U2's Manager Calls For Mandatory Disconnects For Music Downloaders 658
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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!
Why should ISP lose profits? (Score:5, Insightful)
The ones who have the most to lose (Score:5, Insightful)
If we still had 14 or 23 year copyright... (Score:5, Insightful)
U2's good stuff would be public domain by now if we had reasonable copyright lengths, like we used to.
Hey Paul (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Illegal P2P download services (Score:3, Insightful)
Wow, there are legal P2P download "services"? Are they only in Canada?
everyone at sometime in their lives (Score:4, Insightful)
well now is the time for you to relish, jeer, or commissurate (condescendingly)
for here we have the experience of "just not getting it" playing out on someone else's dime, on a much larger scale, to a much larger audience
Re:Illegal P2P download services (Score:5, Insightful)
Byte me... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:What a crock (Score:2, Insightful)
Not to mention the fact that downloading is not stealing, illegal or not. No one is deprived of their property through a download as has been pointed out many times before.
ISP suicide? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Dangerous Thinking (Score:4, Insightful)
That's the brunt of the problem here anyway, these people are more than willing to disrupt every, every internet connection in the world in order to protect thier profits.
If you can't innovate, (Score:2, Insightful)
Say what? (Score:4, Insightful)
The guy is off his rocker, clearly.
Sounds like rich Republicans crying about taxes (Score:5, Insightful)
Call me paranoid... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Hey Paul (Score:3, Insightful)
This guy deserves to have a new asshole ripped for him.
Paul:
Apple? Oracle? Huh? Apple's a REAL stretch, and Oracle is just -- well a mind-bogglingly super stretch. Apple sells music, dumbass. Oracle? Oracle makes databases. In fact, they don't make anything else, really. Databases that are used for all sorts of stuff, including cataloging YOUR BAND'S ALBUMS FOR SALE on music and retail Web sites. Not to mention probably half of your financial history and most of your medical history is probably sitting somewhere in one of several Oracle databases right now. Give it a rest.
Paul McGuinness is now officially the new laughingstock of World Wide Web. Congrats, Paul!
Re:What a crock (Score:5, Insightful)
U2 Website Terms. (Score:5, Insightful)
Heaven forbid that U2 might rig their website to enable them to profit off the creative output of other people.
Radiohead and not Metallica (Score:4, Insightful)
A Cure Worse Than The "Disease" (Score:4, Insightful)
In the U.S. at any rate, if an ISP tries to filter out "copyrighted content", then they automatically become liable for any "copyrighted content" that subsequently gets through. I am quite sure that is not what they want to do. This issue was discussed here at length just the other day.
Pots & Black Kettles (Score:4, Insightful)
Wookie Defense (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
He's a SIMRAN investor (Score:5, Insightful)
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... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:U2: Union Busters (Score:5, Insightful)
Which method does U2 employ?
Re:Why should ISP lose profits? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why should ISP lose profits? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:like we used to? (Score:3, Insightful)
The engineer in me just found a more efficient solutions than fixing copyright laws.
Re:What a crock (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course that could mean depriving them of money, beating them to the market, ripping them off in any number of ways, but it's not stealing, it's not theft, it's a different phenomenon which is why we have different laws to deal with it. RTeality is not blasck and white. Just because something is a little bit like something else, doesn't mean they're the same.
Re:What a crock (Score:1, Insightful)
Well, there certainly is an economic one. If you steal a CD, you have deprived the seller of both the sale and of the cost of producing/acquiring the physical good. It is impossible for them to sell that good to someone else.
If you copy a file containing music, you have not deprived the producer of selling that file to somebody else.
Certainly in both cases the producer has lost a sale but, in one scenario, they have also incurred lost cost of production as well.
That economic difference implies there is a moral difference. It's not a victimless crime, but it's not the same either.
Either that or all paparazzis should be locked up in jail for theft. By taking pictures of stars, they are depriving the stars of being able to make money from selling images of themselves.
Re:What a crock (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:U2: Union Busters (Score:5, Insightful)
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:What a crock (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:3, Insightful)
"1 a: to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully"
To take or appropriate, both of which imply doing so without the owner's permission. If I own a CD and share a copy with a friend, he has my permission. The word "keep" implies the depriving of the original party of the property.
"b: to take away by force or unjust means"
Key word here is "away".
"c: to take surreptitiously or without permission"
Again, the person who owns the CD has given permission.
"d: to appropriate to oneself or beyond one's proper share"
Appropriateing implies force and the exclusive use of something, neither of which are appropriate here.
They are different phenomena. Accept that. Just because they are different doesn't mean that one is acceptable and the other is not, but it does mean we get to look at them differently and it's childish to equate them.
Re:U2: Union Busters - ABSOLUTELY NOT!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
If refusing to work on a wage below X is extortion, then refusing to pay someone more than Y for that work is also extortion. Given this, you may wish to rethink your statement a little.
Re:What a crock (Score:2, Insightful)
It's a band, not a political party. What on earth does their politics have to do with anything? I actually avoided a U2 concert that I probably would have otherwise gone to because I go to concerts to enjoy music, not to be preached to.
Re:What a crock (Score:2, Insightful)
FU2.
lets talk about who is really stealing music (Score:2, Insightful)
The real thieves are the RIAA and musicians who claim all content to themselves. It is very, very wrongheaded. It is like building your house on the town commons and then claiming you own the land and will allow no trespass.
Re:U2: Union Busters (Score:5, Insightful)
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].
Re:What a crock (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What a crock (Score:3, Insightful)
Hell yeah. The real world is in full color.
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.
There used to be a time when bands/artists were happy and grateful to get exposure to people at all. Now a lot of them are acting like they're owed a living. They don't even produce anything neccesary to society. If all the pop shit music made today stopped being made tomorrow, society might actually improve, it certainly wouldn't get worse.
Point is they don't produce anything critical to society and yet they act like they're owed something to the point where they think our society should slow down progress in the name of safeguarding their fat profits off of what is in essence, luxury items. I wish these idiots would stop and listen to how ridiculous they sound.
Re:What a crock (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:U2: Union Busters (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Proof of inflated losses (Score:2, Insightful)
I love how this is advertised as a proof of lost sales. People who were NOT even willing to pay $0 to download 'In Rainbows' from the official site would have paid for the album if file sharing didn't exist? How is that reasoning possible?
What this fact proves, quite soundly, is that the vast majority of illegal downloads were never lost sales at ANY price. The reasoning used to say it is 'lost sales' shows a stunning lack of basic business sense that just might be the real problem in the music industry.
Re:What a crock (Score:3, Insightful)
Dude, you're looking in the wrong places. Seriously.
Re:U2: Union Busters (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:3, Insightful)
http://smallbusiness.findlaw.com/business-forms-contracts/business-forms-contracts-overview/ [findlaw.com]
But above and beyond that society keeps people from doing stupid things all the time for example meat inspections so we don't buy tainted meat. Do you want to go back to the days of Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle?" I think not...
http://www.amazon.com/Jungle-Uncensored-Original-Upton-Sinclair/dp/1884365302 [amazon.com]
Or how about the days of child labor of the 19th century?
http://www.amazon.com/Times-Bantam-Classics-Charles-Dickens/dp/0553210165 [amazon.com]
Unchecked Libertarian capitalism is fine in theory, not so nice in practice.
Re:U2: Union Busters (Score:5, Insightful)
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.