U2 Album Leaks... Despite Ridiculous Attempts To Block It

from the lotta-good-that-did dept

At some point, folks in the music industry are going to (finally) recognize a rather simple fact: it just takes one digital copy of a song/movie/whatever to get out there, and it's everywhere. You can't stop it. No matter how annoying it is. No matter what laws it violates. It will happen. Taking precautions against it may seem smart, but it will always just be a waste, because as soon as a single copy gets out, it's game over. However, it appears that plenty in the industry still haven't figured this out -- and it's no surprise that U2 is among them, given what Paul McGuinness, the band's manager, has said in the past.

It appears that the band went to great lengths to avoid having its latest album leaked. The band refused to send out any review copies to journalists, instead organizing special "listening parties" where all attendees had to surrender any electronic device (including phones) before entering. So what happened? Well, the album has leaked anyway and thousands of people are downloading it.

So, for all that trouble, the band spent a bunch of extra money on these "listening parties," annoyed and inconvenienced a bunch of journalists/reviewers who were unable to listen to the music as they normally do, greatly limited the ability of reviewers to hear the album (meaning fewer reviewers than normal probably heard it)... and the album still leaked. So they got all of the (supposed) "negatives" and none of the (supposed) "benefits." Great strategy there, Paul.

Filed Under: leaks, music, paul mcguinness, piracy, u2

Live Nation's Strategy Looking Even Worse As It Has To Cough Up Extra $$s For U2, Madonna

from the how-not-to-run-a-business dept

While we definitely think there's a huge opportunity for more comprehensive business models in the music industry, we're still skeptical of Live Nation's model. The company, which is mostly known as a concert promoter, has signed huge deals with some big name musicians to get them to leave their record labels and do everything through Live Nation -- including music sales, concerts and merchandise. Live Nation gets a cut of it all. On the whole, such a model does make a lot of sense, because with one entity managing all of the different revenue streams, the company is much more likely to tweak the knobs. If it realizes that it can make more money in those other products by giving away the music, it (in theory) won't hesitate. That doesn't happen when the record label only gets a cut of music sales.

The problem, though, with Live Nation's model was its decision to focus on just a few huge names, and to pay them tremendous upfront amounts. Now, it turns out, the deals are even worse than what Live Nation expected. Apparently, it paid a portion of what it owed both U2 and Madonna in stock. That, by itself, is fine. It lets the musicians share in the risk a bit. Except, for some bizarre reason, the folks at Live Nation took away all of the downside risk for the musicians by promising how much the stock would be worth. With the stock market in freefall, that's now going to cost Live Nation a ton. For example, it gave a bunch of stock to U2, and guaranteed the stock would be worth at least $25 million. In actuality, it's worth $6 million. That means the company now needs to cough up an additional $19 million in cash and give it to the band. Madonna is apparently in a similar situation, with a similar guarantee about to come due.

Filed Under: madonna, u2
Companies: live nation

Will U2 Manager's Next Rant Blame Bono For Leaked U2 Tracks?

from the blame-game-come-uppance dept

In the past year or so, U2's manager, Paul McGuinness has lashed out at pretty much everyone, other than those in the music industry, for the evils of file sharing. His main target was ISPs, but also device manufacturers, search engines, social networks and many, many others. It wasn't long after this that U2 lead singer Bono more or less agreed with his manager -- though using more diplomatic language. However, as a few folks are joyfully noting, it appears that the only one to blame for the leak of U2's most recent tracks may in fact be Bono himself. Apparently, someone was passing by Bono's beach villa in the south of France and heard the stereo playing incredibly loudly with new U2 tracks, so he recorded them and put them up on YouTube.

To be honest, this story has a lot of questionable elements to it, and little to back it up. So it could be entirely false. Even if it's true, it's difficult to see how the quality could be even halfway decent. Either way, though, it does show how silly it is to blame others. Instead, why not look to examples like Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails who have shown that when you control the leak, it can work to your advantage in a rather massive way?

Filed Under: bono, leaks, paul mcguinness, u2

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.

Filed Under: blame, bono, copyright, music, u2

U2's Manager Lashes Out Yet Again: Blames Absolutely Everyone For Not Making U2 Even Wealthier

from the let's-try-this-again dept

Back in January, U2's longtime manager, Paul McGuinness went off on a bit of a rant, blaming ISPs and pretty much any internet company for destroying the music business. His points were easily debunked -- especially coming off the fact that U2 had just completed a year in which it made $355 million on touring -- and I'd bet that a fair portion of that came from folks who listened to U2 mp3s they didn't pay for. Apparently, McGuinness chose not to read any or understand any of the criticism towards his position, because five months later, he's back again, blaming absolutely everyone but the recording industry for the industry's own failure to adapt (found via Mathew Ingram who makes some excellent points in responding to McGuinness). So who does he blame?

"Cable operators, ISPs, device manufacturers, P2P software companies -- companies that have used music to drive vast revenues from broadband subscriptions and from advertising."

Uh huh. So let me ask McGuinness this: if all of those other companies benefited from the music industry -- is he willing to also concede that the music industry benefited from some of them as well? The radio industry, for years, has helped promote the recording industry. Does he believe the recording industry is morally obligated to pay the radio industry? The internet has made it so much easier to create, distribute and promote music. Does McGuinness believe that musicians have a moral obligation to pay some portion of their own proceeds to these firms who have made that all work? I wonder why not.

McGuinness seems totally oblivious to the idea that there are such things as complementary goods, and the fact that an externality from one market may impact another market doesn't also include a moral obligation for payment. This is really the same problem we've seen over and over again, where content creators overvalue the contribution of the content, and totally undervalue (or sometimes negatively value) the contribution of the platform. Cable operators, ISPs, device manufacturers, P2P software companies have all worked quite hard to make music so much more useful to individuals.

What McGuinness is really admitting, is that everyone else (including U2, by the way) has figured out how to make good money off of music being free. It's just the recording industry that hasn't figured it out. So, clearly, there is tremendous economic value in music being free. The fact that the recording industry is unwilling to come up with ways to capture some of that value (and they don't deserve all of it) is no one's fault other than the recording industry's.

Filed Under: blame, copyright, paul mcguinness, recording industry, u2

U2 Manager Says Google And Its Hippie Friends Should Pay The Recording Industry

from the still-haven't-found-what-i'm-looking-for... dept

While the IFPI and the RIAA have been actively pushing for ISP liability for file sharing, it appears some in the industry are taking it even further. U2's manager for 30-years, Paul McGuinness, gave a talk at the Midem conference where he blamed Silicon Valley's "hippie values" for creating the problem, and demanding that tech companies of all stripes start paying the recording industry. He's talking not only about ISPs, but also Google, Apple, Microsoft, Facebook and basically every other successful tech company. There are so many problems with this, it's difficult to know where to begin, but let's tackle a few of the quotes:

First he blames these companies who have "built multibillion dollar industries on the back of our content without paying for it."

This is a common refrain from those in struggling industries, but it's meaningless. Complementary goods are a natural for building bigger markets, but no one expects one side to pay the other just for moral reasons. The oil industry's success is built on the backs of the automobile industry, but does the automobile industry demand that oil companies have a moral obligation to pay them? Computer makers have built a multibillion dollar industry on the backs of the internet and software companies -- yet, no one says they have a moral obligation to pay those companies anything. Travel guides have built huge business based on hotels and restaurants around the globe, but does anyone think that those travel guides owe the hotels and restaurants money for doing so? Hell, the recording industry itself was built off the backs of complementary goods such as radio, yet when they paid radio stations, it was known as payola and outlawed.

These companies, McGuiness claims, need to help out "not on the basis of reluctantly sharing advertising revenue, but collecting revenue for the use and sale of our content."

Uh huh. And I guess that automobile companies should be collecting revenue for the oil companies. And, home builders should be collecting revenue for the electricity companies. And, airlines should be collecting revenue for the hotel industry. You see, these are all separate industries. They may be complementary, but it's up to each one individually to figure out the business models that work. None should be pressured into saving the other from its own missteps.

"I call on them to do two things: first, taking responsibility for protecting the music they are distributing; and second, by commercial agreements, sharing their enormous revenues with the content makers and owners."

This is beginning to sound an awful like journalists who claim that Google has a moral obligation to "share revenue" with newspapers.

He claims that what all of these companies do is the equivalent of a magazine that "was advertising stolen cars, processing payments for them and arranging delivery."

That makes for a nice soundbite but has nothing to do with reality. First there's the little problem that nothing is being stolen here, only copied. Second, none of these companies are "processing payment" for unauthorized transactions. Third, none of them are "arranging delivery." It would be like the same scenario, but blaming the guys who paved the road on which the car was driven.

"Embedded deep down in the brilliance of those entrepreneurial, hippie values seems to be a disregard for the true value of music."

First, this shows a misunderstanding about the difference between price and value. It also misunderstands the culture of Silicon Valley, which is generally more libertarian these days than "hippie."

On top of all this, McGuiness is whining about this at the same time that U2 is pulling in incredible profits, making $355 million on its last tour. You know what helped fuel some of that? The fact that a new generation of fans are learning about U2 from downloading its music for free. Not only that, since they don't have to stretch their entertainment dollars as far on buying the actual music, they can pay the exorbitant concert ticket prices that U2 is charging these days.

The problem here isn't that others are letting the recording industry languish. It's that just about every other industry has realized that there's plenty of money to be made in the music industry. As we've pointed out, just about every aspect of the industry is doing fantastically well. More money is being made on concert revenue than ever before. More artists are making music than ever before. More music is being heard than ever before. Even more musical instruments are being sold than ever before in the past. Yet, because one segment of the market (the one selling plastic discs) is unwilling to take some simple steps to change its business model, everyone else has to pay up?

Filed Under: blame, complementary goods, hippie values, morals, music industry, paul mcguinness, recording industry, silicon valley, u2