illegal downloaders should have their internet taken away - u2 manager

[BVS]

it should be far less, if anything at all.

Should the movies be free now too? Maybe we can go to the museum and get free prints to hang on our walls.

All art is now free, woo hoo...

Just because the technology is there doesn't mean it SHOULD be free.

 

[LuvandPeace1980]

Should the movies be free now too? Maybe we can go to the museum and get free prints to hang on our walls.

All art is now free, woo hoo...

Just because the technology is there doesn't mean it SHOULD be free.

we should be able to download it if we are interested in seeing what it is like. I would never buy an album from a new artist if I had never heard it first.

In regards to Paul McGuiness's comments regarding this.. it's like getting an opinion about Women getting abortions from the Pope.

Music is too expensive and people know it, Greedy record companies know it and they can't do anything about illegal downloads until they admit it.

Once music is fairly priced and all this bull shit they go on about how they market this and create opportunity here ete etc.. then music will be fairly priced.. I believe we should never pay more than $8 U.S. for an album..

So much greed in the arts these days it makes me sick, look at the writer strike in the U.S. Companies are just getting worse and worse..

The big artists do not need record companies these days, they could quite easily distribute there music via their website.. The system is setup to punish them if they do not but they could quite easily survive..

If they all got together they could quite easily fuck the companies off.. will it happen.. well we will have to see.

Radiohead really started something with inRainbows

 

[BVS]

we should be able to download it if we are interested in seeing what it is like. I would never buy an album from a new artist if I had never heard it first.

This isn't the same as free music. That's what singles or 30 second samples are for...

Once music is fairly priced and all this bull shit they go on about how they market this and create opportunity here ete etc.. then music will be fairly priced.. I believe we should never pay more than $8 U.S. for an album..

So much greed in the arts these days it makes me sick, look at the writer strike in the U.S. Companies are just getting worse and worse

$8 for an album? Lunch costs more than that and it only last for a few hours.

You think the writer's strike is about the writer's greed?

 

[LuvandPeace1980]

Both sides of the debate are usually way out of line. People who just blindly, inconsiderately download gigs of stuff all the time are as giant tools as the corporate big shots who completely disregard the digital marketplace.



Some compromise needs to be made.

I think people download illegally cause it's 1) overpriced and 2) alot of stuff is not made available as soon as it could be due to marketing efforts etc..

 

[LuvandPeace1980]

This isn't the same as free music. That's what singles or 30 second samples are for...




$8 for an album? Lunch costs more than that and it only last for a few hours.

You think the writer's strike is about the writer's greed?

whats your point.. i would not want to pay for an album i hate.. songs sink in movies don't.. The point is what are you paying for.. it's going to these big record companies who are ripping everyone off, what do they actually do? how are they relevant.

the artists could sell there music for less if the record companies were not there..

and i mean the film and tv studios are greedy not the writers, the writers are just trying to get there fair share of internet revenue etc..

 

[BVS]

whats your point.. i would not want to pay for an album i hate.. songs sink in movies don't.. The point is what are you paying for..

My point is there is enough outlets to get a preview of the album before downloading it illegally or buying it.

it's going to these big record companies who are ripping everyone off, what do they actually do? how are they relevant.
the artists could sell there music for less if the record companies were not there..

I agree, but they would also have a much harder time getting their music out there and funding tours.

 

[Muad'zin]

My point is there is enough outlets to get a preview of the album before downloading it illegally or buying it.

Like what?

Besides, sometimes you need to listen multiple times before you start appreciating it. The first time I heard Radiohead's In Rainbows I thought it was crap. Only now am I getting into it.

I agree, but they would also have a much harder time getting their music out there and funding tours.

God forbid they would actually have to start playing a lot. Like they did in their early days. When they built up a fan base through giving good concerts and word of mouth. Besides, they're U2, they can sell out a tour before it starts on their name recognition alone.

 

[Yahweh]

People are always looking to get something for nothing, and on the other end people are trying to make money by sometimes selling at amounts that arent realistic. Its a give and take, their is no right and wrong however things that cost money to make should not be free to download either.

 

[BonoIsMyMuse]

So... don't download music or Paul McGuinness will come to your house and take your internet away?

LemonMelon, here's your next cartoon

Based on his comments here and the patheticness that is U2.com, it's pretty clear U2 might not really get the internet.

His comments may have been a bit more relevant back in September, before Radiohead proved that releasing an album online isn't as stupid as their critics predicted it would be. Even though I'm not a huge Radiohead fan, I bought the album to show that I supported what they were trying. U2 could do that easily, but it seems like they might be afraid of what they'd lo$e.

 

[U2FloridaFan]

"illegal" downloading will only continue to grow, it's a world-wide issue. you either embrace it and learn how to deal with it or you get out of the fucking way.

No..you start by filing lawsuits against the P2P companies that are allowing copyrighted material (whether it be music, software, etc.) to be stored and/or transferred through their sites. The bottom line is it's against the law, in an ever-growing number of countries, to download copyrighted material without paying a fee, so you're breaking the law by doing it.

Several bit torrent sites shut down access to Americans a couple of months ago because of threats of lawsuits against them and against individuals downloading, so I think this is really the avenue the record companies need to take if they want to begin limiting illegal downloading.


In most areas, there are many different ISP's available, so conceivably someone could get banned from one service and switch to another and continue to do that so I don't think Paul's idea would work, at least not in the way he describes it. They might be able to ban certain IP addresses from internet access, I don't know.

 

[Liesje]

I guess my question is did/does the Internet really have a negative impact on the music industry? As far as U2 is concerned, everything I'm downloading is something that cannot be bought anyway (bootlegs, random re-mixes, interview soundbytes). I still go out and buy each album and pretty much every DVD. For other artists, the stuff I download has not impacting my buying either way. I've never really been into buying CDs. If I didn't download the music, I still wouldn't spend $20 on the CD. Right now I download all of my music for free, legally, because the college I work for uses the Ruckus service. I can easily download any U2 album for free and it's entirely legal, but I still go out and buy each album. Are there actually numbers that prove illegal downloading has significantly hurt the music industry? Because it seems for every person whining about it, there are three new bands lined up to say it's a great way to expand their fan base and attract new listeners that never would have just walked into a record store and picked up their CD.

 

[zoopop]

This is a heck of a topic.

Its too hard to pinpoint what is going on in the record industry. For one thing, music has changed. I really think the root of the problem is Clear Channel/Commercial radio. They are the ones who don’t promote artist other than the Hip Hop/Pop stars that have one agenda, make “A LOT” of money. And that agenda is set by the record labels whose target market (the 13-24 yr olds) that live in a digital way of communicating and sharing (pictures, music, video) whose attention spans are short (anyone seen the way videos/shows are editing on MTV). It wasn’t that big of deal to labels if my buddy came over to listen to Zooropa or Pop, but why does he need to come over anymore when I can just send him the tracks or burn him a CD? This younger generation does not think anything is wrong with this.

With FM radio not promoting new artist, the artist they do promote rarely tour or charge too much money for parents (or anyone) to justify buying tickets. The older radio listening audience just listens to older music. To me its really un-healthy to listen to a “Jack FM” all day. I saw Van Halen last week and while I enjoyed the show (again played songs nearly 30 years old), I kept thinking to myself, VH isn’t gonna be around forever, either is U2. Who is going tour the arenas anymore? The big tours today are all reunion tours charging over $100 a ticket. I know of bands whose music could fill an arena (even a stadium) but with no one hearing their music they can’t sell tickets. I don’t think it would kill anyone if Arcade Fire was played on the radio once in a while.

With DVD’s , satellite radio, movies, satellite TV, videogames, Ipods, and other mediums, the music industry has a lot more competition than it used too. The music industry just needs to a better promoting new artist on the radio and things will fall in line. I’m a DJ part-time and I play 4-5 songs that not many people know, but after hearing it loud & clear, many people ask me “Who was that”. I admit too not buying as many CD’s as a I use too, but I do buy the albums I really enjoy after hearing a few songs online (or Ipod) and I always check out bands live. I drive an hour from San Antonio (the worst music city ever) to Austin to see Silversun Pickups, Band of Horses (driving Saturday to Dallas), and My Morning Jacket.

We can do our part to promote new music and help out the new wave of artist, but to me that’s the labels/radio’s job.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

i haven't purchased a hard copy CD and/or even paid for a full album probably since how to dismantle an atomic bomb.

that said... a bunch of you are missing the main point in what he said. he wants to go after the people who upload the music, not those who download it. it's actually fairly more forward thinking than most in the music industry. going after the downloaders is fruitless... he'd prefer to go after the source.

it's like narcotics. going after a few users is, in the grand scheme of things, useless. cut off the suppliers, then you accomplish something.

he is the business manager, after all. it is his job to, ya know, make money.

 

[Popmartijn]

Besides, sometimes you need to listen multiple times before you start appreciating it. The first time I heard Radiohead's In Rainbows I thought it was crap. Only now am I getting into it.

So? That still doesn't mean you have to steal something. Make the investment. Buy the album, even if it might needs a couple of spins to appreciate it.

God forbid they would actually have to start playing a lot. Like they did in their early days. When they built up a fan base through giving good concerts and word of mouth.

What's the difference with now? Yes, they only tour every 3 - 3 1/2 years or so. Still, with 125+ concerts every tour (and a couple of million people who'll be seeing them) I do think they're tours are quite sizable.
And admit it, U2 can never tour enough in the eyes of the fans. They always want to see them more often, new material or not.

 

[Popmartijn]

Originally posted by BonoIsMyMuse His comments may have been a bit more relevant back in September, before Radiohead proved that releasing an album online isn't as stupid as their critics predicted it would be.

Have you read the article? What do you think of his comments regarding the Radiohead release?

Even though I'm not a huge Radiohead fan, I bought the album to show that I supported what they were trying.

Right. And 16 million others just downloaded it illegally. So what's your point?

 

[phanan]

that said... a bunch of you are missing the main point in what he said. he wants to go after the people who upload the music, not those who download it. it's actually fairly more forward thinking than most in the music industry. going after the downloaders is fruitless... he'd prefer to go after the source.

And the ironic part is that most of those uploaders are people working for the music companies and getting promotional copies early.

A new model is needed. If there was a website out there that had every album ever made and available in any format you wished, do you think a person would pay $20 a month for unlimited downloads? I sure as hell would. A lot of people would.

It's quite simple, really. It would make it all legit, and music companies would still be making money. Would they make as much as years gone by? Absolutely not. But the point is they are losing money already and will continue to do so at an alarming rate. The old days aren't coming back. As soon as they realize this and put a system in place that works for everyone, these illegal downloads will continue at the pace they are at. Will all illegal downloads ever go away? Of course not, but I bet they wouldn't occur nearly as much if a new business model based on the technology available now was created.

 

[Popmartijn]

you don't get it, i'm sorry.

To me, it seems you don't get it. You only see 'illegal downloading' and suddenly you get all worked up without even reading what it's all about.

and 99 cents a song is still outrageous. it should be far less, if anything at all.

How so is it outrageous? What should be the price of art? The price to recoup the costs of creating that art?

the money will have to come on the backs of touring and merchandise.

And how can an artist tour or sell merchandise? I mean, how can he afford it?
If it's up to you, not with his songs. He'll have to make quite some costs in recording songs, costs he'll never earn back. Why? Because everyone is then grabbing his songs for free. So recording songs is out of the question.
And touring is not profitable as he cannot build an audience. He has no songs to release (and maybe some demo's don't get noticed among the 4 million other ones on MySpace). And he doesn't make enough money to make a living playing for a dozen or so people.
So everyone loses.

he can yell and scream bloody murder about the fears of technology, but business models do NOT survive by staying the same way.

True. But you're certainly allowed to fight the illegal things other people are doing to get your product. The business model has to change, but that doesn't mean you have to give up and hand yourself over to the thiefs.

 

[partygirl43]

I really think the root of the problem is Clear Channel/Commercial radio. They are the ones who don’t promote artist other than the Hip Hop/Pop stars that have one agenda, make “A LOT” of money.

Well...thats exactly why I don't feel bad when I download a blow off single like 'Umbrella'. When you see "artists" like Rihanna walking around with 50K LV bags to put their DOGS in...I'm mean really...cry me a river.

 

[BonoIsMyMuse]

Have you read the article? What do you think of his comments regarding the Radiohead release?

Right. And 16 million others just downloaded it illegally. So what's your point?

My point is that I think it's too early to say that Radiohead's experiment "backfired." Yes, people still downloaded the album illegally, but I still think what they did is a step in the right direction. How many people bought the album who would've been more likely to download it illegally (or not listen to it at all) had it not been released that way? How many people didn't pay for it when they downloaded it but later purchased it?

The version of the article I originally read over on Yahoo made no mention of Radiohead, but I did go back and read the version at the start of this thread. I can't say it really changes my opinion. This quote in particular bothered me:

Notwithstanding the promotional noise, even Radiohead's honesty box principle showed that if not constrained, the customer will steal music.

That feels like a bit too much of a generalization to me. I feel like it's a bad business model to inherently distrust your potential customer base. You don't like people using P2P sites? Then try giving them an honest alternative. There are always going to be cheap bastards who want things for free, but I don't think that's the majority. Many avid music listeners will pay for music.

I wouldn't call what Radiohead did a complete failure, because no one artist is going to completely stop illegal downloading. At least Radiohead is trying. It's easy to stand back now and point a finger and say Radiohead's venture didn't work. It's harder to use it as a starting point for another attempt to change the way artists distribute music to fans. Getting rid of P2P sites is part of the solution, but I don't think artists should just be sitting back and waiting for that to happen, either.

 

[BrownEyedBoy]

I think the music industry has had their way with fans and consumers for years (releasing greatest hits with ONE new song to sell more copies and the likes) and it´s about time the control shifted to the fans. Watch ´em squirm.

 

[Snowlock]

On the radiohead issue. How can something be downloaded illegally that's free? It's like saying people who tivo a TV show are stealing it.

Second, if it's against the law, there should be a punishment for it. So the question shouldn't be should the illegal downloaders be punished, the question is, should downloading be illegal at all.

I agree with both camps, on certain points, but most strongly agree that the biz model must change.

 

[Popmartijn]

Second, if it's against the law, there should be a punishment for it.

There is. People have been convicted before of piracy (and mass uploading).

So the question shouldn't be should the illegal downloaders be punished, the question is, should downloading be illegal at all.

This isn't about the downloaders (initially). It's about the uploaders.

 

[Popmartijn]

On the radiohead issue. How can something be downloaded illegally that's free?

Just because you could download it without paying for it from the Radiohead site doesn't mean it doesn't have a license. Music is copyrighted. So there are restrictions attached to it.

 

[ahittle]

A new model is needed. If there was a website out there that had every album ever made and available in any format you wished, do you think a person would pay $20 a month for unlimited downloads? I sure as hell would. A lot of people would.

I agree here. As soon as there is a subscription service as elegant as the ipod, I'm on board. There was a really great Rick Rubin article in the NY Times a few months back that basically proposed the same deal.

I would imagine that wireless is going to play a big part in this as well. I can see the idea of satellite radio and mp3 merging to subscription-based on demand play.

Sooner or later, carrying around a hard drive full of 20,000 songs will be silly. Once you take away the idea of accumulation of files and squirreling them away on ever-increasing hard drives, things look a lot better.

 

[corianderstem]

How many people didn't pay for it when they downloaded it but later purchased it?

: raises hand :

 

[the tourist]

there will always be money to be made. always.

Not if you're an up-and-coming band. Touring and merchandising for an up-and-coming band leaves the band in debt. Big bands don't have to worry about it, though. Because they can charge $80/ticket and $40/t-shirt.

 

[Roland of Gilead]

The only people who truly know if the Radiohead project was a success or not, are Radiohead themselves. Regardless of whatever they decide to tell the public and how accurate that may be, that is their business and no one outside of that group will have a serious grasp about it.

 

[the tourist]

How many people didn't pay for it when they downloaded it but later purchased it?

I didn't pay when I downloaded. I paid when I purchased it. And then I erased what I'd downloaded from their site.

 

[thelaj]

My main question is what constitutes a fair price? The idea of paying for numerous middle-men and for rock stars to gorge on profits isn't particularly appealing to me. On the other hand, I like to see artists profit from their work. At the moment it seems like the companies are basing their charges on "cheaper than a CD" when in reality the business model online is totally different.

Anecdotally, £5 for an album would be very pleasing to me and I would not steal any music.

What I *would* like to see is a facility for previewing music. In the past bands could put out a 12 track album with a load of filler but now they either have to keep up the quality or lose the album sales to singles. If I am buying a product, I want more information about it than just the lead single.

Something like a 3-play free download or the like would be great. If I like the track or the artist I know I can buy that track in high quality, DRM free. Sure, some songs are growers but for every 1 of those I reckon there are 10 which are a straight "don't like it".

I just can't forgive myself for buying a N*E*R*D album on the basis of one song and hating it totally.

In other news, my absurdly priced Joshua Tree Super Deluxe may be delivered tomorrow.....mmmmm £4 per song

EDIT: Something else which annoys me is this assumption that 1 illegal download = 1 lost sale. This is clearly not the case in any way. It fails to account for people downloading music and then getting into the band or genre and legally buying tracks. It also fails to account for people who later buy the track and of course those who just want it because it is free. I downloaded the latest Britney track, but I wouldn't buy it so it isn't a lost sale. No doubt that illegal downloads harm sales, but nowhere near the amount they suggest.

 

[the tourist]

I like what myspace does for previewing an album. A lot of artists will stream their full album for a couple weeks before it's actually released. As for how much things cost, I believe all cds should be between $8 and $10. And I think since it costs less to produce an mp3, an album should be between $5 and $7. However, I also think that 80% of all mp3s should be album only. And if you just want a specific one song, it should cost $1. That way, buying the whole album as an mp3 would be a really good deal.