Comments on: U2 manager: 'Ultimately free is the enemy of good'

ISPs are doing more to protect copyright music and movies than ever but it's not good enough for Paul McGuinness, the outspoken manager of U2.

[TheGoBetween]

I find it ironic that Mr. McGuinness is bemoaning the environment (music file trading/pirating) that pushed demand for the music player (iPod) U2 endorsed into the stratosphere.

[ofmyony]

If the studios don't like it stop making music and movies. Do they think I really care if they go out of business. Personally I think we would be better off without 90 percent of it anyway. I love to hear rich people gripe. It must be horrible to be filthy rich and sick to your stomach at the same time!

[skintmuso13]

Its funny that most of the haters here steal the music the studios make. they whine about how crap it is, but then steal it anyway.because its far better than the rest of the **** that is legally free.
I agree that we'd better off without 90% of it, but why don't you just stick to the free dross you can get elsewhere legally? pls tell me what your job is so I can tell you why your job is worthless.

[Squashman2]

He just doesn't understand that alot of ISP's are very small and for them to implement policing of their bandwidth with would require extra equipment and employee time. Now if the RIAA wants to pay the ISP's to do their job, that is fine. But the ISP's should be compensated for their time and effort. You don't get something for nothing. Unless of course you are pirating.

[skintmuso13]

"He just doesn't understand that alot of ISP's are very small and for them to implement policing of their bandwidth with would require extra equipment and employee time. Now if the RIAA wants to pay the ISP's to do their job, that is fine. But the ISP's should be compensated for their time and effort. You don't get something for nothing."

What about all the small independent labels and artist?

ISP's, drive their business but providing the ability to steal content. Theyre bosses should be getting sued as fences for passing on stolen goods.

[Jlmc727]

I would really like to know how many of you THIEVES and yes that is what you are, will work and support themselves without getting paid. The problem is the internet has made it so easy to steal without any moral conviction. They keep telling themselves they are not hurting anyone and if I like it I will buy it and if I don't I will delete it. Would anyone care to respond to out of say 1000 downloads they have paid for, and how many are still residing on your computer? As far as MTV and the radio they do pay royalties for playing music.

[pentest]

Dork,

You just came up with a defense of file sharing. If they weren't going to buy it then nothing is lost.

You are truly stupid if you actually think copyright infringement is theft. There is no legal basis for parroting the RIAA/MPAA talking point.

[Dr_Zinj]

Paul McGuinness is an ignoramous with too much money and too little brains. One breath he says that U2 got all the breaks and the best terms and that anyone can do the same, the next breath he's saying how unusual that is.

He obviously hasn't done a lick of research into the relationship between free music downloading and music sales or he'd know that the people who buy the most music are those that also download the most. And that in every instance where downloading was effectively prevented, legitimate music sales declined.

As for his comment, "Artists are entitled to get paid, whatever kind of art they do, the same way technologists are entitled to get paid." He obviously doesn't know squat about freeware, shareware, and open source; much less the purpose of copyright and patent law.

[pentest]

Yup, if the copyright laws were still rational, Boy, War, and possibly the Unforgettable Fire would be public domain by now.

[chuck_whealton]

There's just something about this guy that makes me feel like he's crying the blues because his band (who I really don't care for anyway - but besides the point) is making a couple million dollars per year less.

Now I don't agree with copyright infringement, but there's something about this guy that comes off as plain old greedy. He's willing to force the ISPs (and everybody else involved) to probably put more money out on a yearly basis than his band looses, just so his band doesn't loose anything? Incredible....

If I were U2, I would NOT want this guy speaking for me.

[greggish123]

Just another scumbag insisting that the gatekeepers need to get paid.

Imagine a world where all information, all knowledge, everything that can be digitized, is available to everyone, everywhere. A world where we can share everything of beauty that can be delivered digitally. A world where everybody can know everything they want to know. A world without ignorance and starved brains. What a nightmare?

The artists and authors will get paid. We will pay them voluntarily, because we love what they make. We don't need the State coercing payment. The distributors however will not get a penny. Tough luck for them. A digitally networked world makes distribution costless. We will distribute everything ourselves. We don't need Rupert Murdoch, that this scumbag praises, anymore.

[skintmuso13]

"We will pay them voluntarily, because we love what they make."

theres not many ppl agreeing with you here.
Radiohead proved that most ppl want to steal rather than pay.

most of you seem content to to thieve because you can.


"The distributors however will not get a penny."
Apart from the parasite ISP's, and TPB, mininova and other digital distribution leeches, who do add no value apart from free access to other ppl's music.
But then its one rule for you parsites, and another for content creators

[Gromit801]

I wonder how any of you would survive if digitized music disappeared, and we all went back to vinyl LPs? Oh yes, I know there are USB turntables, and then you'd have to clean up the noise from the needle in the groove, and so on.

But 99% of everyone would have to go to the store and plunk down their money.

See, that's all it comes down to. The vast number of employees behind producing music wanting to be paid a living wage, and you miserable lot that doesn't want to pay anything.

[screamapillar]

Actually, the RIAA would be the sector most opposed to this model not the consumers (and piraters).

This old model would mean that the industry would return to only making money via live shows and merchandise. LPs would need to be very cheap (as they were in the day) to ensure people had the opportunity to hear the acts and then decide to see them live or not. Every album would need to be good quality rather than mass produced pop crud - or else they'd lose the live performance.

So consumers are ok because the music is at a reasonable price in this model - too expensive and they won't sell at all and thus not pack a stadium in the live show.

Bring it on - the old model worked, artists had to perform to make money. These days they sing the song once and then rake in millions whether they perform or not.

Gromit - sorry pal, you are yet another over-simplistic mind that can't see the real picture

[skintmuso13]

"These days they sing the song once and then rake in millions whether they perform or not."

there are 10 million artists on myspace, show me the 10milion millionaires.

(I'd be surprised if 100 of them are.)

[oldguytoo]

Illegal downloading = stealing = crime = justice.

[kev7773]

Based on your equation, justice is a crime?

[kev7773]

Based on this equation, you are saying that justice is a crime. So, are you for anarchy?

[screamapillar]

oldguytoo - check your statutes. "illegal downloading" is not stealing/theft, it is not a crime. It is infringement. Doesn't have the same ring to it, but unfortunately for fear mongerers like yourself, it is the reality.

[rjf19]

Sorry Mr. McGuinness but, what was the name of your band?

[vhuskey]

oh, they're only the biggest band in the world, that have the most grammys than any other band, who within a month or two opened live for the grammys, brit awards, and echo awards, whose lead singer is saving lives as we speak, whose last album debued on the billboards at #1.

[screamapillar]

@vhuskey - um Mr McGuiness isn't in a band, he manages one. That was the point rjf19 was making.

And the irony here is that the 'lead singer' you mention is 'saving lives' by fighting for corporations to not get paid the money owing to them via patents (yes, he is fighting for medicine/vaccines for those that cannot afford it and the companies are saying no for the EXACT same reasons the music industry uses)...

I wonder if bono knows his representative is saying that giving away medicine is bad because free is the enemy of good and all that

[pentest]

vhuskey,

U2 is one of the worst bands around. That you point to the pointless grammys shows how weak the band that you worship is.

U2's last album sucked, as have every single one since War. Anything else is meaningless.

[cp256]

"U2's manager continues to push ISPs and technologists to" do U2's work for them at no charge. It's the same old "we'll sue you and we have big bad lawyers so you'll lose money unless you spend the money to do our work for us."

U2 can KMA and Bono's a jackass imo.

[pw1y]

keep in mind that most great recordings are the product of many hours of hard work by people who are seasoned artists and technicians. sales used to be used to re-coup the large monetary investment of employing these professionals. now that sales are down, notice that the quality of most recordings suffers. they could sound better. more dynamic and nuanced. but where's the money to pay for it? apparently it's greedy and old-fashioned to hope for it.

not all of those getting paid in the music biz are middlemen jerks. get over it. quality comes with a price. cut out the middlemen and that price is considerably lower, but not quite free. sorry to break it to you me-me-me types, but the music you love may be suffering because of your short-sighted thinking.

[David Amerland]

McGuinness moralises about right and wrong at a time when he does not have to worry about money and worries about squeezing every bit of royalty he can out of U2's music. His arguments about being ok to pay for internet access squeeze out a huge slice of the developing world, he has obviously never heard of the 'digital divide' we are all trying to do away with and his reminiscence of the halcyon days of pre-internet is about as potent a symbol of his inability to grasp the 21st century as any. The question is why has this bozo (and as I say this I must confess I am a U2 fan) been suddenly given a platform to speak on a subject he is ill-equipped to comprehend beyond his own narrow materialistic views?

[jtjt145]

And I used to be a fan of their music ... no longer!

And just because they want to see their money stream lasting for ever and ever, they would like to turn back the time on us.
Well tough luck mister! It is your fault that you chose to distribute your product on a medium that has been designed for easy copying.

You want to continue earn money? Get your lazy @rse up, and go on a tour selling tickets!

Arthur

[drichards1953]

U2 is who? The manager of a band who is basically a faded rose, needs to find a new hobby. There is no research that indicates that P2P downloads cost the entertainment companies or the acts anything. The acts makes little on the CD's etc., they make their serious money on touring. If U2 needs money that bad, then McGuinness needs to get his tail out there hustling U2 for another tour. This is all about greed and nothing more, pathetic.

[skintmuso13]

there's plenty of research to show that illegals fileshareing has gone up massively in proportion to recorded music sales declining.
Its mainly larger acts make serious money out of touring.

it almost as pathetic as being lecturered to by a sad thief who probably cant just their own job description never mind critizising someone elses

[inachu]

FREE is good and great!
This friday I will be buying OOMA!!!!!!!!!!
Yeah baby!

[einarabelc5]

This:

http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1422526

Shame on you Paul. You have become a Cartoon of yourself. Get off that pedestal.

[NESTER]

How could a guy only 2 months older then myself be sooo clued out. Oh what happened to Monty Python when they posted free on you tube. Something about sales going up 1400%.

[skintmuso13]

when the MP DVD wasnt available, or harder to download from P2P.

[Len Bullard]

The costs of making the product are increased by the numbers of people in the production network. If the distribution network doesn't meet and exceed that: no profits.

Profits are good. Reward systems work.

Not all of the people in both networks are touring artists.

Reducing the overall size of the production network makes up for some lossed in the distribution network. There is some experience that returns are going to be less overall.

Despite whether you are weeping over Gresham's Law (bad money drives out good), or lambasting the moguls, the indisputable is that the overall amount of money in the market will decline.

The manager is right. Quality will decline where quality is a function of the size and membership of the production network if money is the dominant reward. For the time required to get, maintain and improve A-list skills, there will be less high quality. Of the set that is quality, there will be a larger percentage driven by other rewards.

The mogul haters are wrong. Not everyone necessary to the process tours.

Remember: The Beatles were a phenomenon of Industry Rock. A good little band was made great. The other formula is the West Coast Grateful Dead/Fish model: tour until your fan base creates a stable and reliable following. A great band created a large following.

The Beatles were superior songwriters and recording artists to the Dead by several orders of magnitude, The Help is all the difference to the size of the demographic reached which for the Dead was the Deadheads and for the Beatles was Everybody. The Man is right there.

You don't care. True. Neither do they. Those are your negBadges.

The results are the same. The smart people in industrial rock get it and the rest have the road.

The long term winners have the road AND get it. Selling on the web isn't that hard. New powers have to be applied. See Apple. See MySpace. See ReverbNation. See Vivaty.

At the end of the day, I think what bothers Mr. McGuinness is the party in power has changed and he does not yet have a working relationship with the people he should. Rascal Flatts label had figured it out. Arlo Guthrie figured it out before anyone else did. Props to the Folkslinger.

Otherwise and no disrespect intended, but there is no rolling back a commercial technology, only more regulation. Yours is an argument for the legislative bodies. The commenters are making your case by repeating the mantra 'we don't care; we'll do it anyway'. What the young don't accept is the law of the land is the law specifically to address that mantra. That is the real meaning of "we the people": we promise to obey the law to constrain ourselves for our common good. What has yet to be established in the threads is the name or type of the 'common good' given the opportunities of the new technologies.

Quality only works if they care. They actually like the sound of a squeaky acoustic guitar and a solo voice. They actually like the sound of an mp3. Just as your generation once accepted the Seekers, the Kingston Trio, PP&M, Arlo Guthrie and the rest, a human sound is the difference between a hit and a cheap demo. The rest is just stuff.

Quality of transaction is the missing common good.

[MrBoomshadow]

Those of you chiding the other posters for advocating the illegal sharing of content are, as you have been since 1999, missing the point. This is a philosophical discussion. We have here a manager of a band who believes that his band's exclusivity is in and of itself worth something.

Unfortunately for him, U2 is just another band. They're decent musically, but they made their money as a "message" band. Their politics sold their albums.

This is not and never should be exclusive.

Mr. McGuinness has every right to try to protect his meal ticket, but doing so by refusing to release any free content will only hurt the band, and him, in the end. The reason is simple: other bands will do it, and eat U2's lunch (not that U2 will necessarily ever notice).

U2 has name recognition because they did well under the old model where they let a label take most of their money in exchange for use of the label's publicity machine. There were only a few big acts, but even fewer successful small bands.

Now, small bands CAN succeed, and U2 is just another act, big or not. And let's face it--if you're a U2 fan, you can probably name a single they released in the past decade. If not...well, I wouldn't bet on it.

This is not an issue of whether anyone feels "entitled" to get music or other content without paying for it. This is a question of philosophy. My philosophy is that if Mr. McGuinness manages two acts exactly like U2, and promotes one with the model they used from 1979 to 2009, and promotes the other by offering some free content as we do this century, the act using the new business model will enjoy greater success.

You may argue that McGuinness' old business model works better because he's rich, and so is U2. Ask instead why he let them sell their master recordings, whether they've gotten them back, and if so, how much it cost. This is not about whether you or I deserve to get free content. This is about whether U2 or any other content provider deserves to succeed merely because they offer content for sale.

The answer is no: a band does not have to release free content, but a band that chases illusory "missed sales" and tries to game the system by lobbying for tougher laws (the DMCA is indeed a "thieves' charter," and the labels are the thieves) will spend more succeeding than will a band who hones their craft and connects with their fans.

[skintmuso13]

"Now, small bands CAN succeed"

name them?

To what level can bands succeed without middlemen and/or label's and/or marketing cash?