Niceman
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
Bono should be spending his time talking about music, and let's leave it at that for a bit.....
Well you can create higher end packages for those that do download a lot.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 .
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 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...
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).
which is fundamentally the fault of the content providers themselves. Like it or not they've failed to protect their content adequately
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.
Bono should be spending his time talking about music, and let's leave it at that for a bit.....
Sometimes I really think Bono does not help himself at all.
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.
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.
“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.”
I think using China an example just shows exactly why the kind internet control he's talking about shouldn't be done.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.