U2's Manager Calls For Mandatory Disconnects For Music Downloaders

sleeplesseye writes "In a speech at the Midem music industry convention in Cannes, Paul McGuinness, longtime manager of the band U2, has called on Internet service providers to immediately introduce mandatory French-style service disconnections to end music downloading, and has urged governments to force ISPs to adopt such policies. McGuinness criticized Radiohead's 'In Rainbows' pay-what-you-want business model, saying that 'the majority of downloads were through illegal P2P download services like BitTorrent and LimeWire'. He also accused ISPs, telcos, device makers, and numerous specifically named companies such as Apple, Google, Yahoo!, Oracle, and Facebook of building 'multi billion dollar industries on the back of our content without paying for it', and of being 'makers of burglary kits' who have made 'a thieves' charter' to steal money from the music industry. The full text of his speech has been posted on U2's website."

What a crock

[FredFredrickson (1177871)]

From TFTA:

Notwithstanding the promotional noise, even Radioheads honesty box principle showed that if not constrained, the customer will steal music.

Ok, not to state the obvious here, but if they're offering it free, that means it wasn't stealing. I would like to say, while there are some that obviously would try to steal it whether it was free or not, some may have been compelled to pick it up for free that wouldn't have even bothered to buy orsteal it in the first place. If it's free, might as well give it a try. That's not increased piracy-- that's increased exposure. Radiohead's huge, but a lot of my friends don't listen to them. This gave them a chance to join the Radiohead bandwagon.

Aside from that, Paul continues to show his disconnection from reality by using Radiohead's example. Radiohead made far more money distributing it this way than they ever did with a record label. His entire speech was nothing more than a "oh noes! Please help me save our dying business model."

Talk about profitting off the backs of other's work- he's using U2's name (and website) to push his agenda!

Re:What a crock

[ePhil_One (634771)]

Talk about profitting off the backs of other's work- he's using U2's name (and website) to push his agenda!

I'm curious what U2 has to say about this. I haven't had much reason to buy U2 music lately anyway, but until now I've been OK with their politics. Be a shame if I have to start bad mouthing them because he supports a completely assinine potition on net rights.

Re:What a crock

[flitty (981864)]

Talk about profitting off the backs of other's work

I, for one, don't subscribe to the "internets" just to download illegal music. Of all the reasons I have internet, Illegal mp3 downloading is not one of them. As I've said many times before, When someone offers music online, DRM free, cheaper than a physical album (mp3's should NOT be the same price as a physical, lossless album) I'll buy MP3's. Until then, If you don't give me a reasonable option to buy your album, I'll either buy it in the store, or ignore it altogether. Thanks for adding U2 to the tainted "Metallica" pool of music downloading.

Re:What a crock

[Peaquod (1200623)]

As I've said many times before, When someone offers music online, DRM free, cheaper than a physical album (mp3's should NOT be the same price as a physical, lossless album) I'll buy MP3's.downloading.

Have you checked out Amazon's service? It meets all your criteria, and is a tremendous step forward in my opinion.

Re:What a crock

[Jonny_eh (765306)]

US only, Canadians need not apply!

Re:What a crock

[Peaquod (1200623)]

Isn't that another one of those windos, internet exploder-only sites?

uh... nope. I'm a mac user, works fine with both safari and FF. The only somewhat disappointing aspect is that you need to download a (free) application in order to purchase full albums. However, it's a lightweight application that works great, and is available for both Windows and Mac users. Sorry Linux users! You can still buy by the track!

Re:What a crock

[Dachannien (617929)]

Thanks for adding U2 to the tainted "Metallica" pool of music downloading.

Agreed. It's interesting that the last thing of note Metallica did was put their collective lips directly on the RIAA's ass. I guess the RIAA is a big enough ass that there's room enough for U2 there as well.

Fortunately, there's enough good music [musiccreators.ca] out there that I only need to offer the briefest lament for U2's downfall before I move on.

Re:What a crock

[Stripe7 (571267)]

How long before someone builds a virus that will carry the signature of a "pirated" song and infect a bunch of machines so that entire networks get shutdown by ISP's?

Re:What a crock

[CopaceticOpus (965603)]

That's probably true for many big name artists, whose main goal when recording an album is to produce one or two radio hits. But I love listening to music as an album, and many of my favorite artists are still making albums, not just songs. I would hate to see albums die off as music goes online. Songs can really gain something by being a part of a larger work.

Re:What a crock

[Hatta (162192)]

That's only true if you listen to crap music. Good artists don't need filler. Shit, a good musician can get up and jam for an hour and it will be worth listening to. If a band can't produce a whole album that's worth listening to, then they're not worth my attention. There are too many great artists who can.

U2: Union Busters

[spun (1352)]

U2 started using Stage Crew Services, a non union shop, back in the '90s. Seeing as how they were born working class and still tout their so-called activism, that smells of hypocrisy to me. I haven't bought a U2 album since. Funny thing, everyone is so up in U2's ass, you can't find much about it on the web. I was part of a protest against them, we got a chance to talk to them, and Bono was the biggest piece of shit ever. Basically said, "Do you know who I am, and what I've done? I'm the biggest activist in the world, who are you peons to criticize me? I'll hire whoever I like."

Re:U2: Union Busters

[MightyYar (622222)]

You can be a non-union shop in a union-heavy industry in one of two ways: You can actively suppress the unions or you can be so good to your employees that the idea of unionizing seems silly.

Which method does U2 employ?

Re:U2: Union Busters

[spun (1352)]

They actively suppressed unions and treated their crews like shit, from what I heard.

Re:U2: Union Busters

[MightyYar (622222)]

Ah, yes. You made me Google it. It looks like their pay is rather low and they don't even pay for all hours worked, plus they seem to fire pro-union workers.

It looks like the unions nailed them to the wall - they don't even seem to exist anymore, do they?

Re:U2: Union Busters

[LWATCDR (28044)]

You heard?
Well then why didn't they go to work for a union shop?
I guess I have different opinion of "unions". When I was a kid a friend's father worked for Piper Aircraft. A Union tried to get in there. He said that the union people where threatening them to vote for the Union. At that time Piper paid really well, offer health benefits and even offered scholarships for the kids of employees. They didn't let the Union in. Oh he was a the guy that welded the motor mounts so yea he was just a worker.

The other experience has to do with going to trade shows in Union towns. Yea it is so helpful for me to have to pay $100 for some union hack to bring me an orange extension cord.

So you are willing to make a statement of fact based on what you heard...
As far as I I can see a Union is the last thing that employees should want. If you are getting abused in by your employer and the law alone will not protect you then yes you may need a Union.
Otherwise they are a blight on society from my experience.

Re:U2: Union Busters

[Beardo the Bearded (321478)]

Years ago, my dad worked in a smelter.

The shop across the street was unionized. The manager at my dad's plant said, "I'll give you everything the union shop gets, no questions asked. They can go on strike, get a better deal, and then you'll get that deal. Plus, you don't have to miss that pay while you'd be out on strike."

They never unionized, and never went on strike. I guess the moral is that if you treat your employees with respect and treat them well (with good pay, good benefits, etc.) then unions aren't really required.

Re:U2: Union Busters

[davester666 (731373)]

This sounds to me like an argument for unions. Your dad would have been totally screwed if the shop across the street wasn't unionized.

If anything your dad leeched off the union. He got the benefits of it being in the other shop, without having to pay for it [no dues, no having to strike for better pay/benefits, etc].

Let me tell you about the One Big Union

[spun (1352)]

Unions as they exist today are a mixed bag, neither the saviors of the working poor nor the blight you make them out to be. Reform is needed, but that's been true of unions for over 100 years. I volunteered with the Industrial Workers of the World, otherwise known as the Wobblies. Most people don't know about us outside of history class, but the IWW still exists. Here's how the IWW is different: no mandatory union dues taken out of your paycheck, complete and total democracy, and only one paid (and democratically elected) position. Also, instead of seperate unions, everyone is in the same union, but a different branch. That way, when the janitors at a plant strike, the electricians do too.

I uphold that anyone should be able to hire whoever they like. But I and my friends should be able to bargain collectively, and we will point out, quite vociferously, when you as a business owner are trying to screw us over. That's free speech, and the Wobs used to read from the Constitution in town squares across the US just to make that point. That's one reason the IWW was suppressed so hard. Even to the point of being literally [wikipedia.org] massacred. [wikipedia.org]

We are NOT like other unions.

Re:U2: Union Busters

[Anastomosis (1102421)]

I think I need to insert the following quotation here:

"You can't treat the working man this way! One of these days we'll form a union, and get the fair and equitable treatment we deserve! Then we'll go too far, and become corrupt and shiftless, and the Japanese will eat us alive!"
--1920s version of the pimply-faced teenager, The Simpsons

Re:U2: Union Busters

[element-o.p. (939033)]

I'm reasonably good at what I do, after a few years of hard work, I have both the credentials and experience to show that I can do what I say I can do, and therefore, I am typically able to negotiate a salary and benefits on my own. If the company I work for tries to screw me over, I will voice my opinion, and if I'm not listened to, I'll leave and find a better job somewhere else. Kind of negates the need for a union in my opinion.

I used to work in a Union shop a few years ago. The union I was in wasn't all bad, but it wasn't all good, either. In short, what I found was that a union is a lot like a bureaucracy -- it exists to perpetuate its own existence and if that helps the worker then good, but if not that's too bad. Case in point: I worked for a manager who was a really good guy. Before our shop went Union, our manager gave us a lot of flexibility in our jobs. If we wanted to work slightly non-standard hours, that was okay. If we needed a little extra time off to run errands, that was fine. If we needed to stay late to fix something, that was kosher, and we could come in late/go home early later as we needed. I negotiated a 4-10 work schedule and really enjoyed three-day weekends every week. Then we went union, and everything changed. Now there was a contract that said our shifts were 8-5,4-midnight and midnight-8. If were just minutes late, we were reprimanded. If we were still working on something at the end of our shift, we were to pass it off to the next shift. In short, our work environment went from a very happy, very relaxed, very "do what it takes, and we'll make it work" kind of place to a very adversarial, workers vs. management environment within a few months. It just wasn't any fun working there anymore. So I quit and found a better (non-union) job, and I've never looked back.

Re:U2: Union Busters

[Skynyrd (25155)]

As far as I I can see a Union is the last thing that employees should want. If you are getting abused in by your employer and the law alone will not protect you then yes you may need a Union.

I've worked union, as well as non-union shops. Until recently, in a non-union special effects shop in Hollywood (Burbank, actually). In my experience, the biggest difference, besides pay, is safety. In a union shop, if I think something is dangerous I can call for a shop steward and we can discuss the safety problem. In a non union shop, I can call the foreman and discuss the safety problem. The difference is that the union shop, in general, won't have the safety problem because they know it will stop work. The non-union shop has safety problems, and if you bring it to their attention, you don't work there for too much longer. And there's always somebody who's willing to work unsafely to be the macho, "I can do it with no gear" guy.

Here are some of the "safety problems" I'm referring to - from personal experience.
  - Working from large heights with no safety gear, because it's "just for a few minutes".
  - Workers standing under equipment being lifted, because it's "just for a little bit".
  - Untrained guys driving heavy equipment (forklifts, etc) with little or no training, in a crowded space.
  - The owner of the company accidentally hitting workers with forklifts or things being moved by the forklift, several times a year. Broken bones included.

There are plenty of good (and abusive) unions out there, but a lot of them are actually needed. In my opinion, when the company is large enough that the CEO/owner doesn't know you, you become just another replaceable item. That's the point when things can become very impersonal and you should consider some sort of group representation.

Re:U2: Union Busters

[Skrynesaver (994435)]

Working class origins get a grip, Clayton went to St. Columbas, the most exclusive school in Ireland and Motor mouth McGuinness went to Clongowes Wood, probably the second most exclusive in fact he forced his son to attend despite numerous attempts by the poor little bollix to get out of the kip.

While the rest of them went to the relatively down market Mount Temple it's a far from working class school.

Re:U2: Union Busters

[syousef (465911)]

Basically said, "Do you know who I am, and what I've done? I'm the biggest activist in the world, who are you peons to criticize me? I'll hire whoever I like."

For me, no one has successfully argued why even a really good artist deserves to make millions. A good school teacher, who works just as hard doesn't. A good doctor who works longer hours and has more responsibility shouldn't (I know there are some that do, but those that are in it to do good certainly don't charge their patients exorbitant rates). Why should a musician or a film or tv star make millions? Then record companies and event organizers make ten times the money on top of that. We over-value these people.

Re:U2: Union Busters

[sm62704 (957197)]

Why shouldn't they be able to hire who they wish, and pay according to market just like most other industries?

The corporates have really, really brainwashed today's workers. The fact is that union shops CAN hire who they wish, and DO pay market rates. Non-union shops CAN'T hire who they wish; union people won't work for them. And non-union shops DON'T pay market rates; they pay far less than martket rates.

The then-President of (IIRC) United Airlines (I think, it's been a while, early 80s; this guy ran a non-union airline, I think it was United) famously said "any company that gets a union deserves one." I have to agree with him. If you treat your workers fairly, they won't organise.

If your employer can join an organization (say, the RIAA, the MPAA, the whatever trade organization Sun and Microsoft are members of) why can't their workers?

Re:What a crock

[FredFredrickson (1177871)]

This guy is off the hook!

TFA:

Its time for a new approach - time for ISPs to start taking responsibility for the content theyve profited from for years.

I, for one, would not have an internet connection if it weren't for all those illegal downloads. Clearly verizon is proffiting off of illegal downloads.

Wait! Why stop there? Creative Labs made my speakers and sound card! They're the ones enabling my illegal habits! Get 'em! It's about time they stop profitting of the backs of hardworking musicians. They didn't write ANY of the music! Oh and for god's sake can we please start charging Microsoft for allowing us to even install these P2P apps? For the longest time, Microsoft has profitted off the backs of artists by allowing this filth to be installed on their operating system!

And so on and so on. Seriously, grandpa, stop bitching, you're making your band look bad.

Re:What a crock

[mhall119 (1035984)]

And of course we should shut down those record stores that are profiting from people who are just going to rip their CD's and put them on P2P networks.

And we should shut down the recording companies who make those CDs that people are ripping to put on PSP networks.

hmmm, I actually kind of like where this is going.

But seriously, since when did ISP profit from content? I worked for an ISP at one point, and we didn't see a damn bit of money from content, all we got paid for was access to the Internet. Where we getting ripped off?

Re:What a crock

[Nursie (632944)]

"Weasel words. This is hiding behind a technicality and is only smart if you're immature or a lawyer. Its theft whatever the exact legal definition. The alternative to downloading illegally is to purchase by chosing to do this you deprive the nominal owner of a sale. There is no moral difference to lifting a CD from a record store."

Strange. I would have said It's not theft unless you're -

a) trying to scare 9 year olds who have a simple view of the world
b) are an idiot with a simple view of the world

The world isn't black and white, realty is nuanced. Unless you're a retard.

we have different laws surrounding these phenomenon because they are fundamentally different. Stealing a car takes it away from the original owner. copying his car does not. It MAY take money away from ford/GM/whoever, but there's nothing to say that had you been prevented from copying that you would have bought on anyway.

This is not to say that copyright infringement is a good thing or in any way permissable, but you have to be a SERIOUS FUCKING RETARD to not see the difference. Either that or someone who is deliberately trying to muddy the waters and that has a specific, legislative agenda.

Which are you?

Re:What a crock

[RexRhino (769423)]

No, there is no moral right to "intellectual property". Things like copyright and patents were designed to promote the useful arts and sciencies, the idea being that it promoted publishing and the exchange of information to give a party a temporary monopoly. There is no moral right to these things.

Do you pay royalties every time you sing happy birthday at a birthday party? Do you feel guilty for not paying the royalties, as you are required to do by law? Perhaps we should throw you in jail for your blatent criminal violations, after all violating copyright is like stealing, right?

Why should ISP lose profits?

[by Anonymous Coward]

Why should ISPs lose profits to protect another industry's profits?

Re:Why should ISP lose profits?

[Stefanwulf (1032430)]

Yeah, but not the company running the toll road that the getaway car used.

In the name of love...

[monkeyboythom (796957)]

Hardly

The ones who have the most to lose

[elrous0 (869638)]

...are always the one who scream loudest.

If we still had 14 or 23 year copyright...

[Animats (122034)]

U2's good stuff would be public domain by now if we had reasonable copyright lengths, like we used to.

to expand

[puppet10 (84610)]

US copyright wasn't extended to life of the author + 50 years until 1976. From 1909 to 1976 it was 28 years and one 28 year renewal. From 1831 to 1909 it was 28 plus one 14 year renewal. The original 1790 terms applied until 1831.

Hey Paul

[Captain Splendid (673276)]

With all due respect, Paul, Fuck you.

I've bought U2's albums, t-shirts, concert tickets and other crap. Over the years, I've easily spent several hundred dollars on your band's products. Same goes for hundreds of other artists: Concerts, posters, tshirts, albums, box sets, fan club-only items. Hell, some albums I've bought multiple times in multiple formats over the years.

I've got a huge DVD library, and it keeps growing. I'll happily pay premium prices for Criterion editions, I'm a hardcore movie geek who's always loved going to the cinema, sometimes even repeat fucking viewings for movies I really like.

So when you come out with this ignorant, self-serving tripe and try to pass it off as a moral issue, I look at you and get sick to my fucking stomach. I'm terribly fucking sorry I downloaded your band's last album just so I could get my hands on that lame "quatorze" single. Fuck, I can't even remember the last time I listened to that song (I sure as shit didn't bother with the rest of the album).

Hell, if it makes you feel better, I'll delete it when I get home tonight. Not really any skin off my nose. I've got my $120 Led Zep Box set to keep me warm at night. I've got the Joshua Tree and Rattle & Hum, 2 albums I've paid full retail for more than once.

Big big fan of U2, at least until Pop, anyway. Shame they're on the decline. Shame you're a douchebag.

One last thing. Facebook? Apple? Get some meds, man. Even the worst **AA shill isn't that shrill.

U2's always been like this (Re:Hey Paul)

[Tackhead (54550)]

> With all due respect, Paul, Fuck you.

Paul ain't due much respect. U2 has been on the forefront of anti-fair-use since the incident involving Negativland [negativland.com] in 1991: The Letter U and the Numeral 2

The track parodies the whole top-40 industry by sampling the backbeat of "Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For", and punches in bits of Casey Kasem going apeshit!. It's not just hilarious, it's one of the single most important cases in the history of sample-based music. Long story short, after a multiyear legal battle, Negativland won. By this time, most physical copies had been recalled and/or destroyed, but you can download the MP3 [negativland.com] from their website.

In 1998, the last few chapters of the legal battle played out, also to Negativland's favor, and RIAA rewrote its rewrote [negativland.com] its guidelines on sampling, fair use, and parody.

Which brings us back to our next top-40 hit - it's no surprise that U2 and RIAA are back in bed with each other, working ever diligently against any form of fair use: they still haven't found what they're looking for.

> I've got a huge DVD library, and it keeps growing. I'll happily pay premium prices for Criterion editions, I'm a hardcore movie geek who's always loved going to the cinema, sometimes even repeat fucking viewings for movies I really like.

If we could only find someone like Casey Kasem ranting like that off-mike, the war for fair use would be over, and we geeks would finally have won.

Sure, sounds like a great idea

[KlomDark (6370)]

I'll disconnect my internet connection if in turn you stop making music with that whiny Bono guy.

For the record, U2 has always sucked. Whiner music.

Byte me...

[realsilly (186931)]

Make CD prices reasonable.
Make CD last more, invest in the technology that promotes your sound.
Make Copyright time frames reasonable.
And don't forget if we didn't listen to your crap you'd be a broke begging musician.

Shush you greedy F...s.

Oh Yes, They Deserve Better

[eldavojohn (898314)]

And the message to government is this: ISP responsibility is not a luxury for possible contemplation in the future. It is a necessity for implementation TODAY - by legislation if voluntary means fail.

There's more exciting music being made and more listened to than at any time in history. Cheap technology has made it easy to start a band and make music. This is a gathering of managers; our talented clients deserve better than the shoddy, careless and downright dishonest way they have been treated in the digital age.

Yes, they deserve the shoddy, careless and downright dishonest way they have always been historically treated by their record labels and managers.

I haven't heard any artists speaking out about their royalties drying up. Maybe because they made 10 cents on the dollar before and now they make 10 cents on the quarter now since it's all digital?

Funny how he starts with "We've been used to bands who wrote their own material since the Beatles ..." and neglects to remind us that we've been used to corporate engineered bands that don't even play their own instruments since The Monkeys. Look at their songs, who wrote them? Today, there are even more bands/artists being used as icons to promote music and styles they didn't even think of.

Is he complaining that Steve Jobs pulled the $1 per song price out of his ass? No, he's pointing the finger at file sharers. This guy is losing his income and his bands are probably curious as to how they can get that $1 per song from iTunes without having to pay their manager 40 cents for ... for ... what exactly did he have to do with that transaction again?

Earth to U2's Manager: take your cut of the work you actually do like arranging concerts and press coverage and then shut the hell up and let the artists do their thing and make money.

Re:Oh Yes, They Deserve Better

[nagora (177841)]

we've been used to corporate engineered bands that don't even play their own instruments since The Monkeys.

Just to stand up for the Monkees for a moment, they were young and jumpped at the chance to be on TV and all, but they did have enough guts and pride to eventually go on strike unless they were allowed to play their own instruments and material. And they did do some catchy pop songs. Not exactly the Beatles, but at least they wised up and grew some spines. Can't imagine this week's X-Factor/American Idol wank-stain ever doing that.

TWW

ISP suicide?

[thesuperbigfrog (715362)]

Disconnecting your customers (or suing them or otherwise alienating them) is business suicide.

SCO et al. found this out the hard way. AT&T does not seem to be picking up on this either.

Calls for reform will only be taken seriously when they are financially feasible.

Sounds like rich Republicans crying about taxes

[ghuytro (917208)]

Yeah Paul, just like all those ingrate thieving pirate bastards were stealing those $250+ concert tickets over the past few tours!! And on a side note - for a band who's very carefully crafted their public perception as being a band for social justice and sticking it to the man, do you really want to draw more attention to the fact that U2 are extremely rich and wealthy individuals who really are even more "the man" than some of "the man" they like to point their preachy fingers at from time to time? Do you really think whining about the fact that your giant pile of money used to be a lot bigger is going to endear U2 to it's fanbase?

Call me paranoid...

[ProteusQ (665382)]

...but I'm paying less than $0.27USD per song on eMusic. I could pay less per song if I chose to. Now, if that business model starts to eat into this guy's house payments, is he going to campaign for eMusic to increase it prices? Or would he just advocate for a surtax? He's skipping over this whole 'free market' thing that we're supposed to be operating under, so what would stop him from taking the next logical step?

It's about time we recognize that what it going on here is _not_ an attempt to reform capitalism. It is an attempt to replace capitalism with _mercantilism_. Remember that minor North American rebellion in 1776? It had in part to do with British plans for how the colonies would buy imported crap ad infinitum, regardless of how they felt about the matter.

My fellow conservatives, allow to me scream 'wake up!' in your general direction. When an industry owns a market, it's no longer a _free_ market! Duh!

(sigh).... Rant over. Thanks for your patience.

U2 Website Terms.

[onion2k (203094)]

We allow Members (as defined below) to make contributions to the Site ("User Content") through chat rooms, bulletin board services, member profiles, and other means. By submitting any User Content to the Site, you hereby grant us a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free right and license to use, reproduce, display, perform, adapt, modify, distribute, have distributed and promote such content in any form, in all media now known or hereinafter created, anywhere in the world, and for any purpose. Furthermore, you thereby waive any so-called moral rights or other similar rights in your User Content.

Heaven forbid that U2 might rig their website to enable them to profit off the creative output of other people.

Didn't Bono advertise iPod?

[spyrochaete (707033)]

Am I hallucinating or did this band wilfully advertise (and directly profit from) the device that is supposedly killing them? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YiV4jzWitnA [youtube.com]

He's a SIMRAN investor

[jaweekes (938376)]

And I quote...

There is technology now, that the worldwide industry could adopt, which enables content owners to track every legitimate digital download transaction, wholesale and retail.

This system is already in use here in Cannes by the MIDEM organisation and is called SIMRAN. Throughout this conference you will see contact details and information. I recommend you look at it. I should disclose that I'm one of their investors.

I think that puts it in context...

Short sighted and ignorant...

[ryanw (131814)]

I know first hand that the iTunes sales are extremely strong. It also gives equal opportunity to every record label beyond the "top four labels", which is the real problem for the major labels. They're used to being able to throw their weight around and putting a can of spaghetti-o's on the shelves for 3 months and have it turn into gold. Things are different now. Music & Movies can be successful, but requires true talent and overall good entertainment value.

This guy is completely oblivious and ignorant of the current generation of consumers. The consumer market is still extremely strong, but the average consumer wants to be able to try before they buy, high quality, cheap, and they want it immediately. Overnight shipping is too expensive for this generation along with it's not immediate.

Ignoring the generation's desires along with the technology at the finger tips is completely ignorant. I don't mean to come across as a "fan boy" but Steve Jobs single handedly rescued the music industry. He had given the current generation the ability to satisfy all the needs of the current generation with technology of today.

I have always felt that piracy was the entertainment industry's excuse for making poor investment choices. Putting out bad bands and bad movies results in low sales. Piracy has always been around, and there have been people renting videos and copying them to VHS tapes for EVER. People used to make Mixed tapes for their friends. People used to sit around recording the radio onto tapes.

If you think about it, piracy is another form of "airplay". The record industry pays hundreds of thousands to get your song "radio airplay", because it helps create buzz and get your album noticed and then people buy it. This is the trend that has been going on for decades. There will always be people who buy albums and people who don't. There's a small group of consumers on the fence who don't buy music because it's too easy to get through some other means. I think this is a small group, because the larger group consists of people who had never bought an album, and never would buy an album, but have TONS of music because they enjoy music. But these people would rather listen to radio than buy music, but since they can download stuff for free, they do. You can find these types because they have gigs and gigs of music, and they have their music players on 'random' and don't care what is being played. You can identify a music "buyer" by their numbers of playlists and/or how frequently a specific album is played. These people are the "music buying" people.

The music industry is a tough one. But not impossible. You need spectacular talent and incredible foresight to work with musicians who are wanting to be their own thing and not ride the coattails of what is already popular. Individuality rewards a lot greater in this kind of market, where as being a "me too" band is a waste of time and money.

Summary of U2 Manager's Speech...

[nganju (821034)]

I cant believe the news today
Oh, I cant close my eyes and make it go away
How long...
How long must they steal our songs?
How long? how long...

cause tonight...no sales of our song "One"
tonight... they're all downloading "One"
Tonight...

Broken models of our business bleat
Record execs thrown out on the street
And we won't make our earnings call
It puts my back up
Puts my back up against the wall

Pirate bay, bloody pirate bay
Pirate bay, bloody pirate bay...

Re:Illegal P2P download services

[lattyware (934246)]

Wow, there are illegal ones? Seriously, since when is BitTorrent illegal?

Wookie Defense

[dmomo (256005)]

"McGuinness criticized Radiohead's 'In Rainbows' pay-what-you-want business model, saying that 'the majority of downloads were through illegal P2P download services like BitTorrent and LimeWire'." In addition, I don't see how this statement makes sense.
 
    Let's for a second assume that Limewire, et al were "illegal download services", how does that reflect negatively on Radiohead's distribution strategy? Radiohead said: "Hey, download it HERE and pay what you want for it"; So some people downloaded it "THERE" and paid nothing for it. How is this any different from someone saying: "Hey, buy it in stores, and pay $15 for it" and then seeing people downloading it "THERE" and paying nothing for it?
 
If anything it shows proves that it's not just about the money. It's about how people prefer to access music. Radiohead offered it for free "this way", and people took it for free "that way". It's about a delivery mechanism that is not being provided by the industry.