Slashdot Mirror
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."
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!
Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
Why should ISPs lose profits to protect another industry's profits?
...are always the one who scream loudest.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
U2's good stuff would be public domain by now if we had reasonable copyright lengths, like we used to.
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.
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
Wow, there are illegal ones? Seriously, since when is BitTorrent illegal?
-- Lattyware (www.lattyware.co.uk)
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.
Life takes interesting turns, but the most interest is when you're off the beaten path.
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.
42
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.
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?
...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.
Heaven forbid that U2 might rig their website to enable them to profit off the creative output of other people.
http://twitter.com/onion2k
"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.
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...
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.
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?
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
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.
---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
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].
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
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?
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
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.
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.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer