illegal downloaders should have their internet taken away - u2 manager

[BVS]

Thanks, BonoIsMyMuse

A lot of what he says makes sense. It's not just music, we had this discussion recently in FYM about books and other copyrighted material being distributed for free.

Something needs to be done. But it's all a very grey area. You either have to allow some type of filtering, which some may see as censorship, or you do have to allow some of the money we pay for internet to artists, novelists, etc...

 

[Butterscotch]

What an ass! I thought U2 were one of the first bands to come out in favor of napster?

Zoomerang is right though, the days of the old record industry are over. If they continue to hang onto the old ways the industry will be the losers in the end. I only feel sorry for the scapegoats being made examples of in the meantime.

 

[BVS]

Yeah, only an ass would want artists to get paid.

Screw all those independent bands that don't make shit...

 

[Butterscotch]

One thing they all need to realize is that most of the time people only download shit they wouldn't have bought anyway. My Mom said when she was growing up they taped everything off the radio that they couldn't afford. I don't see any rock stars broke because of that or the internet.

I liked this guy's comment the best:

"Well the U2 I believe in isnt short of cash...Mister"

Tim, Scotland, UK of A

 

[BVS]

One thing they all need to realize is that most of the time people only download shit they wouldn't have bought anyway. My Mom said when she was growing up they taped everything off the radio that they couldn't afford. I don't see any rock stars broke because of that or the internet.

Where did you get such a crazy theory? I would say the majority of downloaders, do not pay a cent for music, if they like it or not...

I know people who download everything they own, with the exceptions of the few artists where they want the artwork.

Of course you don't see any "rock stars" broke because of the internet, because they are already rockstars... But if you're starting out right now and don't have the means to tour, you are screwed, and you'll never be able get off the ground, no matter how good your music is.

Yeah, taping off the radio is very comparable, you have a dj talking over the intro or outro, and it's shit quality... I'm sure these are the copies you are playing over and over in your car or bedroom.

 

[the tourist]

There's gotta be some middle ground between the downloaders and the musicians. Screw the corporations--they're not the ones making the art--they're just profiting off of it.

ALL bands need to move directly to how Radiohead did it. Probably all bands would make more money because the corporations wouldn't be dipping their hands in first. Therefore, the bands would make more money charging $3 for an album than they currently do.

Would as many people illegally download if they could buy any album for $3? Especially if they knew the money was going directly to the artist/musician/musician's family (if the musician themselves are dead)?

 

[Popmartijn]

if you steal 1 dollar or you steal a million is there a difference?

yeah, just a little.

but it's still the principle of the thing, isn't it?

So if I understand you correctly, you say that stealing is wrong, no matter how big the amount you steal (or do you mean that stealing is right?).

But in your earlier posts you stated you don't want people who steal prosecuted.
So what is it?

 

[Popmartijn]

"ISPs, Telcos and tech companies have enjoyed a bonanza in the last few years off the back of recorded music content. It is time for them to share that with artists and content owners. "

Even if many users NEVER use these devices or the internet for anything remotely to do with playing, copying or sharing music Paul ?

Maybe, maybe not. But in the past those companies have thrived because of illegal downloaded music. And they never differentiated in users who did download illegally and those who didn't. So yeah, by their unwillingness it might be that everyone has to pay. But it might also be that they use technology to identify those who download a lot of music and have them pay for a license.

 

[Mr. V]

There's gotta be some middle ground between the downloaders and the musicians. Screw the corporations--they're not the ones making the art--they're just profiting off of it.

ALL bands need to move directly to how Radiohead did it. Probably all bands would make more money because the corporations wouldn't be dipping their hands in first. Therefore, the bands would make more money charging $3 for an album than they currently do.

Would as many people illegally download if they could buy any album for $3? Especially if they knew the money was going directly to the artist/musician/musician's family (if the musician themselves are dead)?

i think it's got a lot to do with credit cards dude. a lot of young people don't have them, and we're who drive the downloading culture. calling up mum and saying 'mum, can i use your credit card to buy the new Artist X album' deters me significantly from buying online. i'd rather buy a CD, but they're too expensive.

 

[LuvandPeace1980]

apparently you think rejecting the 6 million $ advance of their record company (because they wanted more advance and more rights) was a symbol against globalisation?

lol. wake up. why did they even talk to EMI then?

at a point they were just getting tired of negotiations and pulled out by doing the second best thing, releasing it this way and getting enormous publicity.

btw, they didn´t tell the CD would be in stores too.

"Fans who downloaded the label-bypassing seventh studio album by the British stars quickly learned that there were a few caveats to the donation-based download. First, the sound quality is not necessarily optimum, encoded at a bit rate of 160 kbps (kilobits per second), lower than Radiohead's earlier albums (though higher than a standard iTunes track download). (...)

Second, Radiohead's management also confirmed that a physical CD of In Rainbows will hit shelves sometime in January, possibly with extra songs.

In an interview last week with British trade magazine Music Week, Radiohead's longtime managers, Chris Hufford and Bryce Edge, acknowledged that the download offer was a piece of a larger puzzle to generate more publicity for the CD release. "If we didn't believe that when people hear the music they will want to buy the CD, then we wouldn't do what we are doing," Edge said."

Here´s the article:
http://www.usatoday.com/life/music/news/2007-10-15-radiohead-download_N.htm

So now they can't negotiate $?
Radiohead have even said they want the old EMI back.. maybe this was the final straw?

Whatever your saying doesn't change what I am saying.. and that is that music is too expensive and that it was very a very clear sign from radiohead saying 'we don't need you record companies'

companies are getting greedier and greedier and they are trying to keep there profits the same through cost cutting and compensating losses

but the fact is if they lower the prices and stop pretending that they matter anymore everything will sort itself out.. but they won't cause they are greedy and will prolong the process so long that soon everyone will be downloading illegally..

read this whenhiphopdrovethebigcars..

http://web.archive.org/web/20070517041353rn_1/nin.com/tr/

record companies rip us off it's a fact and Radiohead doing what they did was a symbolic and genius act.. there may be alot of fans who prefer the cd I do prefer the quality, but I still feel they are way too expensive..


I think you are the one who needs to wake up, i mean wake up to who you are defending!
Organisations which have no other purpose other than to make $ for their share holders

 

[Zoomerang96]

So if I understand you correctly, you say that stealing is wrong, no matter how big the amount you steal (or do you mean that stealing is right?).

But in your earlier posts you stated you don't want people who steal prosecuted.
So what is it?

according to the riaa, i'm "stealing".

and according to the law a long long time ago, people drinking alcohol in the united states were also breaking the law.

did they care?

now, i know that's anything but an airtight analogy, but the point is when enough people are doing something laws either will have to be radically changed or become entirely obsolete.

do you download illegally every once in a while?

 

[MrBrau1]

i think it's got a lot to do with credit cards dude. a lot of young people don't have them, and we're who drive the downloading culture. calling up mum and saying 'mum, can i use your credit card to buy the new Artist X album' deters me significantly from buying online. i'd rather buy a CD, but they're too expensive.

Well then you're just shit out of luck.

Music appears to be something you simply can't afford. A luxury you can't have.

 

[toscano]

One thing they all need to realize is that most of the time people only download shit they wouldn't have bought anyway. My Mom said when she was growing up they taped everything off the radio that they couldn't afford. I don't see any rock stars broke because of that or the internet.

I liked this guy's comment the best:

"Well the U2 I believe in isnt short of cash...Mister"

Tim, Scotland, UK of A

Some of us also download a lot of shit we DID buy, on vinyl long ago.

 

[toscano]

Maybe, maybe not. But in the past those companies have thrived because of illegal downloaded music. And they never differentiated in users who did download illegally and those who didn't. So yeah, by their unwillingness it might be that everyone has to pay. But it might also be that they use technology to identify those who download a lot of music and have them pay for a license.

You really think the technology is there to filter whether a piece of a torrented file is an official release or an uncopyrighted live performance, a free podcast, etc ?

Basically you're talking about an internet tax, and that may fly in Holland, but I guarantee it won't in the US

"Heavy downloaders" could be downloading porn or pretty much anything, Paul Mcguinness has no way of knowing what it is, but he wants a cut anyway.

 

[norsehorse23]

i am not an economist... sorry for starting the whole 'cost of living' debate. the internet has made it very easy to 'steal' music that otherwise was only available at a store, very true.

however, i am also aghast that some of you think it's OK to steal because of that... i won't judge, because I do believe that most of us have some sort of bootleg concert on CD or copies of friends' CDs in our personal catalogs, myself included, but knowing from how paranoid people are of the US government 'spying' on them (believe me, the media and all these conspiracy theorists have no idea what actually goes on, talk to anyone that works for the CIA, FBI, or NSA), I am surprised at how bold some of you are. however, i do my part by going on itunes or other places to legally purchase my music because I really prefer not to be prosecuted for something an idiot could avoid. and if these record companies really want to flex their financial muscles, and various governments their legal muscles, they can come after you with whatever legal ramifications they can muster, and the defense of 'the internet and computers make it too easy' and 'it's my right to get free music' won't really get you much compassion from the judge. remember, they don't go after the 'little fish' who have a few concerts on their computer, they go after the 'big fish' with thousands of files.

this is very much like enforcing the speed limit on a major highway... are the police going to pull you over for going 10 miles an hour over with hundreds or thousands of other cars going the same speed? there's only one or two patrolmen, so chances are you get away with it, but you never know, and you knowingly take that risk.

 

[BVS]

ALL bands need to move directly to how Radiohead did it.

This doesn't make any sense. Yes it worked for Radiohead, but Radiohead is already a big name. If you are starting out you need promotion, without promotion you are still working at McDonalds...

 

[BVS]

Whatever your saying doesn't change what I am saying.. and that is that music is too expensive and that it was very a very clear sign from radiohead saying 'we don't need you record companies'

I really have a hard time believing anyone would think it's way too expensive, when we are paying the same price for a CD then we were in 89. It's one of the few things that hasn't gone up. I just bought Rilo Kiley yesterday at Best Buy for 12 dollars, for 12 dollars I can enjoy this music for years. There isn't really much else you can say that about...

What else can you buy for 12 bucks that will last for years?

 

[BVS]

You really think the technology is there to filter whether a piece of a torrented file is an official release or an uncopyrighted live performance, a free podcast, etc ?

Apparently yes, the technology is there. It's not perfect, but it's at the beginning stages. It's very similar to iTunes technology of being able to read what song and artist an mp3 is, have you ever noticed bootleg mp3 comeout unknown.

"Heavy downloaders" could be downloading porn or pretty much anything, Paul Mcguinness has no way of knowing what it is, but he wants a cut anyway.

Paul wants artists and their companies to get paid. And yes there are ways of knowing what it is...

 

[Snowlock]

There's a "fair use" clause in most copyrighted material that allows for private use.

It would be very easy to convict for uploading In Rainbows, not that a court would ever waste time on just one album, but yes it would be very easy. Court doesn't look at cost, it looks at copyrights, and this wouldn't fall into fair use.

Same with uploading ER. Now giving the tape to a friend would be much harder to do anything about.

Fair use... That's correct there is. And what I'm saying is that since an album is distributed for free, continuing that distribution freely could come under fair use.

And it wouldn't be easy to convict for In Rainbows. To the letter of the law, it's possibly illegal, though I still haven't seen evidence that it's definatively so, but what I'm saying is try to get a jury to actually convict you on it is an entire different story. I'd hate to be the ADA that tried to get a conviction on a freely distributed item for piracy. You CERTAINLY could never get damages awarded.

No difference in the example of giving a tape of ER to a friend. If you hand out the tape, and a policeman videotapes it and it's proven admissable in court. Good look trying to get a jury to convict someone of piracy even with insurmountable evidence.

 

[last unicorn]

I don't think music is too expensive. I buy CD's and books because I want to appreciate the artists' work. Compared to other everyday stuff, music is still very much affordable. Whenever I buy CD's, I end up with loads of CD's that may be about 1 or 2 years old and are really cheap. I discovered a lot of great music because of that, I simply make use of the opportunity to buy more CD's because they're cheap. I still go to the good old shop - besides ordering for Amazon -, it's also a little nostalgia. I listen to songs on an album I don't know, and if I like them, I buy the CD. There's also a lot of bonus material in CD's nowadays, so I don't feel it's overprized. Spending money on something that I appreciate always gives me a good feeling. Downloading music always feels like a devaluation of the musicians' work.

 

[Snowlock]

Apparently yes, the technology is there. It's not perfect, but it's at the beginning stages. It's very similar to iTunes technology of being able to read what song and artist an mp3 is, have you ever noticed bootleg mp3 comeout unknown.

The problem is, anything can be hacked if someone wants to do it bad enough. It'd be a very simple thing to pass a law saying digital players in the US are required to only play music that has a special code embedded in it that would accompany all legit digital music. How long do you think it would take for someone to figure out how to either duplicate that code on their pirated material, or hack the music device to disregard the code?

The music industry has tried to look to technology to defeat piracy in the past, work arounds have always been figured out.

 

[toscano]

Apparently yes, the technology is there. It's not perfect, but it's at the beginning stages. It's very similar to iTunes technology of being able to read what song and artist an mp3 is, have you ever noticed bootleg mp3 comeout unknown.

you can make it come out any way you want if you know how, then you distibute it.

Remember all the supposed leaks of ATYCLB on Napster, most of which weren't even U2 ?

Paul wants artists and their companies to get paid. And yes there are ways of knowing what it is...

Paul wants it by getting cuts of ISP fees, MP3 players, etc. No debate getting his people paid is the right thing, how he wants to do it is ridiculous, and yes, there are ways of disguising what the content is when re-sharing.

 

[BVS]

Fair use... That's correct there is. And what I'm saying is that since an album is distributed for free, continuing that distribution freely could come under fair use.

I haven't seen their copyright, but I would think like most copyrighted material, even free copyrighted material, you still need permission to distribute.

And it wouldn't be easy to convict for In Rainbows. To the letter of the law, it's possibly illegal, though I still haven't seen evidence that it's definatively so, but what I'm saying is try to get a jury to actually convict you on it is an entire different story. I'd hate to be the ADA that tried to get a conviction on a freely distributed item for piracy. You CERTAINLY could never get damages awarded.

Like I said it would be a waste of time.

No difference in the example of giving a tape of ER to a friend. If you hand out the tape, and a policeman videotapes it and it's proven admissable in court. Good look trying to get a jury to convict someone of piracy even with insurmountable evidence.

Well yes it would be ridiculous to go to court for one tape.

Here's where it gets to be the gray area. This was brought up several years ago when CD burners were becoming affordable... Under the fair use policy you are technially able to make copies of music or movies, etc that you buy if they are for your use. You can make a copy for your car and your house. You can make a copy for your wife. You can even make a copy for your roommate if you can prove you share certain expenses. But if you start making mass copies and just handing them out to anyone, yes they could go after you if they like.

 

[BVS]

The problem is, anything can be hacked if someone wants to do it bad enough. It'd be a very simple thing to pass a law saying digital players in the US are required to only play music that has a special code embedded in it that would accompany all legit digital music. How long do you think it would take for someone to figure out how to either duplicate that code on their pirated material, or hack the music device to disregard the code?

The music industry has tried to look to technology to defeat piracy in the past, work arounds have always been figured out.

Who said anything about players only being able to play certain mp3's? I was talking about technology being used to filter ISPs to see what copyrighted material is being uploaded illegally.

 

[BVS]

you can make it come out any way you want if you know how, then you distibute it.

Remember all the supposed leaks of ATYCLB on Napster, most of which weren't even U2 ?

No, you can change the titles after the fact, but you can't change their original definition. This technology doesn't look at the titles, it actually looks at the coding.

Paul wants it by getting cuts of ISP fees, MP3 players, etc. No debate getting his people paid is the right thing, how he wants to do it is ridiculous, and yes, there are ways of disguising what the content is when re-sharing.

Well, Paul really isn't the one that came up with this idea, it's been in discussion for years.

 

[digsy]

I really have a hard time believing anyone would think it's way too expensive, when we are paying the same price for a CD then we were in 89. It's one of the few things that hasn't gone up. I just bought Rilo Kiley yesterday at Best Buy for 12 dollars, for 12 dollars I can enjoy this music for years. There isn't really much else you can say that about...

What else can you buy for 12 bucks that will last for years?

i've got to agree with the above.

I don't think CDs are too expensive at all and contrary to what someone was saying earlier, I have actually found the price of CDs going down, in the UK at least.
Sure if you walk into any HMV here you'll probably still find a CD for £12.99 as it was 15 years ago, but there's also £8 or £10 CDs. Supermarkets in the UK sell new releases for £7 sometimes - they're called loss-leaders and get people into the store so that they spend money on other things while they're there. Whether its good business model for those involved, I don't know but thats not the point of this conversation, the reality is I CAN buy a CD now for almost half of what I used to pay 10 years ago.

And with the increase in internet shopping I've seen CD prices drop there too. Buying online - and i don't mean digital but actual CDs - is cheaper then buying in store because the overheads are lower and most online retailers offer free delivery too. So I can get a CD online for maybe £5 cheaper than in store. Sure I may have to wait 3 days for it, but thats the way it is - lack of patience isn't a justification for stealing it off the net instead.

 

[the tourist]

This doesn't make any sense. Yes it worked for Radiohead, but Radiohead is already a big name. If you are starting out you need promotion, without promotion you are still working at McDonalds...

That's not true at all. At all. I bet you've never heard of these bands (who've sold 500k albums or more) but a band called MuteMath got themselves to a point where they were selling out clubs across the USA--with NO promotion WHATSOEVER.

The band just has to work hard and promote themselves. I was in a band. We didn't work hard to promote ourselves at all. But we still sold 250 albums. At $10 apiece, we made all of our money back that we spent recording it. If we'd actually promoted ourselves, I bet we could've sold 10x as many copies.

It just takes time, when promoting yourself. It won't be overnight success. But it also wouldn't be a record company saying "Hey, your album only sold 500,000 copies. We wanted it to sell a million. We're dropping you! Good luck!"

That happened to FRIENDS of mine. If they'd just kept on doing it on their own, they would've made much more money and wouldn't have been dissillusioned by the business. On their own they were selling 10,000+ per album, btw. At $10 apiece, that makes $100,000. If they sold them for $3 apiece, they probably would have sold 5x that many copies. Probably everyone who saw them would be like, "Holy crap! A full album? For $3? Sure!"

 

[BVS]

That's not true at all. At all. I bet you've never heard of these bands (who've sold 500k albums or more) but a band called MuteMath got themselves to a point where they were selling out clubs across the USA--with NO promotion WHATSOEVER.

Yeah, I know Mute Math, I also know they are suing their label.

Yes, every once in awhile a band can do it. But for the most part bands would remain local favorites if they all followed this business plan, no matter how hard they worked. And we would be deprived of a lot of music.

Yes, most labels suck for the most part, but they are still a very necessary evil for most. For the most part, even the most "independent" bands aren't truly independent they have some type of label helping them.

 

[ahittle]

A world without money-sucking labels would be great, but it's still a long ways off.

And even though payola is supposedly illegal, a lot of what happens under the name "promotion" is pretty slimy stuff. The last band I was in achieved a moderate amount of success, and I can tell you that even getting radio play on various college stations involves some ridiculous acrobatics and boatloads of cash.

And even as an ex-record store employee, I can attest to enjoying plenty of comps and parties and whatnot all with the intention of pushing a given artist or even hanging a measly poster. It's a gross, gross world, this music business.

The very fact that I first saw Radiohead on MTV for "Creep" means that somebody's palm was greased in one way or another.

Promotion is ridiculously expensive. It is the rare band that can work from the grassroots on up. A band like Dave Matthews worked like crazy and built up a sizable following, but it took serious industry money to rocket them to the level that they achieved with Under the Table and Crash.

Personally, my favorite new music of the past couple years has been passed on to me strictly by word of mouth by music fans with blogs. There will always be casual music listeners that need something jammed down their throats by the machine.

 

[Zoomerang96]

Well then you're just shit out of luck.

Music appears to be something you simply can't afford. A luxury you can't have.

music has the right to children.

~bored of canada