"Bono calls for control over internet downloads"

[Niceman]

Here's another thought: If young people are more likely to illegally download media, maybe the entertainment industry will start targeting older consumers???

 

[ntalwar]

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.

With peer to peer file sharing, every individual is a website.

 

[Jimmy Jazz]

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.

It is my understanding that the RIAA wants ISPs to hand over customer info of any IP Address they are suspicious of - without a court order or subpoena. That is not right. Also an IP isn't a surefire way of identifying someone. It can be someone else in your house. It can be someone in a home or apartment nearby using your wireless network without you knowing. There's probably ways IP addresses can be faked. That's what scares me. It seems like a situation ripe for wrongful accusations. And I do not trust the RIAA to take that into consideration.

 

[digitize]

The entertainment industry should try creating better, more lasting entertainment... maybe if quality, and, above all, lasting value, went up, people would be more likely to invest money instead of seeing music/movies/etc simply as instant gratification.

I know that if I hear an album I really like, I'm pretty eager to reward its creator.

 

[Niceman]

The entertainment industry should try creating better, more lasting entertainment... maybe if quality, and, above all, lasting value, went up, people would be more likely to invest money instead of seeing music/movies/etc simply as instant gratification.

I know that if I hear an album I really like, I'm pretty eager to reward its creator.

It's true. If I love something that I've downloaded I'll buy it. I own 300 on DVD and I just ordered it on Blue Ray...... I know how to download it, but I want the high quality and the nice packaging....

 

[OrARoundabout]

Well, at least he's now a Tread of Twitter!

 

[ultraviolet353]

Subscription music services are the only way the music industry can turn this around. The industry has been dragging their heels on this because it re-invents the business model and how artists and labels are paid--meaning, the labels would make less.

Once there is a subscription service (like Spotify) in the US for a nominal fee, file sharing will be marginalized. Build a great service, and they will come--drag your heels, and they will continue to steal.

IMO, this is a just a dumb PR move for Bono--I get the sense the band is still coming to terms with the tepid response to NLOTH--and are searching for reasons for the big yawn that was the public's reaction to NLOTH. Really dumb move--especially when it is framed as "protecting" the current biz model. For a band that prides itself on relevance, this was a huge misstep--way to look like you are chasing kids off your lawn Bono--

 

[popshopper]

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?

They put their fingers in their ear for nearly a decade while file sharing became ingrained to a generation? While aggressively suing anyone who tried to develop a workable model. It took a Software company (Apple) to kickstart the legal download business. The music industry (and the film industry...although due to Bandwidth issues they could somewhat excused) basically ignored the problem to protect their ridiculous markup on physical media.

The Itunes store opened in 2003, 4 years after Napster. 10 years after bbs sharing became popular. Hell U2 were talking about this in 1993, but nothing happened. Nature abhors a vacuum, the music industry failed to adapt and offer services in a timely fashion, free downloads filled the gap. Studies have generally shown that given the option, people will pay a fair price for music as long as it's easily available, the success of legal downloads in destroying the physical single market (while largely keeping up with historical sales) is testament to that. It's not the fact it's free which was the determining factor in success of download.

And largely, the whole issue is come about because the record companies want to keep the gravy train rolling, not realizing in an age of digital convergence people have far more entertainment options and so just as cable impacted on terrestrial viewing figures, people are choosing to spend their money on other things.

Another issue is music is pretty saturated now. It's on the net, the radio, tv, ads basically free at the point of purchase for users. As a user I can listen to pretty much any song I want on Youtube or spotify. Yes, the record companies and the performers get paid for this, but at a much lower rate and not per listen so why should a kid buy a record when as long as he's connected to the net he can spotify or youtube something? They don't seem to realise that their model is finished, there is little need for a middle man now.

 

[Niceman]

Subscription music services are the only way the music industry can turn this around. The industry has been dragging their heels on this because it re-invents the business model and how artists and labels are paid--meaning, the labels would make less.

Once there is a subscription service (like Spotify) in the US for a nominal fee, file sharing will be marginalized. Build a great service, and they will come--drag your heels, and they will continue to steal.

IMO, this is a just a dumb PR move for Bono--I get the sense the band is still coming to terms with the tepid response to NLOTH--and are searching for reasons for the big yawn that was the public's reaction to NLOTH. Really dumb move--especially when it is framed as "protecting" the current biz model. For a band that prides itself on relevance, this was a huge misstep--way to look like you are chasing kids off your lawn Bono--

Personally, I would NEVER pay to rent music. No deal would be good enough. If I pay money once, I should own the track forever or no deal.

Totally agree with your point about this from a PR perspective.

 

[digitize]

Personally, I would NEVER pay to rent music. No deal would be good enough. If I pay money once, I should own the track forever or no deal.

I agree fully. If I pay for a track, I want it in as high quality as I can get with as few restrictions as I can get so that I may exercise my fair use rights.

 

[U2387]

With peer to peer file sharing, every individual is a website.

Yes, but after someone first obtains it from a site devoted to being a source for downloaded music.

I think this is what artists have in mind in terms of going after sites.

It is hard to get individual users- little precedent for trying these people in court, the fact that they are "small fish" and not worth legal costs going after, etc.

The big source sites that came and went are what I am thinking of- Napster, Kazaa, Limewire, etc. Again, I don't really download much of anything outside of U2 start, and have very little knowledge of it.

 

[U2387]

It is my understanding that the RIAA wants ISPs to hand over customer info of any IP Address they are suspicious of - without a court order or subpoena. That is not right. Also an IP isn't a surefire way of identifying someone. It can be someone else in your house. It can be someone in a home or apartment nearby using your wireless network without you knowing. There's probably ways IP addresses can be faked. That's what scares me. It seems like a situation ripe for wrongful accusations. And I do not trust the RIAA to take that into consideration.

Just because the record industry wants to do this does not mean that is the method Bono favors. I think Bono is alot more pragmatic than to suggest this route. It is not necessarily true that artists agree with the same record companies who screwed up everything else on exactly how to ensure compensation for their work. For one, it is costly, going after individual users piece wise instead of going after source sites. It is also very unrealistic.

Absent a court order, very few ISPs have complied with the even fewer requests that have been made for individual customer info.

You bring up a legitimate concern here, but it has to be balanced with the interest the ISP has in not doing something that is questionable from a legal standpoint. They are worried about the liability they may incur from giving out personal information to a non governmental, 3rd party without a court order. It would be tough to get such action upheld in court.

I know a girl who was targeted for downloading songs when the record companies started looking into the public university system of New Hampshire, of which she was a student. She and a few other students had formal suits filed against them, seemingly randomly as the other 30,000 or so students in the system were also downloading music. This girl told me at the time that the suit got thrown out in a heartbeat, and I found a newspaper article online confirming that not too long ago.

It is an emerging area of the law, there is really not alot of precedent, outside of the fact that anywhere individual users have been tried, the courts have basically said the industry is going after the wrong people; and doing so in an arbitrary, capricious way with no clear standards.

I see efforts being made at the source site level as efforts with the best chance of accomplishing the artists' goals, and I am sure most of them know this.

No formal proposal to require ISPs hand over your information has been put in place in the legislative process, and the companies requesting the information on their own is both rare and of questionable legality.

The RIAA looking for this right and taking it upon themselves in some rare cases is cause for concern, but it certainly does not mean that they, as one special interest group in a world made up of millions of them, are likely to get their way.

 

[U2387]

They put their fingers in their ear for nearly a decade while file sharing became ingrained to a generation? While aggressively suing anyone who tried to develop a workable model. It took a Software company (Apple) to kickstart the legal download business. The music industry (and the film industry...although due to Bandwidth issues they could somewhat excused) basically ignored the problem to protect their ridiculous markup on physical media.

The Itunes store opened in 2003, 4 years after Napster. 10 years after bbs sharing became popular. Hell U2 were talking about this in 1993, but nothing happened. Nature abhors a vacuum, the music industry failed to adapt and offer services in a timely fashion, free downloads filled the gap. Studies have generally shown that given the option, people will pay a fair price for music as long as it's easily available, the success of legal downloads in destroying the physical single market (while largely keeping up with historical sales) is testament to that. It's not the fact it's free which was the determining factor in success of download.

And largely, the whole issue is come about because the record companies want to keep the gravy train rolling, not realizing in an age of digital convergence people have far more entertainment options and so just as cable impacted on terrestrial viewing figures, people are choosing to spend their money on other things.

Another issue is music is pretty saturated now. It's on the net, the radio, tv, ads basically free at the point of purchase for users. As a user I can listen to pretty much any song I want on Youtube or spotify. Yes, the record companies and the performers get paid for this, but at a much lower rate and not per listen so why should a kid buy a record when as long as he's connected to the net he can spotify or youtube something? They don't seem to realise that their model is finished, there is little need for a middle man now.

Here, you have a lot of good stuff

I happen to agree it is the industry who has had a head up the ass view of this for a long time now.

I think where we diverge is in making the leap to artists losing compensation because of this. Also, I happen to think the industry could get a collective wake up slap to the head(maybe helped out by a year or 2 more of looking at their declining numbers) and work with artists to devise a legal way of getting into the digital market on a widespread basis.

What you cite regarding the success of legal downloading, particularly with I-Tunes, could be a model for the record companies to look at. They need to understand that the margins may not be as high as they are with physical copies, but pretty soon, that will not matter as they will lose all volume.

I think it hinges on getting the record industry to think in terms of a high volume, low margin model as opposed to trying to maintain the opposite, which is as much of a dinosaur as it is a death knell.

We don't agree on everything, but I do not think we are too far apart here, and obviously, you know what you are talking about.

 

[The John Tree]

Ah, Lars Ulrich. You were so right, and people hated you so. Ahead of your time, my friend, ahead of your time. You had the whole thing right on the money.

I love the argument that "maybe the record companies should start putting out better music then!" What a delusional argument. First of all, the reason the music on your radio is bland and shitty is because the record labels know that bands like Radiohead, etc aren't going to sell records because their fan base will download it illegally. So who do they promote? Cookie cutter bland music that sells to 13 year old girls (y'know, the only group of young people who still buy music.)

I also love the argument that "well if the product is good, I'll buy it!" How noble of you. Unfortunately, an overwhelming amount of people aren't so honest and will download it anyway.

Face the facts, folks: illegal file sharing has killed the music industry. And I know some of you will say "well, good!" but I think you're wrong, and I think we're going to be in a very bad way in a few years...

 

[BVS]

Studies have generally shown that given the option, people will pay a fair price for music as long as it's easily available, the success of legal downloads in destroying the physical single market (while largely keeping up with historical sales) is testament to that. It's not the fact it's free which was the determining factor in success of download.

I don't buy this one bit... I don't think it matters at all how quickly iTunes came out or not, those that are going to download illegally will download illegally and that number will rise with every new entitled generation. The only way for the industry to have survived is if they found a bypass making an mp3 from a source file so easy, but they never could.

This is how bad it is, a certain poster in here the last time this same subject came up started arguing that the price of cds have gone down so much that we shouldn't be paying 11 dollars for a piece of plastic. It's entitlement, they think they're buying the piece of plastic and that the music is free.

The industry could have embraced file sharing a little sooner, but we'd still be where we are now, not appreciating the musicians. The day of the Pearl Jams, Radioheads, etc will die. For those types of bands will never be able to afford to leave their own hometowns.

 

[last unicorn]

This issue isn't about bands and artists making use of the internet to sell their music which is totally legitimate and a logical consequence of the internet age and the meltdown of the traditional music industry. This is about people stealing music by illegally downloading it and not paying for it. And I agree with Bono on that, just as much as I'd agree with anyone. The sad thing is that the younger generation is basically losing the idea of what intellectual property is all about, the internet is basically destroying its value, and "The music needs to be better" is not an argument. I don't accept an argument like: The music is shit, therefore I won't pay for it but download it illegally. That just doesn't make sense to me. If I'm not interested in a work or don't find it good enough, I don't even want it for free. If I like a work, I'm ready to pay for it. We have a saying over here: When it doesn't cost something, it isn't worth anything. I don't think it's wrong to acknowledge that artists (no matter if young bands or established bands) have a right to be payed for their work and that music consumers have to pay for what they want to hear. The question is how the internet can be used in a positive way to serve both sides here.

 

[KhanadaRhodes]

all i know is there's quite a few people i love now that i started off just downloading a torrent of theirs. there's several bands that i've now spent thousands buying their albums in every format, dvds, etc. i'm not the type who will just go out and buy a cd because i like one song on the radio. though in those cases, i certainly do just buy that one song, if possible.

i'm not gonna lie though. i've downloaded stuff and never replaced it with a legal copy, whether it's buying it off itunes, physical cd, or an lp. but those are albums i downloaded, listened to once, hated (or just didn't care one way or the other), and will never listen to it again.

if there was any kind of restriction put on me being able to preview these albums first, i'd just stop attempting to get into new bands anymore. sucks for them, as the music i seem to like is the kind of crap no one wants to listen to anyway.

 

[VintagePunk]

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.

all i know is there's quite a few people i love now that i started off just downloading a torrent of theirs. there's several bands that i've now spent thousands buying their albums in every format, dvds, etc. i'm not the type who will just go out and buy a cd because i like one song on the radio. though in those cases, i certainly do just buy that one song, if possible.

i'm not gonna lie though. i've downloaded stuff and never replaced it with a legal copy, whether it's buying it off itunes, physical cd, or an lp. but those are albums i downloaded, listened to once, hated (or just didn't care one way or the other), and will never listen to it again.

if there was any kind of restriction put on me being able to preview these albums first, i'd just stop attempting to get into new bands anymore. sucks for them, as the music i seem to like is the kind of crap no one wants to listen to anyway.

I agree with both of these posts, and I could have written either one of them. I do it, but at the same time I recognize that it's wrong. I guess by way of moral justification, the way I work it is this - since I don't have unlimited dollars, if I download from a band I find that I like, I attempt to support them in other ways, via concert ticket sales, dvd sales, or merchandising. I've done this a lot, discovered bands by downloading, and then spent buttloads to see them play live/purchase merchandising. While this doesn't fully make up for what I've "stolen," it's money I wouldn't have spent if I'd not downloaded in the first place, and a higher percentage of which actually goes to the band. Also, when it's a younger/indie band, I make an honest effort to get out and purchase what I've downloaded, if I like it, as opposed to older, more established (read: richer) acts.

It's not all black and white though. Here in Canada when there was a bill in front of parliament that would compel ISPs to collect and report download information, a group of Canadian musicians, both indie and established artists, spoke out against it - they want their music to be shared online, or at the very least, they don't want people punished for doing so. And what about television shows? Current shows? I download a lot of them, simply because I'm busy, or I forget to record. How is that wrong, when I could have done the same thing just by remembering to set my DVR? And even though I can download virtually anything, I still buy my favourite shows on dvd, for the packaging and special features.

Regardless of all of this, that isn't even what Bono meant in his op-ed piece. What prompted me to even reply to this thread is seeing that one of my local tv news stations had picked this up, out of context, like most of the others. He wasn't talking about the U2s, the Radioheads, or the Coldplays in the piece, he was talking about the songwriters who barely eke out a living. And he's totally right, they need to be protected. Blame it on the industry, blame it on the downloading age all you want, but the bottom line is that there are some very low level players who are losing money in all this, and that's what we should be feeling guilty about, and more conscious of. I just don't understand how he's getting slammed for this one, the latest in the series of "media-created reasons to hate Bono." It's nuts.

It's not an easy issue to solve, and I'm glad I'm not the one who has to provide the answers.

 

[Bonoa]

Here's the new James Hetfield...

 

[ntalwar]

Yes, but after someone first obtains it from a site devoted to being a source for downloaded music.

I think this is what artists have in mind in terms of going after sites.

It is hard to get individual users- little precedent for trying these people in court, the fact that they are "small fish" and not worth legal costs going after, etc.

The big source sites that came and went are what I am thinking of- Napster, Kazaa, Limewire, etc. Again, I don't really download much of anything outside of U2 start, and have very little knowledge of it.

The sites you mention were more popular a few years ago. Torrents and peer to peer are more popular now, and anyone can start seeding a ripped CD or whatever. A lot of the RIAA lawsuits were against individual users.

 

[toscano]

Here's the new James Hetfield...

Big difference is they adapted to the internet after they realized it wouldn't happen the other way around.

Downloads of concerts a day or 2 after the show, exclusive daily internet video content after the shows (when they're touring), releasing exclusive material through their online store, pre-sales which work and get you good seats, etc.

Yes, you can take the China approach and just shut down entire sites, but that's the using-shot-gun-to-kill-a-fly approach; but to sift through the trillions of daily emails and downloads going on and look into each one to see if copyrighted content is being illegally shared would be akin to sticking hundreds of traffic cops along every major intersection and highway and catching EVERY speeder, red-light runner, illegal left turn, etc.

Bono/McGuinness - The music industry's answer to King Canute.

(note - I am not advocating illegal file sharing, I actually bought NLOTH)

 

[Niceman]

I downloaded NLOTH when it leaked. I loved it.

Then I bought the album and everything related.

This is how the system should work.

 

[U2girl]

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?

They did try with Itunes, but it's not working...the industry just can't compete with free and easily accessible products.

So it has to force the few acts that sell, either established acts (the ones that also can get by financially with live performances, even if they don't sell as much as they used to) or whatever acts the teens buy/the media pushes.

For every Arctic Mondays there are probably dozens of bands that don't make it.

 

[toscano]

For every Arctic Mondays there are probably dozens of bands that don't make it.

How is that any different than what the industry was like 10, 20, 30 years ago ?

 

[U2girl]

You had better odds of making a living with your music (albums used to sell more, for example - and the time of lucrative big stadium tours may be over, with precious few acts being able to do it, not so in the past.), and being heard through radio/MTV.

 

[mikal]

I downloaded NLOTH when it leaked. I loved it.

Then I bought the album and everything related.

This is how the system should work.

that's what i do. i illegally download. if i like it, i buy it off of Itunes. if i don't like it, i delete if from my computer.

one thing that has slowed down my illegal downloading lately though is sites like Lala and Imeem. that way i can preview without having to buy.

 

[toscano]

You had better odds of making a living with your music (albums used to sell more, for example - and the time of lucrative big stadium tours may be over, with precious few acts being able to do it, not so in the past.), and being heard through radio/MTV.

I'll bet you have absolutely zero data with which to back this up.

There's as many clubs, theaters etc with live bands playing today as there were back then, maybe even more so as more bands have access to cheaper technology allowing them to play live.

There's also so many more outlets for music today than back then, it took an act of god to get signed by a major label and independent labels were relatively few and far between, and making albums/CDs was expensive as hell. Nowadays pretty much anyone can record their own CD at home and make up some artwork and get hundreds of copies made for the price of a decent meal.

 

[BVS]

There's also so many more outlets for music today than back then, it took an act of god to get signed by a major label and independent labels were relatively few and far between, and making albums/CDs was expensive as hell. Nowadays pretty much anyone can record their own CD at home and make up some artwork and get hundreds of copies made for the price of a decent meal.

Wow, you completely missed the point, yes of course local bands still exists, but they will always be local bands. There will be no more Pearl Jams or Radioheads. You either sell your song to a commercial or you don't leave your hometown, those will soon be the options...

 

[Zoomerang96]

we get to carry each other

 

[ultraviolet353]

Wow, you completely missed the point, yes of course local bands still exists, but they will always be local bands. There will be no more Pearl Jams or Radioheads. You either sell your song to a commercial or you don't leave your hometown, those will soon be the options...

Good point--and a sobering one--and it is the real point of the op-ed.

My feeling is Bono should have known this would be twisted in a negative light. This is a hugely un-savvy media move.

To be honest, we need the few remaining super-groups to help reinvent the distribution model, not reinforce the one that's already broken. As for a subscription service--it would be killer, and on all of your devices (instantly)--it would be "virtual" ownership. You would have access to everything, plus open source stuff like bootlegs (if the band OK's them to be on the network). The price point would have to be between $10-$20--also have an ad supported free service (Freemium model)--and get all the labels to be on board. I am hoping Apple sees the light on this--subscription based iTunes would be amazing--

and again, this will happen--just a matter of when,and how long the music companies will scratch and claw to keep the "old" fantasy alive--a delay tactic that is actually making the situation way worse for the budding musicians Bono is intending to advocate for--