will it all be stopped? Got me...i'm not as computer savvy as the majority of you guys on here, but I am a songwriter who, if i was to record an album, would like to get paid for it. I'm not in it for the money, but that doesn't mean i'm a starving artist either. You need money. Gotta keep the baby mamas in juicy couture. N'am sayin'??

 

[Niceman]

I agree, an internet tax is not plausible. Take note, everyone who is putting this idea in Bono's mouth, Niceman says its not plausible, Congress says it is not plausible, everyone agrees, and we can stop accusing Bono of advocating it!

Haha! Well, that should be the end of it!

I would like to agree with what you say about live performances, but I can not. First, the live music industry has taken a major hit right along with the record industry. Even when I started working security in Boston in 2006, a great night for a band was a sell out of our 20,000 capacity shed for one night. Now a great night is 11-14,000. The smaller venues where the up and comers go, in 2006, I would be there 5 nights per week, now I am lucky if it is 2. The 3K seat Orpheum Theatre, The 5K seat outdoor tent, used to sell out at least 10 gigs per season, now its 1 or 2 max, and these are the older acts like John Fogerty.

The only acts that seem to do really well(aside from U2, McCartney, Bruce or The Stones or Madonna of course) are acts that the record companies are promoting the shit out of now. The acts you hear on the radio. Coldplay, Lady GaGa, Jonas Brothers, Taylor Swift, Kings of Leon, Jay Z.

So, with very little knowledge of how the industry works conceded, I still have to say that its the acts that are being promoted like crazy by the record companies, plus played on the airwaves, that are selling tickets. It seems you still need these mediums to get noticed enough for people to think about shelling out money to see you live.

As for the record companies failing to adapt, I agree with BVS. Just because they failed means that U2 or others should not be compensated for their work?? I am definitely the least tech-savvy 22 yr old in the world, but couldn't the record companies each figure out an i-tunes like way of both putting music out digitally and compensating the artist?? I say find a way to translate current laws and principles into the digital world, and U2 and others can push the record companies to do this. Light a fire under their ass, U2 has some leverage given the deals McGuiness has worked out, even with record companies. They own and control everything, very few bands have worked out the same. This may be why U2 feel they are obligated to speak out on this issue, they can tell the record companies to go jump in a lake whereas with most bands, it is the other way around. You can be sure if more bands were, from a business standpoint, in a position to speak their minds about this issue, than they would.

Its a case of U2 and Bono once again getting bashed for being good, smart businesspeople and not dumb ass, drug addicted 5 or 10 years lasting rock stars.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that it is a completely good thing for artists.... by any means! But it is reality. The sooner we all and they all face reality the better.

Free society=free exchange of information, for good AND bad.