illegal downloaders should have their internet taken away - u2 manager

[thelaj]

From a UK perspective, our iTunes downloads are 79p which is a lot cheaper than what we used to pay for CD Singles. On the other hand, you are only getting the one track - no B-Sides or remixes which makes the deal a bit less better than it seems. We can get CD Albums for £8 online, so £5 album download seems reasonable to me... iTunes charging more for a DRM'd download rubs me the wrong way. I only use iTunes when getting the track or album is a nightmare on CD.

I also quite like MySpace's system of streaming, but I imagine a lot of bands would be concerned their albums suck too much to preview.

 

[Snowlock]

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

Yep. And there should be.

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

No, it's about the downloaders. If a person uploads a disk, it doesn't cost the record companies any money until someone else, who would otherwise buy the disk, downloads it. Going after the uploaders is a way to stop the downloaders.

Regardless, it's all about the content anyway. Put out good music, and the people will buy it. They should study how downloading affects CD/legit digital sales of iconic bands like U2 or Bruce Springsteen vs Justin Timberlake or Souljaboy.

 

[the tourist]

I only use iTunes when getting the track or album is a nightmare on CD.

iTunes plus is wonderful. It's 256 kbps and DRM-free. Same with amazon mp3. It's just that not everything is available that way. But it's all I'll download from iTunes anymore. Before, I would download it at 128 and burn it to a cd and then re-rip it into my computer. But the quality just wasn't as high as it could've been.

 

[ndmaxfield]

now that you mention it...

I was just about to start a new thread on this Paul McGuinness posting at U2.com. Since you're already talking about it...it feels wrong for the manager of a band to use the band's website to make business statements (especially this long and controversial). I don't know: It's kind of like a sports star having a page about himself, for his fans, and his manager horning-in to steal the audience for a minute. Totally un-entertaining.

 

[Snowlock]

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.

So is television, so the analogy stands.

 

[thelaj]

iTunes plus is wonderful. It's 256 kbps and DRM-free. Same with amazon mp3. It's just that not everything is available that way. But it's all I'll download from iTunes anymore. Before, I would download it at 128 and burn it to a cd and then re-rip it into my computer. But the quality just wasn't as high as it could've been.

We don't have Amazon MP3 in the UK yet (though it is planned launch this year), and iTunes plus has a limited range so far though is a good step.

For me it comes down to the fact I won't buy a (usually) DRM'd, 128kbps MP3 album when I can get a physical CD for the same or less. For singles, the argument is more compelling (as well as the immediacy which is useful).

 

[Popmartijn]

Re: now that you mention it...

I was just about to start a new thread on this Paul McGuinness posting at U2.com.

Thanks for the info. I checked out his whole speech as published over there. Quite an interesting read: http://www.u2.com/news/index.php?mode=full&news_id=2196

It looks like even the Times Online article didn't print even half of what McGuinness said. It might be controversial, but he makes some excellent points (and remember, this was to an audience of managers).

 

[BVS]

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.

MySpace, amazon, iTunes, etc... Granted you may not get the entire thing, but you can get an idea. This is my whole point, in no other facet of life do we approach buying things this way. We don't eat first and then pay. We test drive a car, we don't keep it for a month before we buy it. We see previews for movies. And yet out of all these things music cost the least...

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.

I wasn't talking about U2, I was talking about the industry in general. Read the context of what I quoted.

 

[BVS]

So is television, so the analogy stands.

No it doesn't. You ARE allowed to record a tv show for your own consumption. But if you uploaded it on a torrent, it would be illegal, same as the Radiohead album.

 

[Chrisedge]

Among people in this thread, it's a problem called ENTITLEMENT. Someone said, they would pay $8. Someone else said, unlimited downloads for $20 a month. Another said it was OK, since the artist has expensive taste in handbags.

It's called stealing, and I agree that it's a huge problem. The only thing in that article I have issue with his Paul commenting on the Radiohead release. Everyone has called that a huge success, and reports say, it's one of the most PROFITABLE albums for Radiohead. Boo to Paul for missing that point.

U2/Paul are complete control freaks and the fact that he is off base on this is no surprise.

As far as quotes on BOOTLEGS, you can look at the only page still up at my site.

http://www.u2preservation.com/quotes.htm

 

[Chrisedge]

Having read the entire speach on u2.com, I agree with what Paul said. A lot was chopped out on the first link...

 

[ahittle]

On top of everything said here, people essentially know that this is a very different product. We are moving into an era in which we will not have physical copies of our music, and eventually, movies. The very technology that is making entertainment so convenient and ubiquitous is, in fact, devaluing it. It's nothing. There is no packaging, no moving trucks shipping these things all over the country. Should the artist still be getting less than a buck from every "record" sold on itunes? People sense that they the system is flawed and outdated and justify not paying.

 

[rjhbonovox]

The last comment from the link above -
From Bono on Contactmusic December 23, 2004
"People sharing our music, personally I have no problem with. It's when they're doing it as a business, I have a real problem with that."

So thats whats mainly happening. People are sharing music via the internet and Bono has no problem with it. Paul McGuiness has though!

 

[BVS]

The last comment from the link above -
From Bono on Contactmusic December 23, 2004
"People sharing our music, personally I have no problem with. It's when they're doing it as a business, I have a real problem with that."

So thats whats mainly happening. People are sharing music via the internet and Bono has no problem with it. Paul McGuiness has though!

Where do you download illegally? Most torrents get money from advertising, therefore it's a business...

 

[ahittle]

The last comment from the link above -
From Bono on Contactmusic December 23, 2004
"People sharing our music, personally I have no problem with. It's when they're doing it as a business, I have a real problem with that."

So thats whats mainly happening. People are sharing music via the internet and Bono has no problem with it. Paul McGuiness has though!

I don't know who Bono has a problem with here - people selling bootleg CD's in a parking lot? He seems to be ignoring the issue of P2P sharing. It seems like a grossly uninformed statement. I mean, since the advent of digital sharing (and God bless U2start) is there even a viable underground market for u2 boots, much less official releases?

 

[No spoken words]

People sense that they the system is flawed and outdated and justify not paying.

Right.

Nobody wants something for nothing, they're just downloading music for free because they sense that something is flawed with the system.

I pay for every commercially available song in my collection, and will continue to do so. I'm not going to sit around and pretend that I should get music for free because Paul McGuinness and his brethren might display what is subjectively deemed to be a lack of comprehension of the sea change in the industry.

Also, I don't understand why .99 cents a song is too much. And if it is too much, what gives people the right to think they can simply abscond with the product. Don't like the price? Don't buy it. But if you're going to steal it, let's not pretend that it's done because of your outrage at the system, like this is some sinister government initiative precluding you from enjoying your freedoms.

If you lifted a CD from a record store and got caught, would you think you should be allowed to avoid punishment? Would any of you actually steal a physical CD from a store??? Yet it's ok to do it digitally.

People steal music because they can.

ETA - For the record (no pun intended) I know a lot of people that download music for free, and, to each their own. I've never said a word against it to them; it's their business. That being said, they don't cloak their activities behind some lame explanation, they just take the fucking music.

 

[corianderstem]

: walks into thread, looks around shiftily :







: puts thread into pocket and leaves, just because I can :

 

[Mr. V]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LkWKvMCzqA

 

[the tourist]

Also, I don't understand why .99 cents a song is too much.

The reason I think 99 cents is too much for a song:

Because you're not paying for the cd packaging. You can buy an album of 10 songs for $10 (or 99 cents a song) on cd. However, if you spend $10 for those same 10 songs on iTunes, you're getting a bit ripped off because (a) it's not lossless, (b) most of iTunes is still DRM protected which puts a lifespan on that music, and (c) you're no longer paying for the artwork, the case, the disc itself, the cost of putting it all together, or the cost of the actual pressing, the cost of shipping it to music stores/department stores worldwide, etc.

That said, I think 79 cents is more fair. That's a 20% discount for not using up the physical material.

Of course, I'm also of the opinion that ALL album tracks EXCEPT for commercially released singles should be sold ALBUM ONLY everywhere.

 

[butter7]

It's very good that Paul did this. I always think I've been spending far too much money and time on U2, that I didn't even have enough time to illegally download and listen to other artists' stuff. I rarely gave them enough time to impress me, and I never did spend more than 20 dollars a year on another artist than U2.

Artists who think Internet downloading is their biggest enemy are really stupid. Without the free access to the resources, people like me, who ONLY discover artists over the internet would probably missed them out completely.

I think for most of people who post in this forum, we are fans, but U2 is not the only artist that we interested to. U2 does have a lot of competitors. I just don't understand in this highly competitive market, so many young artists/band would be buried without even been heard, why people like Paul would say something like that.

Like some people mentioned before, I think he completely misunderstood internet, and the fear comes from his ignorance. What a shame.

 

[dr. zooeuss]

After reading about 60% of this thread, and nearly all (I skimmed some) of McGuinness' speech as posted on U2.com (and it is LONG!) - it's my personal opinion that things are about to change in some significant ways. It may be several months or a year before we see it tangibly, but I think it's coming.

Based on what he had to say, it seems McGuinness has been thinking long and hard about this for over a decade. He seems to have expected the music and recording industry to step up to the plate and get this issue resolved before now but, as the manager of perhaps the most successful recording act in the world, he is now saying "look, the industry is being destroyed and here's why" and offering his thoughts and some solutions.

Very interesting.

 

[Mr. V]

Artists who think Internet downloading is their biggest enemy are really stupid. Without the free access to the resources, people like me, who ONLY discover artists over the internet would probably missed them out completely.

agreed, 100%. there is no way i would be as much into U2, and basically every other band i like, as i am now if it wasn't for illegal downloading. it basically opened the door for me to buy countless CDs, DVDs, box sets, concert tickets and merchandise.

i would be buying my music online if i had a credit card. maybe Apple could open up an actual store where i could go, bring my iPod, pay $10 bucks and get an album put directly onto my device.

 

[The Sad Punk]

I always try finding physical copies of albums in stores, but a bunch of what I'm into is now out of print or ridiculously rare. How else am I going to listen to stuff like this? Go back in time?

I do agree that some folks illegally download too much, and it does sort of rub me wrong when people download popular, cheap albums.

I don't think that is exactly what McGuinny was chatting about because I forgot what this thread was about, but while we're here, etc.

 

[thelaj]

For those of you saying 99c is a fair price... can you justify that? Just because I can afford something or think it is "reasonable" doesn't mean it is fairly priced.
Prices *should* be a function of cost, not a function of seeing how much people will pay. Unfortunately that is in a perfect world.

Will I pay £0.79 for a track? Yeah. Do I think the £0.79 is a fair reflection of how much I gain from it? Maybe. Do I think £0.79 is a fair reflection of the cost to make it? No.

 

[hiphop]

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.

wow so you bought that shit?

radiohead can afford to do this because they have been supported nurtured and built up by the industry for more than a decade.

they just made a publicity stunt out of it to make people sream "hey see how FAIR and CONNECTED TO THE FANS radiohead are!!"

of course madonna, radiohead, prince skip the record companies. after all, which established star would want to subsidize the unknown bands that don´t sell a lot (98% of the bands). they´d rather take the whole money themselves.

about 20% of the radiohead fans paid, the rest got it for free.

this move gave radiohead a fucking lot of press and devalued music - not that it hadn´t been devalued before.

the best thing are the fans who buy it and who actually think the band does it because they want to be nice and fair.

 

[hiphop]

It may be several months or a year before we see it tangibly, but I think it's coming.

we´ve been seeing it tangibly for several years.

whatever, the public decided that music shall be legally free from now on so that´s it. labels will provide new mgmt and touring services etc.

btw, paul is against the new model "360 degrees" which is currently being discussed by the industry. of course he´s against any real change - he´s a manager and succeeded with the old model.

 

[Zoomerang96]

18,3% of the radiohead fans paid, the rest got it for free.

oh for fuck sakes, why do people insist on coming up with numbers they can't substantiate? ONLY RADIOHEAD KNOW HOW MANY PEOPLE PAID.

noone else knows. noone.

 

[Zoomerang96]

and you know what, further to that, what do you think the percentages of other albums that are downloaded illegally v actual payment?

it wouldn't be very much higher, even if that 18 per cent were substantiated.

 

[ahittle]

I think given the shift in the marketplace, ten bucks for an album is too much. I understand the economics of recording and promotion, but, again, there is no physical product here. Just because the industry has kept CD prices high - despite promising to lower them over time - doesn't mean it's a good model for basing MP3 prices (even if it means knocking off 30% or whatever). I think if you crunch the numbers, a better pricing model could curb some of the illegal sharing. But people will always want to work around paying...

Another thing that I think is interesting is that Apple and other player manufacturers are just upping the ante. A 160G iPod holds a shitload of songs. Jobs knows in his heart that the average consumer cannot possibly fill it with songs or films purchased legitimately on itunes. And with the recent RIAA assertion that even ripping your own songs from your own CD's is tantamount to "stealing" - even though itunes makes it convenient to do so - shows that nobody is at the same table. Is Apple guilty here? I don't think so, but follow the money. CD sales are falling, but almost everyone I know will drop upwards of 400 bucks on an ipod every few years. That's a lot of cash. Apple is not making a mint on downloads (neither is the artist), but they are absolutely killing on their players, which can easily play any file from any source.

I'm not arguing one way or another, I just think the market forces at play here are pretty interesting.

 

[LuvandPeace1980]

alot of you people out there make me sick.. the only people you are defending when it comes to this kind of thing are the corporations, who have completely bullied the smaller companies out of business.

radiohead doing what they did was a symbol and a middle finger to globalisation which in the end will result in art being destroyed all together if we don't watch it..

these corporations have taken artists and completely fucked around with them in order to make a quick $

the only decisions corporations make are based on profit, they are generally headless, faceless and souless and work for their shareholders only. The more globalised things become the more the consumer will miss out

So why are people defending this kind of garbage U2 or anyone else out there knows that if someone is a fan they will buy it and if they aren't they won't.. but hopefully they will love it enough to eventually buy it.. like I did with Arcade Fire R.E.M and Nine Inch Nails recently