Bono Agrees With Manager: ISPs Are To Blame For The Downfall Of Music
from the blame-the-enabler dept
About a month ago, we wrote about how Paul McGuinness, the manager of U2, was repeating an earlier rant blaming pretty much everyone but the recording industry for the recording industry's troubles. Basically, the rant could be summed up:All of these other companies actually had the foresight to see where the market was heading with digital music, and they built up businesses that made money! The actual recording industry, however, did not foresee any of this, did not build up the business models -- and, in fact, stuck to the old, increasingly obsolete business model so stubbornly that it actually pissed off many fans. Therefore, it's clearly the fault of those who accurately prepared for the changing marketplace, and they should give lots of money to the companies that deliberately chose to ignore these trends.Well, that may be a bit of a paraphrase, but I think it's pretty close.
Anyway, despite him ranting on in such a misguided fashion for quite some time, U2's Bono has been too busy saving the world to weigh in on the matter... until now. Valleywag points us to the news that Bono has written a letter to NME Magazine, where he, too, claims that it's all the fault of these damn ISPs and tech companies building real business models that make the market for music more efficient and open up all these new opportunities to profit. However, he does choose to contradict his manager on one point: arguing that McGuinness is wrong to claim that Radiohead's experiment with pay-what-you-want for music backfired and hurt the industry. Bono claims that the experiment was "courageous and imaginative." The same, however, cannot be said for all those tech companies that actually enabled that courageous and imaginative experiment to take place. They're obviously just exploiting the musicians.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
The only the that ever amused me about U2 was the fact that the Morales remix of "Even Better Than The Real Thing" that entered the UK chart was, in fact, better than the "real thing". Other than that, Bono is the poster boy for how badly wrong the music industry's gone, with rich, out-of-touch stars trying to poke their noses into political issues rather than simply make music. I'll bet U2's lost far more sales due to their political opinions than anything related to P2P.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Newsflash for Bono: It's your crappy music that is helping to destroy the music industry that you know.
While Bono slips even further from the top, other, more 'with-it' artists are taking over his spot and only getting more and more popular. For instance, nerdcore hip-hop artist ytcracker, which releases his albums on itunes+torrent trackers, and has a bunch of free songs on his website.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fuck Bono and U2
F U2.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fuck Bono and U2
I bet all that extra PR really sucked. No-name band being sued by one of the biggest bands of the time launching them into the public eye.
I can see how they'd hate that.
You do know the EP in question was re-released (under a new name) by the band with U2's blessing, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yeah his work to fight the spread of AIDS in Africa means nothing. He's done more to better the world than any geek on here who tries to justify the theft of music.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fight the spread of AIDS?
F**K Bono.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fight the spread of AIDS?
The internet really brings out the best in you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fight the spread of AIDS?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unlike a lot of bands, U2 didn't make their money playing live ... they put their profits from record sales into elaborate live shows that almost bankrupted them. IIRC, the Zoo TV tour cost the $250k a day to put on...
Don;'t get me wrong - I'm as forward thinking as they come, but hey... cut other people some slack!
Not everyone can adjust to change in Internet time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
New Music Model empowers musicans
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tell both sides of the story accurately.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Tell both sides of the story accurately.
You're focusing on too narrow a market.
ISPs made money. Digital music players made money. Consumer electronics firms made money. Concert promoters made money. Sellers of recording equipment made money. Musicians made money.
The only ones making less money seem to be those selling plastic discs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In defense of The Music Industry...
I'm a music lover who is still thankful to the music industry for wonderful work throughout the ages. But, as with any business today, the Music industry faces 'Walmartization', wherein the business as a whole is reduced to mere commodity status because, in the name of some higher Good, opponents think consumers deserve only the cheapest possible thing despite the intrinsic value of making something BETTER.
The Music Industry was founded on the model of making money for "getting the word out". It's a distribution vector for musicians who, otherwise, might not have a chance. The Industry built the whole thing, from recording studios to stamping houses to radio stations. At times they have been portrayed as vicious for lopsided contractual arrangements with artists but. still, they are stakeholders in the belief that the talent of some artist may bring money. It's a risky business model that's contractually beneficial to both parties.
Underneath it all the CD is to blame for the problems of The Music Industry. Its emergence marks the birth of digitization and, at the time, The Industry was at the crossroads of technology that they couldn't possibly fathom as so easily 'ripped' as today. There is no inherent copy protection in a CD because its inventors couldn't possibly foresee the rampant proliferation of the CDROM reader, the CD burner or big, cheap hard drives. Adding insult to injury, amateur recording has progressed to such a level that practically anyone with a little investment in a computer is suddenly Tom Dowd (legendary producer of 60's-70's acts like Eric Clapton)!
Let's be fair: The Music Industry is a business founded on getting paid for a product that has some intrinsic value. Opponents somehow believe that it should all be free. But how? Studios are willing to risk money to refine, promote and distribute what they bet is the next big thing. Musicians are expected to perform according to a contract that they read and signed.
Of course, there's always the Indie way or maybe striking out totally on your own. If you're talented, I hope to somehow stumble on your stuff. Maybe you have a chance with NPR!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: In defense of The Music Industry...
Actually, that's exactly what *we've* been saying. But that's not what Bono is saying. He's *blaming* those ISPs for filling the gap, whereas we think that's a sign of a healthy market.
The Music Industry was founded on the model of making money for "getting the word out". It's a distribution vector for musicians who, otherwise, might not have a chance.
No, you mean the *recording industry*, not the music industry.
And, yes, that was why it was founded, but given the new tools of distribution and promotion, the business model needs to change -- and there are plenty of ways it can and is changing. But to blame those who helped enable the change for the fact that others did not make that change is not constructive.
Let's be fair: The Music Industry is a business founded on getting paid for a product that has some intrinsic value.
Whoever said otherwise? But the question is what is the product with that intrinsic value. It's always been a physical good made valuable by the intangible content.
What's happened these days is the content has been freed from that physical good -- and a scarce product has been turned into an infinite product, which changes the economics.
Opponents somehow believe that it should all be free. But how?
No, not "should all be free" but *will* be free. That's basic economics. It's not a statement of how things should be, it's merely pointing out the actual situation.
Studios are willing to risk money to refine, promote and distribute what they bet is the next big thing. Musicians are expected to perform according to a contract that they read and signed.
There's still plenty of money being made in music, and plenty of room for smart record labels that actually focus on providing a good musical experience, rather than focus on selling plastic discs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Words of wisdom
Shit is still shit no matter what you do to it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
its control
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bono Fan For LIFE!
I have one question for "The Man": When will you start starring in Broadway Musicals??? You totally have the face for it, and all we need to do is get you on jenny craig for a few weeks. Oh my gosh! You would be perfect in RENT!!! LOL! LOL!
It's about the MUSIC and not the money!
HUGS AND KISSES, BONO! XOXOXOXOXO
~ Dik Evans
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A bit unfair on Bono?
The theme of the letter is clearly to defend the Radiohead experiment going as far as to call it "imaginative and courageous". The impression I got was that U2 was very much in the 'pro-change' camp rather then the 'lets sue all our fans' camp.
But more importantly it’s a huge exaggeration to interpret Bono's description of tech companies as 'disturbing' as 'exploiting musicians'.
It’s fairly common for ISPs in the UK to over-sell their capacity and use traffic shaping to throttle the high-demand customers through peak periods. As much as I appreciate my ISP not jumping on the ‘3-strikes’ bandwagon, I know it’s not for concern of my personal welfare. ISPs like high-usage customers because they get to charge them for high-bandwidth connections they rarely achieve, and unlimited monthly capacities. They make a huge amount of money from filesharing, illegal or otherwise.
Now as much as I normally enjoy Mikes commentary, for an artist to look at an artistic industry failing at the expense of a technology industry and call it ‘disturbing’ isn’t that unreasonable at all.
It’s a shame that one sentence taken to an extreme has overshadowed the rest of the letter, because without it I’ve no doubt Mike would be praising the guy for supporting positive solutions to the recording industries ills.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bono the Boner
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gettin Paid
It's really simple you friggin idiots. When you put in your hours - you like a pay check to live on eh????
if your were uber successful, would you like the payday too!
Stop being so damn selfish and respect the man for who and what he does!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Gettin Paid
I work very hard every day at my job. I frequently work 60+ hours in agiven week. I expect to get paid for that work. I create content all day long. But once that content is created, I don't get paid for it anymore. It doesn't matter how many times it gets reprinted, emailed, forwarded. I get paid for the time I put in to creating it. Just like many of us do. If someone came in, copied my report, and then turned it into my boss and claimed it was his work, thus getting me fired (ie, taking the value of what i did) I would be furious and rightfully so. But thats not what happens with the RIAA.
Someone writes a song. They may spend a day or a week or a month writing it (doubtfull they spend a full 40 hour week for more than a week writing just 1 song, but lets just say that they do for humors sake). They get paid for that time worked, that seems reasonable. Then they take that song to some singer and they spend a few hours in the studio recording the song. I think they should get paid for the time they spent in the studio.
The studio then takes it and remixes it. I think the producer should get paid for mixing it, the building owner for letting them use the space, etc.
Then they advertise the item and sell the product. Company pays to market the Cd's and to print them and to distribute them. They should be paid for that effort for every CD sold.
See a pattern here? Actual work happens, a service is rendered, and you are recompensated for it.
But what actually happens is, the singer spends a few hours in the studio. And then gets paid for every CD that gets sold, every time someone sings the song, and apparently now if the RIAA has their way, every time someone walks within earshot of a radio. They're still sitting on the couch. They aren't producing that song anymore, they aren't even promoting it. They're getting ready to sing the next song that someone else wrote. It's not sour grapes. I understand the economy. But as cheesy as it is, the old RIAA inspired southpark episode making fun of how much money they didn't make is about what it amounts to. I don't feel they deserve all this money they're crying about. Now, I don't think theft is right. But I do feel they're overpaid.
Unfortunately, being overpaid is not a crime. All I can do is continue to not support them by not listening to their music, waiting till movies come out on TV or when a friend buys it on DVD (or atleast until SAG petitions to require owners of DVD players to buy licenses to seat people in their homes to watch DVD's).
My biggest problem with calling downloading music "theft" is that the companies didn't have to transport that copy of the music. They "copy" of that song was not made at the expense of the music label, it was made digitally when the song was downloaded (so really the person downloading it was burdening the cost of the hardware/electricity IE manufacturing). There was no transport cost for that copy, there was no cost to the RI for making it, and the musician was already paid for their time in the studio. So, I feel that sueing because people don't have to pay to listen to that copy is somewhat similar to the Car Industry suing people who carpool. They're riding in someone elses car, they should have had to buy their OWN car. That's theft.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
bono is a putz
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
IP
Blaming an ISP is too simplistic, but how many of us are willing to admit that P2P networks were just blatant and outright theft? I don't like the RIAA any more than you, but they have to protect what is rightfully theirs. Are you going to stand by if somebody is ripping you off? I don't think so.
Does the recording industry need to change? Yes.
Do they need to give more to the artists? Yes.
But two wrongs don't make a right.
If each of us paid for the music and the software that we used, then they wouldn't have such a righteous attitude. Don't like the price of software - find an open source solution and for God's sake, contribute! Don't like to pay for music? Then listen to music that is listener supported by voluntary contributions.
Bono maybe a little off the mark with his blame, but you know what he meant. Get off your soapboxes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: IP
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
10 years ago, technology allowed for a major paradigm shift in the way music would be distributed and marketed. The music industry, rather that adapt it's business model to embrace and take advantage of this new tech, decided arrogantly that instead, this new tech would embrace and adapt to it's existing business model or it wouldn't be allowed to exist at all. Creative's Rio mp3 player and the RIAA attempt to stamp it out of existence is a prime example. Napster and MP3.com are others. Napster for example, would never had existed in it's original form had the Recording industry stepped up right away and offered music in the same way at a fair price. They chose not to. They STILL choose not to. Now really, who fault is it now the Industry is in the shape it's in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
re: ip
[ link to this | view in chronology ]