illegal downloaders should have their internet taken away - u2 manager

[ahittle]

~bored of canada

Is that a pun? Or a Freudian slip?

 

[Zoomerang96]

Is that a pun? Or a Freudian slip?

do i need to explain this entirely? i thought it was clever... really i did.

i used to live in canada... and i left.

and music has the right to children is...

auch, nevermind.

it's a glorious post.

 

[the tourist]

So, my idea about isp/record company mergers. I told my girlfriend about that idea--he response was that it would be highly unfair to all the people whose lives don't revolve around music. Which, I guess is true. *shrugs* There really is no surefire way of both sides coming together to meet at the middle.

 

[Butterscotch]

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.

I know a guy in his 40's, a family friend, who has an awesome music museum in his own house. I was always impressed by how much he had since all that stuff was so expensive to collect and he never made much money. Recently, he revealed the truth. He was a pawn of payola.

In the 80's, he was working in a record store. He was honored to be called weekly by reps of various major labels. He felt so cool to have them remember him by name. They'd say things like "How's Sting's solo album doing this week?" and he'd say "it's not moving, we're not really selling any." The rep would say "look, we need Sting to be number one this week. If you give me the numbers I need, I will make it worth it to you." So he went along with it. He got loads of memorabilia, tour jackets, autographed guitars, exclusive albums, and even got backstage passes to some very huge name tours where he got his picture taken with the band and got his stuff autographed. All because he sold out the truth and joined payola.

He thought that he was a real 'industry insider' and that one day he'd have some big position with one of the labels. Nope. He was being used. The private record stores died out, he lost his job and had to go work in a warehouse. He still has all his stuff and won't sell a thing, though it's an ebay fortune and he could use the money, he says the stuff matters more to him than cash. He only recently admitted to his 'payola' involvement, he had been too ashamed to tell it for years, so it's not like he was lying or bragging. That's how it happened.

 

[doctorwho]

Hey, McGuinness? Don't fight the tide. Work with it.

The fact he thinks some "three strikes and you're out [of the Internet]" idea would actually work speaks volumes about how much he simply does not get it.

Don't get me wrong - most of us have "obtained" something from the net that was, uh, questionable in legality.

However, the comment "don't fight the tide, work with it" is illogical. U2, of all bands, has tried to work with it as much as possible.

iTunes and similar sites are the only places where one can download leggaly. So U2 release their entire back catalog so fans can legally obtain the music. To me, that's working with it. They are giving music fans what they want (portable music to fit on an iPod), at a good rate (U2's catalog was far, FAR cheaper purchase than if one had to download all those songs individually).

What more do you want? Free music? Radiohead tried that. Successful or not, in McGuinness' mind it wasn't. I'd really have to see the true numbers to determine if it really was. Most fans probably downloaded the music for free and if they liked it, then bought the CD. Should U2 try this as well? Maybe they will. But the intent there is that this is also a LEGAL download. Radiohead made it legal for fans to download.

McGuinness is talking about serious uploaders/downloaders who do not work in the legal realm. Judging by the poor CD sales, it's clear that CD's are a thing of the past. But are legal downloads enough to compensate? I'm not sure yet, but legal downloads are helping considerably.

Bottom line, I'm not sure what you want U2 or McGuinness to do. While U2 can afford to lose out on the sales, can a new artist? New artists are the ones suffering the most. If the songs are availabe in CD format, iTunes (or similar services) and even on an artist's webpage, I'm not really sure what more you can ask.

I'd love to hear ideas, rather than just ripping on McGuinness.

 

[the tourist]

It doesn't matter how good an artist is. It matters who's behind them or who isn't, when it comes to that sort of thing. Basically, it sucks for the little guy, while the big guys become millionaires because they had a song that some guy in a suit thought was catchy.

 

[onebloodonelife]

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.

That's a completely different technology than determining or filtering what exactly is being uploaded, whether it is illegal or not. Right now, ISPs can see that someone is uploading or downloading large amounts of data, but not what that data is. Hypothetically, someone could be uploading or downloading a Linux operating system, which is allowed to be freely distributed, and the internet company would be able to see the data, but not what it is.

That's why McGuinness' idea of taking away internet from serial uploaders or downloaders wouldn't work, at least not at this stage, the technology just isn't there.

 

[doctorwho]

I know a guy in his 40's, a family friend, who has an awesome music museum in his own house. I was always impressed by how much he had since all that stuff was so expensive to collect and he never made much money. Recently, he revealed the truth. He was a pawn of payola.

In the 80's, he was working in a record store. He was honored to be called weekly by reps of various major labels. He felt so cool to have them remember him by name. They'd say things like "How's Sting's solo album doing this week?" and he'd say "it's not moving, we're not really selling any." The rep would say "look, we need Sting to be number one this week. If you give me the numbers I need, I will make it worth it to you." So he went along with it. He got loads of memorabilia, tour jackets, autographed guitars, exclusive albums, and even got backstage passes to some very huge name tours where he got his picture taken with the band and got his stuff autographed. All because he sold out the truth and joined payola.

He thought that he was a real 'industry insider' and that one day he'd have some big position with one of the labels. Nope. He was being used. The private record stores died out, he lost his job and had to go work in a warehouse. He still has all his stuff and won't sell a thing, though it's an ebay fortune and he could use the money, he says the stuff matters more to him than cash. He only recently admitted to his 'payola' involvement, he had been too ashamed to tell it for years, so it's not like he was lying or bragging. That's how it happened.

This is why SoundScan wasn't accepted for a while. When the first tracking numbers came out, it was revealed that a country artist had the #1 album in the U.S.! That was unheard of at the time - but probably in reality, it had been occurring quite frequently.

Back in the 70's and 80's, an artist could hold the #1 record for weeks and weeks. Now, an artist is usually there for a short period, sometimes just a week. As strong-selling as U2's JT was, I highly doubt it would have been #1 for as long as it was if SoundScan was in use then. Bribes occurred and numbers were fudged.

This is why I'm not a big fan of Billboard charts. First, Billboard themselves keep changing the rules. For example, U2's "Vertigo" easily would have been a top 10 hit in the U.S. (maybe even Top 5) had Billboard counted downloads at the time. They didn't, and "Vertigo" had to rely solely on airplay. Now Billboard does, so U2's next "big single" may have a chance to be a huge charting song for them, but it's only because rules have changed. Billboard is often a bit too slow to change their format. But because of these ever-changing rules, it's difficult to compare eras of songs. Was "Angel of Harlem" really a bigger hit than "Beautiful Day"? Per the charts it was, but in reality???

Then there's the afore-mentioned bribery. Billboard reported album sales based on reports from record stores. As record store data could be corrupted, there's no saying how big an album truly was. Fortunately, the RIAA certifications are at least real (as there are audits done on how many copies were sold to stores). But this does explain how some albums appeared to be big hits on the charts, but really only went Gold or Platinum per the RIAA certification.

Lastly, the music business is actually returning to what it was in the 60's and early 70's. For years, singles sold huge, while albums did not. That finally started to shift in the 70's (starting with a Carol King album). With legal downloads, it appears that the singles are now returning to dominance, while albums are laying low. The music industry, spoiled by years of people buying CD's to replace their albums and by big CD sales in the 90's as people built up their collections, have to accept this shift. Push the single - it may be better than pushing the album.

 

[MrBrau1]

So, my idea about isp/record company mergers. I told my girlfriend about that idea--he response was that it would be highly unfair to all the people whose lives don't revolve around music. Which, I guess is true. *shrugs* There really is no surefire way of both sides coming together to meet at the middle.

That's why it would be by choice.

Like a cable package.

They don't charge people for HBO, if they don't get HBO.

the stealing of music will always be a problem though. People think they deserve it.

 

[Chrisedge]

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.

My recordings show up in iTunes because someone submitted the track information to CDDB. That is easy to do.

The problem is you have a whole generation of young folks thinking the "price is too high" (Doesn't matter that CD's HAVE come down in price since they came out...FACT) and they are used to stealing it. So ANY price is too high. $10 is too much for a album? LOL. I remember the first 45's I bought as a Kid in the 70's (earlier part of 70's) were between $.50-$.70 cents. Inflation would dictate that would be much more than a couple bucks now. Music prices have come down. And because people (kids) are used to illegally downloading, ANY price seems too high.

People have ALWAYS copied music though...that is nothing new. It's just much more wide spread since the napster days. I used to tape full albums off the radio when KLOS would do "The 7th Day" and play 7 full albums. I copied friends albums on cassette. I have downloaded my fairshare of stuff off the internet. But I also own PLENTY of real cd's. I bought the complete U2, even though I owned all the official cd's.

People feel they are ENTITLED to free/cheap music. You aren't. People don't feel bad about stealing off the internet, because it's too easy. If you got busted, I'm sure your thoughts might be different.

 

[Snowlock]

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.

And how are you going to figure out by that technology what's legal and illegal? My examples are saying anything can and has been hacked to date. The ISP filters will be too, or filterered MP3 players... In a matter of hours probably.

 

[BVS]

That's a completely different technology than determining or filtering what exactly is being uploaded, whether it is illegal or not. Right now, ISPs can see that someone is uploading or downloading large amounts of data, but not what that data is. Hypothetically, someone could be uploading or downloading a Linux operating system, which is allowed to be freely distributed, and the internet company would be able to see the data, but not what it is.

That's why McGuinness' idea of taking away internet from serial uploaders or downloaders wouldn't work, at least not at this stage, the technology just isn't there.

The question was how will the filter determine between a U2 studio track and a non-copyrighted live mp3, and the technology is out there to do this.

 

[BVS]

And how are you going to figure out by that technology what's legal and illegal? My examples are saying anything can and has been hacked to date. The ISP filters will be too, or filterered MP3 players... In a matter of hours probably.

I said it was a SIMILAR technology. From what I've read the filters actually scan the "DNA" of the files so you or I couldn't change the mp3 without actually fucking with the content.

The hacking issue is something completely different. Anything can be hacked, theoretically NASA could be hacked into, it isn't a reason to not implement.

 

[Zoomerang96]

youtube is a form of piracy too, in a lot of ways.

i hope you don't watch that on-demand stuff. unless the record company posted it, then it's ok.

otherwise it's pretty much illegal, guys.

 

[BVS]

youtube is a form of piracy too, in a lot of ways.

i hope you don't watch that on-demand stuff. unless the record company posted it, then it's ok.

otherwise it's pretty much illegal, guys.

Yeah technically you can't post an official video, but most of those started to get taken down when it was bought.

Most everything else is fair game.

 

[Pinball Wizard]

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...

You would say that, but... do you have any numbers to support your "theory"? I think you're right, but what's the point of denouncing other folks' opinions when we are speculating on almost immeasurable statistics? I would love to see a study that finds a correlation between the amount of promotion an artist receives, their album sales, the amount of illegal downloaders that do not contribute money to said artist, and the amount of illegal downloaders that buy and/or recommend said artist (good luck). Maybe then we can start separating the crazy theories from the assumed ones.

Until that time, we're all just floating.

Float on.

By the way, if you wish to continue viewing my intellectual property, please deposit 5 dollars into your disc drive. Otherwise you're a criminal.

 

[ClaytonsKitten]

Paul, STFU. Please. Before you ruin the ONLY management job you've ever had. U2 made you rich, but they can just as easily remove you from the equation.

Anyone remember Lars from Metallica being a greedy wanker a few years back? Metallica hasnt been the same since. Do all of you want U2 to end up that way? Because of Paul and his big mouth?

Paul is behind the times, and has been for some time. I think it's high time U2 turned the reins of their business over to people who aren't afraid of technology and the changes the music business is facing. Hell, the band can practically manage itself with the clout they have.

This is just as horrid as Paul's idea that U2 should only release material in the 4th quarter. They could be preparing a lead single NOW, hot on the heels of their film, and releasing an album in the summer...but noooo, big bad greedy Paul doesn't want that.

*shakes head*

 

[BVS]

You would say that, but... do you have any numbers to support your "theory"? I think you're right, but what's the point of denouncing other folks' opinions when we are speculating on almost immeasurable statistics?

Well I was basing it off this comment:

One thing they all need to realize is that most of the time people only download shit they wouldn't have bought anyway.

I mean there's just no basis for this.

I agree I have no numbers, I'm just basing it off countless amount of people who admit this to me and the attitude of many when this discussion comes up...

I mean look at all the excuses we have. I download but pay for my concert ticket, CDs are too much, asshole record labels, etc... This doesn't sound like most only download "what they wouldn't have bought anyways", this sounds like most download everything.

 

[BVS]

Paul, STFU. Please. Before you ruin the ONLY management job you've ever had. U2 made you rich, but they can just as easily remove you from the equation.

Anyone remember Lars from Metallica being a greedy wanker a few years back? Metallica hasnt been the same since. Do all of you want U2 to end up that way? Because of Paul and his big mouth?

Paul is behind the times, and has been for some time. I think it's high time U2 turned the reins of their business over to people who aren't afraid of technology and the changes the music business is facing. Hell, the band can practically manage itself with the clout they have.

This is just as horrid as Paul's idea that U2 should only release material in the 4th quarter. They could be preparing a lead single NOW, hot on the heels of their film, and releasing an album in the summer...but noooo, big bad greedy Paul doesn't want that.

*shakes head*

So what do you suggest? How should artist get paid?

 

[BVS]

*crickets*

I find it funny how everyone's jumping on Paul calling him a greedy dinosaur, but all he's trying to do is find someway for the artist to get paid...

And many of you are trying to find away to keep music coming in for free...

 

[the tourist]

I agree that the artists need to get paid. What I find horrible, though, is that out of every $10 disc sold, the artist only gets 14%. The companies really need this to happen to them for being so greedy. The companies are what need to go away.

 

[BVS]

I agree that the artists need to get paid. What I find horrible, though, is that out of every $10 disc sold, the artist only gets 14%. The companies really need this to happen to them for being so greedy. The companies are what need to go away.

Well that 14% varies. But it's true, most starting out only get close to 14%, but you have to consider they got advances for living expenses, videos, etc... And once you are established you have negotiating powers to get more.

What business or corporations aren't considered "greedy"?

 

[A stor]

Very true, and yet loads of people still don't want to pay it.

I love the people who whine "they are attacking their best customers!" Bullshit. When someone is stealing your product he/she is not a customer.

Good point! If you want to download official music. You should pay for it. You wouldn't walk into the Walmart and steal the cd, would you?

 

[phanan]

Damn, I go away from this thread for a bit and it's double the pages.

Yikes.

A comment about the CD prices. Take away the initial test run, which as BVS stated, was mostly classical titles, and there really has been no change to the LIST price that is issued by the music companies. Obviously, today with big box retailers like Best Buy and Wal-Mart on the scene, they can sell them for a loss because they make their money on the high margin items.

But this topic has kind of broken off on its own tangent now, so I digress.

 

[vociti]

I'm not sure if this question was posted on this topic. I went though many postings and didn't see it. Mostly arguing.

Why can't Limewire be shut down like Napster?

Plus, those of you that call record labels and artist greedy. The downloaders who download illegal music are greedy too. They all want the largest music collection on earth without paying a dime for it. All of my friends who download off Limewire have this mentality that it's so cool to have a 500gb music collection. Oh, but they don't want to pay anything for that collection. Isn't that greed?

 

[MrBrau1]

Here's an interesting bit.

Mininova currently has a "Complete Beatles" torrent.

360kbps

--Please Please Me
--With the Beatles
--A Hard Day's Night
--Beatles For Sale
--Help!
--Rubber Soul
--Revolver
--Yellow Submarine
--Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band
--Abbey Road
--Magical Mystery Tour
--The Beatles (White Album)
--Let It Be
--The Beatles 1962-1965 (Greatest Hits Vol. 1)
--The Beatles 1967-1970 (Greatest Hits Vol. 2)
--Past Masters, Volume One
--Past Masters, Volume Two
--Anthology, Vol. 1
--Anthology, Vol. 2
--Anthology, Vol. 3
--Live at the BBC
--The Early Tapes (With Tony Sheridan)
--The Decca Tapes
--The Beatles 1
--Love Songs
--In The Beginning

444 people are downloading it. 1034 sharing.

Couldn't that be considered a felony in some states?

What the hell kind of business plan can compete with that? Every Beatles album. In extremely high quality. On your pc in hours. At the great low price of $0.00.

 

[vociti]

yes, look at all those illegal downloads, great post. You know what's so funny, it's amazing how things which shouldn't be complicated become very complicated because of people trying to justify the fact they have huge music collections without paying for them. This whole issue is very simple. Millions of people are stealing music and the entire music industry is hurting. More importantly, artist are hurting. This is fact. I'm not talking about the u2s of the world. I'm talking about the majority of the music scene that are not like U2 in terms of size. Every single person that downloads from Limewire is illegally knows they're doing an illegal act but keep doing it because there are no consequences.

How Limewire is still able to operate is beyond me. Napster went down. Limewire should too.

 

[ahittle]

Yeah, it's a symptom of our age and says a lot about us. We have the capacity for, say, 500 gigs - or more! - of music library. But nobody has the cash to fill that kind of space. So we fill it by any means possible.

What, are we going to leave empty space on our drives? It's a sickness.

That's why I think a subscription service is the best route. OK, you can have access to EVERYTHING. No need to scrabble around, snatching up the entire Johnny Cash discography in one binge. And you don't have to squirrel it away on your hard drive.

Now that the genie is out of the bottle, I don't see how the music biz can go back to a pay-per-album system amd expect people to follow along. People are now used to ridiculously huge music libraries. If you ask them to go legit, they will balk. If you tell them, OK, you can have access to everything, legally, but for a reasonable monthly fee, then you're on to something.

Music junkies (like most us) aside, how much does the music industry expect the average consumer to pay for CD's a month? What was the average before P2P hit the market? (I don't know - I'm asking.)

 

[the tourist]

Plus, those of you that call record labels and artist greedy. The downloaders who download illegal music are greedy too.

I don't agree with either side. There needs to be a middle ground. If the music cost less, way more people would buy it and not illegally download something. The music will never cost less while there are big businesses running it. And people will never stop downloading if prices remain where they are. Therefore, it's a big cycle and nothing will change.

 

[vociti]

FEW IDEAS:
1) I think everything should go subscription like Rhapsody. However, here's how it should be done. When you go to a site like rhapsody, in order to listen or download any music, you must go to the Artist's Rhapsody page. Within that page, advertisements are shown. The advertiser pays the artist to show their ads on the artist's rhapsody page. I mean, how much would it be worth to an advertiser to put ads on the U2 Rhapsody page knowing that million upon millions people will view that rhapsody page.

2) I also think rock stars should promote products, just like a professional athlete. Hell, Tiger makes 5-10 million a year off golf? 70 million off Nike, Buick, etc. If I became a rock star, I would have companies pay me to promote their products. Watches, clothing, etc. Why not!

I don't care if tracks were 25 cents, people will still download through services like Limewire because it's easy and still cost nothing. People are just that way. As long as they are satisfying their needs, that's all that matter. Hence the reason we have so many problems in the world today. It's all about self gratification.

I subscribe to Rhapsody and love it. I think once they begin making car stereos that are rhapsody compatible, it will be come huge. I have a Sansa Rhapsody player that I love. I pay 1 monthly fee and load it full of high-quality rhapsody music. And, it's legal. Artist don't make much, but they make some.
I'm trying to be a part of the solution so hopefully better music will return more often instead 99% crap you hear lately. I don't like the fact that my Sansa player is loaded with more old music than it is new. Not good!