- Related Stories
-
Recording industry should brace for more bad news
January 16, 2008 -
When rockers cut ties from labels
November 2, 2007 - Related Blogs
-
Music labels decide that "free" might be a winning strategy, after all
January 28, 2008 -
Trent Reznor: Why won't people pay $5?
January 10, 2008 -
Trent Reznor: Take my music, please
October 30, 2007
Paul McGuinness says it's time for artists to stand up for themselves and calls on ISPs and governments to stop illegal music downloads.
The story "U2 manager takes Internet providers to task" published January 29, 2008 at 2:17 AM is no longer available on CNET News.
Content from Reuters expires after 30 days.
As a long-time fan (AND buyer) of U2 albums (physically and digitally) this news comes as a shock!!
Is U2 financially in trouble? Why is HE making comments like that?!
The labels are already saying all that Mr. McGuinness said, as well the should because it's their business that's tanking. But U2's manager?!?!?! What IS going on? The last dip in cd sales cost them their summer getaway in Ibiza?? Did Bono not get enough money to get to his next trip to Africa??? WHAT???
I dare, no wait, I take that back. I DOUBLE dare Mr. McGuinness to make those statements at the beginning of a U2 concert ANYWHERE in the world. He'll get some Metallica-vs.-Napster flashbacks terror filmmakers would only dream of!
I am a FIRM believer that anyone who works well should get well paid. But I think Mr. McGuinness is under the impression that when you are a rock star, you deserve to be richer and richer.
Yes I agree artists should get paid and I agree models need to be found to acomodate this. But treating ISPs, companies that make gadgets, and customers like burglars will not win you any fans, cd sales, or sympathy.
I dont see why ISPs should be responsible for protecting the music industry when they will not do it themselves.
"If you were a magazine advertising stolen cars, handling the money for stolen cars and seeing to the delivery of stolen cars, the police would soon be at your door"
The difference is that a magazine is a public medium that can be read by virtually anybody. The public has nothing to do with what I do with my own Internet connection and my ISP neither. ISPs do not advertise any illegal content, they just transport IP traffic and offer me some other services like e-mail, webhosting, etc. Maybe Mr. McGuinness also wants his snail mail screened by the US Postal Service for any illegal contents?
"Later, musician Peter Gabriel added his support, agreeing that a lot of money is being made out of music by ISPs. He expressed concern, though, about blanket deals."
How does the average ISP make money out of music? They just transport bits and bytes. Most ISPs are not fond of selling big pipes to heavy users, because of the costs of network bandwidth. There is more money to be made on the average user that doesn't download any music, besides the occasional iTunes song.
Do they really think this is good publicity for them? Is anybody going to buy more U2 albums because of this?
Let's hope nobody in congress is stupid enough to fall for some clueless whining schmucks.
Musicians are in the business of selling experiences, not sounds. A machine can duplicate anything The Edge plays on a guitar. It can't duplicate the experience of being at a concert with other people. Isn't this why people pay more for a concert than a CD? The album is just an advertisement for the artist, not the end product.
And another analogy is making telecoms responsible for illegal activity carried out using their networks. After all the criminals pay them for the tools they provide and the technology exists for them to monitor the criminals conversation.
What really happened to the "music industry" is that during the stages of early development of mass communication systems (the 20th century) the communcation systems were limited to broadcasting a little content to a vast audience. Later developments in communications technology removed this limitations. During the time when this asymmetry existed an industry has developed to take advantage of it and created a distorted model of distribution that allowed a small group of creators (some of them very talented) to grow much bigger than they could have during earlier periods. Many other talented creators that could have been reasonably successful have they been born in the 19th century could not succeed in the economic environment created in the 20th century of a centralized market that controls the availability of merchandise by limiting what is mass produced. Now the situation has changed back to normal by having communication technology that is much more symmetric, allowing more creators to enter the market by removing the control of the cartel of music distributors that created a barrier of entry that only a few could pass. However that cartel still exists, still has merchandise to offer, and its business practices that relies on the distorted economic environment created by the limitations of obsolete technology do not fit well with the new economic environment that is much more like what existed before the 20th century, so the cartel tries to fight the new technology by trying to illegalize it.
twenty, or thirty! But most people actually have to work for a
living. These rock stars with their opulent lifestyles crying over
their lost income from all their albums past make me want to
puke. Maybe we should lobby congress to roll back copyrights
to a maximum of, say, 10 years and then it becomes public
domain. The only restriction would be on commercial use. That
to me sounds fair since copyright grants the creator exclusive
use for a "limited" time.
I think Bono knows the verse from the Bible which says, "Let him
who will not work let him also not eat". That should apply to
"artists" as well. If you want more money, go out and play.
As I'm throwing away the last of my cassettes of all kinds all that tax went for what higher purpose? I'm still buying new CD's and MP3s of the music worth keeping. That's a duplucation already.
I don't like his music but that is just a personal preference.
He has set himself up to be some self-important messenger of all things good and he comes across as nothing more than a sunglass-wearing goof.
But the young people look up to him as a god.
The last thing I need is for them to start charging me more to cover the cost of someone elses job. If the music wants to PAY the ISPs to do this kind of thing they can pony up the money and my ISP can start it's Internet Investigations Division.
- Apparently...
-
by Heebee Jeebies
January 30, 2008 8:18 AM PST
- Mr. McGuinness has left someone out of the blame and whine game. The artists themselves that feel if their "records" don't go platinum it is because of piracy. Also, he needs to blame the artists also if they actually put out "records" that people wanted to pay something for to start with people would be less likely to steal. You have to love it when dim wits can't see the forest for the trees but decide to play the blame game. He is right about the record labels they really boffed the hell out of the pooch.
-
Reply to this comment
-
(19 Comments)Robert