Why I Agree With Bono

The reason people took pot shots at Bono are many. His assessment of the technology that China is using is dead wrong, for one thing. China doesn't selectively block content or packets, they block entire urls from being accessed and they do it for the sole purpose of repressing their people. This seems hypocritical of Bono to advocate for any reason. For another thing, Bono has reached a point where he is completely out of touch with what most content creators experience. He is, for lack of a better term, corporate. U2's sales are not and have never been lowered due to Internet piracy, and for him to take this stance is disingenuous at best. Your own assessment is also incorrect. Avatar, the example you yourself used, is a prime example of why content creators shouldn't be worried. It has reached over a billion dollars in ticket sales worldwide faster than any movie in history, and the movie industry has had a record breaking year despite downloads being readily available from internet pirates. If the content is good, people pay for it. What has many content creators upset is the fact that with Internet downloads readily available they can no longer 'phone in' content. Filler songs on CD's that used to be typical are no longer tolerated. Bad movies are quickly recognized and abandoned. People will now pay for content they like (as evidenced by the fact that a freely distributed Nine Inch Nails cd topped the MP3 sales charts) and they will not buy the proverbial 'pig in a poke' from content providers and creators that is a sham. Whether or not you agree with the fact that this new world exists, the answer isn't to try to stuff the genie back in to the bottle. The answer is to produce content that people will enjoy. In every instance the people have come through and enriched the content creators. It is a new distribution model that can work for everyone's benefit.
Thank you.

Bono,

While I find your commentary thoughtful and informed in international matters and on the angiogenesis fron,t as a cancer survivor myself: I am becoming more inclined to disagree with Mr. McGuinnesses' MIDEM lecture about theft where U2 is concerned. Spitzer went after a music monopoly that made it possible for artists with corporate backing to own the airwaves unfairly and illegally, including U2, for TOO LONG. It seems continuing to support that monopoly is what young fans and MUSICIANS are unwilling to do.

Sid Gilbert is right on the money.
File sharing has given the consumer more power.
I still see shows I still see movies. I share music with my buddies and we see shows together. I'm so sorry 4 or 5 of us aren't all buying the cd AND seeing the show.
As if file sharing makes us too stupid to understand quality content.

all the little people on world wide streets
love to here robbing
go
tweet tweet tweet

I wonder what joe strummer would tweet

The problem with Bono's comments are that they're in credibly self-serving to the music elite.

The file sharing that he's railing against has been an incredible boon for smaller artists. Do we remove a fundamental marketing tool for the smaller guys because it's hurting the dominant players?

http://www.laweekly.com/2004-09-23/news/a-small-new-future

So the solution to keeping track of the $$$ the music industry and artist are losing is the responsibility of the ISP???

Who would pay for the technology Bono wants to put in place to track piracy? Also think about the potential invasion of privacy piracy tracking could bring about.

Also I dont think technology is hurting Bono too badly when he is selling U2 edition iPods and repacking the entire U2 catalog and expecting people to pay hundred of dollars for songs they have already paid for if they own the CD, just to buy them all again in iTunes. And then U2 is able to jump ship and sell themselves to Blackberry since they were front in center when the iPod took off.

So tell me again how someone who cashed in on the iPod hype is really hurting from 10 years of downloading that sold millions of these iPods he pimped again????

And hurting so much that he signs an endorsement deal with Blackberry who on some level believe hiring U2 will help them dethrone the Apple juggernaut??

So maybe regular musicians are hurting from not living through the music industries fat cat days of the 80s and early 90s, but I fail to see how Bono hasn't cashed in!!!!

I saw one clip of Nirvana's LIVE AT READING. Watching a u-tube vid doesn't even come close to the same DVD that I subsequently purchased and watch on my television. In general, I think most consumers do the same. If I want something, I buy it; it's as simple as that... I'll probably work a lifetime and not even come close to the amount of revenue that will be made by the artists who performed one show at Reading.

Count your blessings, cuz it's money in the bank, and tons of it. Many people don't even have a job nowadays and have even lost their homes. Always be thankful for what you've been blessed with.

The same Deep Packet Inspection needed to protect the business model of the (Maf)IAAs can be used to silence Iranian bloggers and citizen reporters.

Pick your poison.

So at all times the ability to sing asinine commentary over randomised rearrangement of 4/4 beat and pentatonic chords is somehow intellectual property?

I too agree with Sid Gilbert. Bono and U2 haven't been relevant since the early '90s - turn on a classic rock station and it's always their earlier songs that are being played. They realize that they can't rest on their laurels and royalties from past CD sales anymore; the thought of having to put in work and effort into making good music must scare the hell out of their ilk. The future of music belongs to those who tour their asses off, make songs they are passionate about (rather than what some record/marketing exec wants - if they're passionate about what they create, their fans will most likely be as well), connect with fans on a personal level and possibly have to hold down a day job. Today's tech has revolutionized music in ways that the '70s punk rockers only dreamed about. There may be no more iconic Beatles, Rolling Stones or Elvises, and maybe that's for the best - their time has come and gone, but they've inspired many in their wake.

Krist et al: the best take on this issue of freeloading that I've seen lately is here:

http://www.tinymixtapes.com/2009-Fuck-Love-Let-s-Make-Dystopia

Bono claiming to speak for the music industry is rather like the lions claiming to be the zoo.

Bono only went and undermined his credibility by tax exiling himself from Ireland - for a guy who preaches charity, you'd think he'd contribute towards roads and health services. So, a perfect storm of hypocrisy, greed and ego mean that he's fair game for flaming any time he opens his trap on any topic. In my humble opinion.....

Regardless of money and sites such as youtube, free content will always come to light in one way or another. The people concerned might not like that, but the little people (not all, but a large amount) probably won't give too much thought into it. Yes, they have the option to buy and yes they have the option to stream/fileshare/etc. and some do both. And Bono (imo) is overrated anyway. I would expect something like this to come from his mouth from the impression he gives the public.

Bono & Krist:

When I see you attempt to blaze new ground toward a digital delivery method that breaks the back of the current copyright/business model, then perhaps I will listen more closely to what you have to say. When you show the kind of balls people like Trent Reznor and Radiohead have then lets talk.

@ John O': waddayamean, paying again for rights you already paid for when you bought the CD? I already paid for the rights when I bought the effing LP!

I have never heard mister holier-than-thou Bono complain when I paid for the rights of playing a sonbg on LP, then again when it became CD, and again when it became DVD, and again when it became iTune.

In short: f**k Bono.

Sid Gilbert owned you.

Not only did Bono tax exile himself from Ireland, he did it after YEARS of cashing in on their no tax for artists policy - he jumped ship the moment they brought in a policy of capping this at £250k. He's just a self serving politican in sunglasses

"you know this money making got me out of touch"

CHINA !

it's the WHOLE china argument who is HATEFUL !

Of course I'm paying artist ! I bought dvd, cd, blueray, books, comics, download

I'm a computer engineer, I PAID SO MANY SOFTWARE : ALL my shareware are paid

I EVEN gave to Mozilla, Fsf and others providers of FREE software (to help them)

but still, I TOTALLY disagree with Bono and You.

NO, you don't HAVE to BREAK internet with your neo-totalitarian china-dreamful idea.

The world you call will be horrible :

- no open internet

- artificially closed network under a government mandate. Is THAT the America you wish ?

It's WHAT is China : a dictatorship with no freedom of culture and information.

what you ask is essentially that :

control of the content by _providers_ of the physical medium. Please, think it will be worst than publisher married with radio and tv broadcasters.

You want providers to be the police and the manager of your content. You will loose.

The value of internet is its openness, you can use the law and providers services to locate and close illegal website but don't ASK to BREAK internet !

Internet is 40 years of a slow building of international cooperation and open for all protocols.

It's that to allow to build Skype, to build Twitter, to build Google, to build Amazon, to build so many pervasive and useful moderns tools.

You can't have a china-secure-dull-tyran internet and the great innovations made possible by an open internet.

Internet is not centralized

Twitter, Amazon and Apple ask to _noone_ to build and connect their online service

they didn't ask to at&t the permission

they didn't ask the government an legal authorization after a long explanation

they ask to noone : they just connect it to the tail of the network and.. voilà ! a new service for all.

it's all thanks to a OPEN internet.

-
you want to sell your content ? fine I WANT TO BUY THEM. Sell it to me NOW on EASY digital shops, with great care, ALL your content, the old and the new. _NOW_

In the whole world. Don't hype me with US ads to tell me it's not available in France : sell it to me _now_

Ask countries to unify their IP laws to allow simpler worldwide release

you have to go to European Union parlement and FORCE them to create a global cultural market with sane and equal rules. to allow content to be release in ALL european countries the same very day.

In fact, I ask you to be American : to think Free Market, to Compete efficiently to bring me great incentive to buy .

-
Apple was more beneficial to musician than thousand of crazy complex laws by the us senate (dmca being the most crazy)

Itunes Store was at last a great way to buy. A lot better than underground torrent trackers.

You have to do better.

Because, I have to tell you : you are an artist, but you are fighting two industries : computing and telecom.

You will not force them to break internet because you sing a great song.

Heck, internet allowed to build a huge gazillon stack of money for them. Why will they break internet ?

-
Money

you want to speak money ? okay

Explain me why newspaper explain the whole music industry is doing great.

how 2009 was one of the best years for theater, Avatar near the record of Titanic

I thought the world was over.. than people spitted on artist and pirating all...

Apple is a whole success thanks to ipod and itunes and now iphone (selling 3 billions of SOFTWARE. software was pirated before you started to make music you know that ?)

Microsoft is still strong (and MS has business in tv, videogame and others content based stuff)

Amazon is doing great selling stuff.

-
yes the world is changing

you let the place being taken by pirates and you were dumb-fooled. I will not cry for you

because the world is NOT over, I was told and told we were killing creation and now, you can all see it was a lie

there are a new industry making money and needing content (you)

The world is changing, you have to be a PART of it , not against it

because I will not change my internet, my job, my way of living (loving my open internet and buying your works), and the technology for you.

I will not ask my country to become China because Bono tell it.

No.

NO SOUNDGARDEN REUNION EH?

http://www.vh1.com/artists/news/1629034/20100104/soundgarden.jhtml?rsspartner=rssMozilla

Mr. Novoselic,
What I find most offensive about your piece is how you didn’t take 2 min to digest the absurdities that Bono is proposing in his myopic and incongruous NYT piece. The stupidity behind Bono’s argument doesn’t lie in the economics of file sharing, which have already been nicely argued in here by people like Sid Gilbert, but on the consequences that censorship and “policing” have on a society that is trying to push for transparency and accountability. To suggest that China’s internet censorship model is a good proxy is irresponsible and ludicrous. One of the few hopes that our generation has rests upon the open culture that has sprung in the past 15 years thanks to the internet. Suggesting that corporations should “police” what we view in the name of copyright laws, and giving them the legal tools to restrict what sort of data we share, is not only dangerous and stupid, but shatters the idea that technology can enable a more democratic and free thinking world. Restricting the debate to the economics of internet royalties is an absurdity, as something much more important and transcendental lies behind that trivial discussion. The laws that will be written in the next years regarding the internet and intellectual property will impact the way the whole planet interacts and communicates for years to come. Corporate lobbyists are fighting to keep the status quo in a world that has at last found a medium where you are not judge by the superficial attributes of your race, nationality or color, but by the quality of your ideas. Things like ACTA, bandwidth limitations, and IP address monitoring pose a real threat to this unique and revolutionary medium. I suggest that you sit down and think of what the world will look like in 2025 if we keep on thinking like its 1984 (no pun intended).

Free culture for everyone.

They give us and we give back when they deserve it

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Jimmy_Thank_You/en?utm_source=2009_ThankYou2&utm_medium=sitenotice&utm_campaign=fundraiser2009#appeal

old people are old.

Bono... I won't even steal your music.

You're a fucking asshole. Fuck you and fuck Nirvana. Nirvana sold out just as bad as any other band. You've been hanging around too many fucking douchebags why don't you go down to your local bar and catch a show and see the state of the industry. FUcker.

It has been shown over and over againt hat those who "pirate" spend 10 times or more on entertainment than those who dont. You kick those people off the net, your basically screwing yourself. Why is it so hard to see that the reason the music industry is having a hard time is not pirates, its that money is a lot tighter these days and really, most music isnt worth $20 or more. Especially when most, not all, but most of the time only 1-2 songs are any good. Itunes proves that people are more than willing to pay for songs online. and apple had to fight to keep prices down, and theya re still fighting, b/c the music industry wants to jack up more and more, and when they start losing out of online sales, they'll know why. or they'll just raise prices and lower content and then say it is the rise of downloaders again.... and drm, what a waste, why punish those who pay, only hurts the consumer, doesnt help at all.

Paul Hewson made the claim that filesharing hurts artists trying to make a name for themselves. I would like to hear him or Krist expand on this argument.

that just means he is wrong do the math, so much art how could even think you would be rich, i don't get it. a more savy person would angle it and make money rather then complain like a victim

I have written a rebuttal on Bono's article here. While I analyze a few things there, the true value of the article is the discussion that followed, mostly between musicians. Have a look.

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=11worst

Sid Gilbert - Thanks for your comment. Avatar makes money the old school way - people purchasing cinema tickets. Bono said that the files are currently too big to pirate. But someday people would love to download a DVD quality picture for free. Again, I need to get up to speed on the issue of ISP's policing content. Off hand, it doesn't sound appealing. But Google makes its profits off tracking users and content for targeted advertising. It's these funds that pay for loss-leader YouTube. Isn't it ironic?

People should be free to lock up all their content. Or give it away - stand out on a corner and try to sell cassette tapes of some garage band for $100 a pop and see who many people buy? Like I've written about politics, there ought to be a freedom to fail. When we fail, we can realize what went wrong and try another tact - like giving music away to help promote a band. God bless Radiohead and NIN!! I love them and by all means give music away for free. I put out a record last May with avant punkers Flipper and it was free on line.

I read their rules and one can fax Twitter a complaint regarding copyright infringement. They say they'll take a look and act on it if necessary. Does that put them in bed with the secret police? No, they're just following the law and respecting private property - just like they said in part of the statement I posted. I love that little bird!!!

DogOfTheCIty - Things will change in places like China and Iran because of the free flow of information. Bono only mentioned China's ignoble effort to suppress online dissent as an example of the power of technology. The notion of free enterprise and private property create opportunity for our whole world. The relationship between free enterprise and the free flow of information on the internet is an uneasy one. Bono ripped the lid off this tension as we've seen by the reaction to his article.

Jared - I'm a huge Soundgarden fan. Any real fan knows that Knights of the Soundtable is the bands official fan club.

Thanks to everyone for reading.

Sid Gilbert is the bomb, and you will stand and recognize now.

Krist says: "People should be free to lock up all their content."

What do you mean by "lock up"? Are you talking about DRM?

Again, I'd like to hear why filesharing hurts artists who are trying to make a name for themselves.

I agree that you should benefit from your hard work and skills. However, I think you need to embrace free file sharing and target making profit off something other than record sales. This has been seen in many other industries, such as razors being given away and making profit off blade sales. Another is the PS3, which takes a hit on the console but makes up for it in game sales.

Adjust your business model to profit in other areas that cannot be pirated, that still hold value to the user. Using Avatar as an example, I would not have gone to the theatre to see the movie if it wasn't the 3-d experience it was. I would've downloaded it and watched it on my couch. The experience was so amazing, I went back within a week to see it again.

Microsoft basically gave up on piracy in Asia, with the belief that it would create an entirely new market. They were correct and stand by their decision.

The days of buying cd's is over. They days of paying for a soundtrack to listen to in my own home are over. I have many alternatives that are free: YouTube, Pandora, radio, and I can download them at almost no risk. When the market changes, it changes for a reason. It's next to pointless to fight it, and people will resent you for it. Figure out how to adapt and thrive off the change.

So maybe its time to adjust to the market and start producing content for free. Figure out how you can cut some costs, maybe ditch your record label so they dont get a cut of your profits. Produce a completely free album. Distribute it via your website. Figure out ways to still be able to make money, even though you are making it available for free. Think of things that can't be provided for free, because a soundtrack can.

Ultimately, the free content will send a message to the file-sharing community and the world. They will be more likely to support you, since you are supporting them. You will be sending the message to everyone, "I support freedom of information." You can use the release to create a lot of hype. There are more creative ways to make your money, than the standard model: looking for income from cd's in which you split profit. Use the opportunity to strengthen your popularity, grab the spotlight, and increase the value of your brand.

Just some brainstorming:

- Get a company to sponsor you album and incorporate the company's product / message into some of your music, which will be heard by millions.
- Make the content available with a code that is found on a compainies product. (the inside of a coke bottle cap, or maybe some product that a group mostly attracted to your music is likely to purchase) Also use this to get paid to be in their commercials endorsing the product, hyping up the upcoming release of your album.
- Put advertisements up on your website, using your free content to drive traffic
- Open a t-shirt/memorabilla store on the website, using your free content to drive traffic. Sell 3 dollar t-shirts for 20 bucks, with little overhead. The record company won't get a cut of your profit on these sales.
- Have a debut concert, live, the night your album drops. Stream it on your website. Have comercials between your opener, or between certain songs.

"diskgrinder says:

So at all times the ability to sing asinine commentary over randomised rearrangement of 4/4 beat and pentatonic chords is somehow intellectual property? "

OMG. Perfection. You sir, win 1 Internet.

Peter,

By lock up, I'm saying you should have to freedom to do whatever you want with your music.

Lars Ulrich got flamed a few years back because he was pissed that a Metallica song was leaked to the net before it was even finished. Shouldn't this man and his colleagues have the right to at least finish their work in a way they deem fit before it sees the light of day?

What right do people have to take music? And where do people come off telling others how they're going to benefit from free music? There ought to be a freedom to fail. And if sharing free music is so good (and I believe it is) then build it and they will come.

So what if somebody hides all the music they created under the bed. Leave people alone.

when you use the sign in structure to post, there is name, then email address, then "url":
if you type or copy your "url" with the the other mentioned sign in information, you will be tracked. What ever security level you live with, this may or may not be intrusive to your views -- it's essentially a large cookie.

For every song like "Smells Like Teen Spirit" out there 250 songs like "Theme Form Boat Wierdos" get made. Yes that song is on an album. Bono is just pulling thoughts out of his ass and passing them off as facts and anyone with the bad luck to cite him as any kind of authority on any subject other than making music is just asking to be labeled a moron along with him.

OK Krist, I agree that if someone had copied Lars' track in his possession and without his knowledge, this is a crime. This is an invasion of privacy. That person should be charged as such. And my suggestion to Lars would be to take better care not to let that happen again.

If music has been published however, then people should have the right to share their legally acquired copies with whomever they wish. It is clear that this does no harm to musicians.

Again, Bono essentially stated that filesharing hurts musicians trying to make a name for themselves - and that his reason for speaking out was to stand up for these artists. I would like to hear you or him expand on this argument. Can you?

Mr. Novoselic, you're right - part of a capitalist system is in ensuring that the content creators who make good content are compensated for that, and enough to encourage them to do so. But let's look at the business model of an artist, and the business model of a distributor.

It's a well known fact that the vast majority of artists get a vast minority of profits from distribution sales of their work - they get the bulk of their income from their art by public appearances - direct interaction with their consumer base.

For a distributor, the vast majority of their income come from the sale of the media that they distribute - media, books, DVDs, whatever.

The issue is this - the internet does NOT inhibit the artist from creating, or earning a good income by means of live performances. Instead, it attacks the distributor, because it offers a wider distribution, and at a vastly reduced cost - free, or pennies on the dollar. In a sense, it empowers the consumer to accurately validate, from a capitalist perspective (i.e. the free market) what the value of a distributed work should be. The simple fact is that piracy is so rampant because people honestly value distributed works as being near worthless. This is the free market talking - but so-called "capitalists" (the distributors) are refusing to listen, instead choosing to attack their customer base to preserve a business model that is, quite frankly, outclassed.

Artists are like everyone else - their profession is what earns them a living, and they make a living through performing their music LIVE. For 99.9999% of human history, this has been the case. Only for the ultra-rich artists, who can afford to purchase their copyrights back from the distributors, can they merge with the distribution model. And surprisingly, it's no secret that it is those very same artists who are the loudest voices against cheap distribution, because it now affects their bottom line.

Mr. Novoselic, you come from a privileged position in the artist world - you own (partially), the rights to your own works. 99% of all recording artists are essentially wage-slaves to distributors, signing away their copyrights in trade for distribution. They don't get access to the free market to determine the value of their music - that value is dictated to them by a corporate structure that functions as a monopoly.

So, the people are left to either go exclusively to live performances (which most support!), or else pay a price for a good that they don't want to pay. Or, they can encourage a NEW business model, that of being able to FREELY determine the value of a good - just like a true free market would allow.

I would put forward this assertion, Mr. Novacelic- the reason that so much copyrighted work is pirated is because the free market has determined its value - worthless. If you want someone to pay you for your work, don't force them - make a work worth paying for. The one thing that the internet has truly changed in the world of distribution is this - there is no longer any such thing as "exclusive access".

Props to Krist for actually replying and replying in a civil way in spite of the heated comments.

I'll have to agree with the point made that what the music industry needs is not policing its content, but to create a delivery service that will entice users with quality content.

iTunes has the right idea. The App Store has the right idea for programs. Steam has the right idea for games.

The power is with the people now and you can't take it away.

I don't assume that Krist is going to read this, nor Bono but here's the reailty check for you both.

Your content is now and forever, no matter how you wrap it up or attempt to keep it "yours" is no longer yours once you make it available to the public in any form whatsoever. This is a difficult thing to understand perhaps so I'll break it down.

DRM helps absolutely nobody. It doesn't make you any more money, because there is no form of DRM that's un-crackable. For it to exist in the first place allows for some system to decrypt it and therefore someone smarter than the engineers who were commissioned to design the system in the first place will ultimately be able to crack it. Most of the time they do it for the same reason someone climbs a mountain. "because it's there". No joke. They don't do it because they hate your profits, or corporate America or whatever other noble or nefarious purpose. They do it to taunt the companies who keep making restrictive policies that don't work.

Going even further down the rabbit hole, DRM hurts ONLY the people who PAY FOR THE CONTENT. I'll repeat this for emphasis, but literally the only people negatively affected by DRM are the people who are interested in giving someone else money. It doesn't hurt the pirates, they're already downloading something with the DRM stripped and any annoyance negated. Meanwhile, the legitimate customer looking to support the product ends up with the short end of the stick for trying to pay money whenever the DRM is difficult to work with, restrictive in any way or otherwise has any sort of issues. Most DRM works this way, negatively affecting the experience of the paying customer.

An example: I recently bought a Blu-Ray drive for my PC and several hundred dollars worth of Blu-Ray discs to watch were given to me for x-mas. Yay! But wait! The DRM included in Blu-Ray discs made it where my decision to legitimately pay for content was turned into an expensive hassle because the monitor I had (which was a quite nice monitor) didn't support HDCP. I had several hundred dollars worth of paid-for content that was %100 useless until I bought a new monitor! What the hell?

Meanwhile, the same quality video was available for download for free without any restrictions whatsoever. I chose to support the artists and companies that made the content and was slapped in the face by DRM. My friend who pirates everything was watching their pirated Inglorious Basterds Blu-Ray rip just fine. I was sitting at home on x-mas yelling at my PC.

DRM Doesn't work. It will never work. It only harms legitimate consumers.

It further becomes a hollow argument when you look at the statistics from this year. The cry of "pirates are taking our money!" rings hollow in a down economy that shows the movie industry making record profits, making more movies than ever and basically laughing all the way to the bank. Piracy hasn't hurt the movie industry at all. Why would it? People pay for the experience of going to a movie or the collectibility of a physical disc with a movie on it.

Music unfortunately positioned itself poorly by entering the technology age with basically a lot of crap that people didn't want as the de-facto standard of an album. 3 potential hit songs, 7-10 filler tracks to make it a 35-45 minute album. Rinse, repeat and take advantage of the people who just wanted the hit radio song by giving them a $18 album. People are smarter than that when technology gives them better options. We're all much happier with the streaming services now where we can get a steady dose of only the things we like, without having to buy physical media for music. It's the new radio. Which was the thing before we actually bought records and tapes and CD's by default. It was probably good while it lasted for some people, but most consumers have moved past the need for physical media when they don't actually need the physical media. They'll pay for it, but not as much because they're doing YOU a favor by not wasting the middleman and production process of dead media. Everyone should be happy and should figure out how to work in the system rather than declare it to be a corrupt environment full of nothing but pirates and zero dollars.

DRM isn't the answer.

Things worth paying for AND not treating your customers like criminals are.

Sorry if that conflicts with your content creation views, but as a person who pays for content, that's the world I'd prefer to live in. After my blu-ray xmas nightmare, I'm personally not buying any new technology that includes DRM ever again. I wish most people would follow.

I think Sid Gilbert is dead on. Having a price tag does not make content magically better, its the quality of the content that determines its value. When the content is good that is when it is valued, and that is when people buy it.

Is Bono using a 56k connection to think movies take too long to download? Those things stream instantly these days, and oh look, Hollywood is having its best year ever and a single film has made a billion $.

the argument about ISPs controlling content, DRM, and that entire bag of shit is something i don't think matters. there's nothing you can do about it besides be old and sound old.

the argument that i care about is the ridiculous presumption that without a big capitalistic dick shooting wads of money all over starving artists, that good art wouldn't get created. this presumption is so fucking stupid i will not even debate it. QED.

stop being old. stop it.

Despite what Bono says, he only has his self-righteousness apperance and money on his mind.
And regarding money specifically, Bono is only concerned about how he can make more of it. That is the bottom line.

Krist, I totally agree with the Lars point of unfinished material being leaked. I read some good stuff in the recent Led Zep biography about how they were able to fine tune songs live every night for their upcoming records before recording them because there was no bootlegging fear, these days you would have heard Led Zeppelin III in a full live version on you tube before a needle hit vinyl. That's the kind of thing Bono should of talked about, he's nieve if he didn't expect backlash for such things. I've got nothing against him but it's quite obvious vast majorities of the population find him to be out of touch with the common man and just a little bit smug. Power to his comments on the 2010 World Cup though...

Who gives a rats ass?

This is just one more example of the minions finding a small way to better their lives, and the masters whining and finding ways to keep that from happening. Bono and his $'s are not going to be parted, and any censorship/regulating/spying/control of the internet is absurd. That is how the internet thrives, because millions of common people, of all stratas of every soceity are pooring into the net to find common ground and bypass the father figures.

Go ahead and try to manipulate the minds and actions of those millions, and we/they/I will just find another way to be free.

And on a personal note. Using China's practices as an example of anything good is just as good as shooting one's self in the toe. Very poor choice for someone who supposedly travels the globe working on behalf of the little people he now is calling theives.

As many many posters have already said. If the content is good? We buy the content. If it sucks? It will end up in a holding file someone on the net with no one to love it with the exception of the musicans who think they can forever grab the hard earned dollars of people who enjoy REAL artistic products and the corporations who desired the same.

It's the time of the little people. Get used to it. We aren't using old Roman coins any longer with the leader's picture stamped on it.

We are making our own world. Jump in and enjoy it or stay behind with the fat old cats and their piles of money.

Scrooge lives. We just don't have to invite him into our homes.

My only comment on Bono's original and yours?

How in the name of anything can someone put "America's noble effort to stop child pornography" and China's attempt to supress milions of innocent people from finding truth in the same category as rich musicans who think someone is stealing their money.

American's noble attempt to corner child porn is doing something for the innocents. Neither of you two are innocents being preyed on by evil adults.

Do either of you actually think before you speak?

Busting child porn is an attempt to help children be safe.

Controlling an entire country's access to the net is hurting the innocent who are trying to find and speak truth.

Controll silly file swapping and downloading of silly tunes that wno't be here in another decade because they were so awful is lining the already full pockets of the greediest of people.

Sheesh. Man up you two and get off the self pity train. Give all your money to the poor and help the world instead of trying to rob the world all in the name of "Art".

When I first read Bono's quotes from the NYT, I felt certain that they must have been taken from something written in 2001, or thereabouts.

I mean, look at the evidence:

1) Claiming that movies are too big to actually download? I downloaded my first movie in 2001. I don't think it took more than a few hours. Today, I often get 3 MB/second on my downloads - you do the math.

2) Claiming that downloading hurts smaller artists. Every single study (from the likes of Harvard U., the Danish and Dutch governments, the Norwegian School of Economics and the Swedish Royal Technical College) shows the *exact* opposite to be true. Smaller artists are doing better than ever and a larger and larger share of the money spent on music goes directly to the artists. So anyone who has read up on the subject in the last five years or so should be aware that this is the case.

3) Claiming that China's net censorship has anything to do with content tracking. Or that it has been in any way particularly effective.

4) Claiming that the hunt for online pedophiles is going well. Everyone who studies the subject knows that, in large part because of the RIAA hunting music fans, encryption and anonymizing services have been popularized and made commercially viable. Meaning that pedophiles are now harder than *ever* to hunt down. Thanks, Hilary Rosen et. al.

While I understand the lamentation of artists whose unfinished works are released online (I first heard Mars Volta's debut in demo form, thinking it was the actual album), it's something you cannot really stop, short of making sure it doesn't leak in the first place. You say that an artist should have the right to lock down their works if they so wish, and that's a nice thought, but it can't be accomplished short of shutting down the internet (or turning it into a cable-TV channel for computers, essentially the same thing).

The net is a democratizing tool precisely because it allows anyone to publish content, and you would have to at the very least *severely* curtail that aspect to regain the kind of control you're asking for.

Complaining about file sharing - especially now that it's been repeatedly proven to not harm artists - is akin to making a big stink about how the chlorine that's keeping the water cholera-free makes it taste funny.

Even *if* it were true that the average artist were being hit harder by the internet now than by the predatory record companies in days of yore, the staggering benefits of the internet would still outweigh that.

That's what the fuss is about. That's why people think Bono is being a knucklehead. He's proposing draconian measures to deal with a problem that doesn't even exist.

It would have been somewhat uninformed to say what he did in 2001, but doing it in 2010 is either being disingenuous or credulous. Well, either that, or just bone-numbingly stupid.

Sorry, that's just the way it is.

Wasn't a big part of why people flipped out at Bono because he compared music theft to child pornography?

I would agree that music sharing makes it harder for new bands to make the big break through, but Bono is doing fine. He should be able to just get over it.

"I would agree that music sharing makes it harder for new bands to make the big break through"

Why would you agree with that? All reputable studies show the exact opposite; smaller bands are gaining at the expense of bigger acts and major labels are losing market share to smaller, indie ones. Niche genres and bands are now healthier than ever before.

Granted, fragmenting of the market means that fewer bands will be massive in the way that Nirvana or U2 (to pick two names at random) were, but that's not exactly a bad thing. It simply means that music consumers are now picking and choosing more carefully, rather than just buying what's being foisted on them or latching on to what everybody else likes.

The kind of bands that will prosper in today's environment are the ones that inspire fan loyalty and devotion, usually because of following their muse and being idiosyncratic enough to gain a cluster of die-hard followers. Nine Inch Nails would be one of the bigger acts of this kind.

Conversely, mass-market stuff, the kind of music which millions of consumers think is fine but which very few actually go absolutely nuts over (say, Britney) will suffer.

I absolutely fail to see the problem, except for the labels - who have lost control of taste making - and the artists who deliberately aim for the lowest common denominator for the sake of profit rather than making honest art.

Again, if you love music, if you love art made honestly for the sake of expressing yourself, if you love the idea of more people being able to make a decent living off their art than ever before in the history of mankind, then you have nothing at all to fear from the internet or filesharing.

“Kenny you’re so G*d damn poor, were going to kick your ass”
Cartman

Amusing that the “Mob Rules” consider the term “Free Market” to ascertain to the meaning of free in order to diminish the value of “something” the same type of “Mob Rules” that determined the present earning potential of a labor force by overvaluing a market, then again the “Mob Rules” that diminish the value of freedom simply determined by a majority who are unwilling to pay the price.

I'm 27, Nirvana got me into alternative rock music, or let me put it this way: MUSIC.

Nirvana IS and WILL ALWAYS BE my favourite band, until the end.

I wonder what the Krist Novoselic (Chris, actually) from 1989 would think of your post and why you agree with Bono.

Makes me sad, really. How can someone's beliefs change so much over the years.

Bono is a hypocrite. Period.

I believe artist should and must get paid for their work. But let's face it, the old revenue model is DEAD.

Hopefuly, I know you'll reconsider your toughts on this matter. I've a few intelligent and well informed comments on your post.

Still, makes me sad to even write this comment and looking at my beautiful 20th anniversary CD edition of Bleach, resting on my desk.

All the comments on this article scare me. When everyone agrees on something, it's a problem. It's way too cool to hate the record industry, and EVERYONE shares that opinion.

Yes, there is more of a selection of independent music out there, but it's also pain in the a** to find sometimes. There needs to be a little bit of a balance from the way things were to where they are now. Everyone claims pop artists are the ones who will suffer, but from what I can see, those are the only ones have real success. All these so-called "successful" underground bands may have a decent following, but they are probably broke. I'm in a band - trust me, i know. We are still in the infant stages, but know other bands that are further along...nothing even close to something you can survive on.

I read a quote recently that summed it up well "no one is in the crowd because everyone is on the stage." - I think that's what Krist was trying to get at with his Avatar example. There are more people than ever trying to be the star, and nothing to filter them out. It's very easy to get lost in a sea of mediocrity right now. Any d**k with a mic and a guitar can upload his music all over the web. Because of too much pirating, labels aren't looking to invest into new artists in the same way they used to. This means to be successful, you have to work A LOT harder....it's more like starting up a business now. The biz side of things don't bother me personally, but most people who are talented musically are not informed/inclined when it comes to business, nor do they care to be.

We all have to adapt, I get it, but some of you are ridiculous and uninformed with your comments. Way too many brainwashed "the music industry is evil" nonsense. Grow a brain and think for yourself.

Oh, and just to clarify...I'm not talking about Bono's comments. I don't really care for him in general. I meant the piracy issue.

Bravo Krist, I applaud your willingness to take a stand on this issue.

95% of the comments so far have been complete BS...not an original thought amongst them. I've heard these justifications hundreds of times before, all based on the same flawed logic to begin with.

People take whatever content they want for free simply because its there; nothing more, nothing less. There is no grand vision, no master plan, its all just smoke and mirrors. Its a direct result of greed, selfishness and a false sense of entitlement. That so many people buy into this way of thinking is certainly disappointing to say the least.

So, Jason. You're attacking the "flawed logic" of every single reputable study on the subject?

So...how do you explain a band like The Arctic Monkeys? They not only made their name from filesharing (and gigging, of course), but once they signed to a (small) label and their debut album was finished, it leaked and was massively fileshared for weeks before release.

With you "non-flawed logic" you would expect that album to sell little to nothing.

The result? Fastest selling debut album in UK history.

It's ALWAYS been hard work to break a band, combined with a lot of luck and timing. Going from 99,9% of all bands being a losing concern to 99% is a huge uptick in the nu,ber of acts who can me a living off their music, but the majority will still never get anywhere.

For the record, I have been involved in music in one way or another since 1984 (and my father was a full-time musician), so I think I have a fair amount of insight into the realities of the business.

i am amazed at the bullshit that goes on about the illegal downloading of music. keeping it as simple as I can.....Stealing is stealing. unless a band or a label has said take it for free....it is not yours to take.....there are no fat cat music execs making money here. there are small labels and indie bands who have poured their sweat into music and would like to do things like...pay their rent. Stealing Music Sucks.....the 2 PSA's that have been done so far are making the rounds and we encourage other bands and labels to make their own PSA's to send the message around!!

Unauthorized distribution of digital music files is not "stealing". If you would like to have a rational discussion about this issue, I suggest you not use biased language. Words like "piracy" and "stealing" only create confusion.

So the 538 people currently downloading the ENTIRE Zep catalog from a torrent on Pirate Bay are "Robin Hoods" sticking it to the man?

Or they're just greedy schlubs who want the ENTIRE Zep catalog (@320kbps no less) for free. Sure sounds like stealing to me.

I'll now wait for the obligatory "they already have enough money, so it's ok to steal from them" comment.

Krist - Word up!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knights_of_the_Sound_Table

LOL no really i cant wait to catch em live again. Everyone should sign up now.

http://soundgardenworld.com/

@Teaflax

I'm attacking the 'flawed logic' that everyone is entitled to get whatever content they want for free, not whether or not free content can be used as a sucessful marketing tool.

Nobody is saying that artists can't give their work away, it can and sometimes does help, but its another thing entirely to say they don't have the choice to begin with.

Okay, I didn't expect to see a plague of comments on this blog. Anyway, most copywrighted videos placed on youtube are taken off immediately and the user's account gets frozen. I'm an enormous fan of youtube. However, some people need to learn how to apply common sense on putting up certain videos online because nobody shows charity towards evil pirates. Rinky-dink thieves shouldn't be allowed to post up videos that are licenced. The common low-moraled villians are pilfering money away from the people that deserve it. It's disgusting!

Uh, watch youtube videos of U2- I think I'll pass...except for the video, 'The Saints Are Coming'. I have an evil and eerie feeling somebody is going to suggest watching Bon Jovi. The horror.

Musicians should not have the right to prevent citizens from distributing legally acquired digital music files for non-commercial purposes.

Scott: The Zep catalog is actually a prime example of piracy not hurting the artist. Half of Zep is dead. They're not losing profit or income off of people downloading their album for free. No artist is being hurt by that downloading. The same would go for Sinatra, Crosby, Flatt & Scruggs, and a host of other artists whose music you can download illegally off the 'net. This is what's so moronic about the distribution model, and the whole arguement of "stealing music hurts the artists!". It doesn't hurt them. Artists don't make money off of distribution sales. They gain fame off of distribution, so that they can then channel that into TICKET sales.

If someone was illegally copying ticket stubs to allow folks free access to concerts, that would be legitimate fraud - you are taking up a limited resource (i.e. floorspace in a concert) that most folks would be more than willing to pay for.

In a sense, this channels into something that is wrong with copyright law in the US in the world today - why should someone who is NOT the creator of the content in question profit off exclusive access to it? Sinatra's dead - why should I still have to pay for listening to Sinatra?

1/2 of Zep is dead? Really?

@Peter

Respectively, that makes no sense. When you legally purchase music, you aren't just purchasing the song data, etc...you are in fact buying a limited license to own a copy of that work (which the copyright holder grants on condition of sale). The license only applies to the copy you own, not other copes made and distributed to whomever you want. This is why it violates copyright law. So your beef is with current copyright law then; that's cool, if you can come up a better system that doesn't sound ridiculous than I'm all ears.

Joe,

Don't even know where to start with that. All I can say is that somebody put up big money to put Zep in the studio, and Zep responded by putting their heart and soul into writing and performing some of the best Rock n' Roll the world's ever heard. If you think the investors and the band don't deserve to be rewarded for their risk and effort, then I don't know what else to say. Copyright terms are set up so that the creators spouses and children can also enjoy the fruits of their labor, who wouldn't want their family to be taken care of after they pass on?

We as consumers have the right to spend our money as we wish, if we don't see the value in something, we don't have to pay for it, but we also then forfeit our right to own and enjoy it. We can't have our cake and eat it to. That is how children think.

Zeppelin have one of the highest royalty rates in the industry. They made money of album sales. So, by stealing their music, you're actually denying the artist income.

But don't forget, they're rich, and don't deserve any more money. You've always got that to fall back on.

Krist,

It is a valuable exercise to take yourself back to the late 80's and think of what your band was willing to sacrafice to get a record made. Now think if you could have done it without signing to a major label. What if you could have the full share of all those sales?

The main point is true: great art will stand on its own. The internet now gives a band who's trying to break out an unlimited distribution capability. Sure, some will pay and some will not. Do you think that "Bleach" or "Nevermind" or "In Utero" would have reached at least 10 million paying fans? I say it would have and once that many fans were exposed to it, they would have shared it with at least 3-4 of their friends. My point is that the end result of your band's fame would have been the same...the difference being that you guys would have controlled and totally owned the entire thing, not just the pitiful portion the record label decided to share with you and the part they couldn't figure out how to cheat you out of.

There has never been a more promising time for new artists. No longer are the Pat Day's of the world deciding what the people can hear and buy. With the relative ease of finding a basement studio with great equipment and producing/engineering talent (who grew up and were trained in the old studio system - so we do have to thank them for that) on a contract basis means that now bands can afford to produce great sounding tracks for nowhere near the hundreds of thousands of dollars that the old studio system charged. No wonder the record companies are shitting bricks.

Scott

"Krist Novoselic says:

Sid Gilbert - Thanks for your comment. Avatar makes money the old school way - people purchasing cinema tickets. Bono said that the files are currently too big to pirate. But someday people would love to download a DVD quality picture for free."

Pfft... I went to the theaters and watched Avatar. Then found it online the same night and re-watched parts of it.

Scott- My bad, only 1/4th of Led's dead :).

But to your point - the costs of recording are miniscule. The BAND put in the effort of learning to play music, composing their songs, and THEN went into record. The costs of distribution are ALSO miniscule - the manufacturing and sale cost of a CD is about $5 -but those CDs sell for $9 to $20, because of a price dictated not by fair market value, but instead by the distributors themselves. And Led owns their rights TODAY - after having to buy them back from the label that they originally contractually ceded them to. Most artists hold very little to no copyright ownership of their own works - part of the cost of distribution in that old model is that of giving up the right to your own work.

Artists, like Led Zep, make their money primarily from concerts and live performances - Led made millions not because of 10 million albums sold, but because of 30 years of touring, charging $15 to $150 a ticket, for hundreds of thousands of fans over that time period.

Internet distribution offers a new way to distribute music WITHOUT the cost overhead of manufacturing CDs. People expected to see distributors adapt to this model, not try to eliminate it. That's inherently anti-capitalist - destroying an innovation brought about by the free market is most definitely monopolistic, not capitalist.

If record labels were truly capitalist, they would have embraced the medium, and adapte to the simple reality that people are not willing to pay $20 for 10 songs. The fact that people are not willing to pay AT ALL should be a wake up - that most artists today are obviously bad investments, and should NOT be distributed.

And you have conveniently ignored the topic I did raise, of why we should still pay to listen to artists who are long dead.

Mr Novoselic, nothing in your article explains why Bono is right, there's just a lot of agreeing with him and vague suggestions that strong copyright protection is a good thing. I can only imagine that you trust the guy so much that you don't need a clear understanding of the issue at hand to object to the response he provoked on twitter.

The great thing about Twitter that you don't mention (and unlike you, I don't even use the service), is that the masses can quickly and efficiently rise up to voice their views without being famous enough to get a spot in the New York Times or Seattle Weekly.

If you weren't so caught up in thinking Bono is right you might have taken time to find out why so many people have called him an idiot before writing this article. I'll even help you a bit for future's sake by suggesting you visit www.techdirt.com for a well rounded view on how free content can make good business sense.

Well, I like this write up. Here we are amongst all of these rules and laws that have been jammed in every package we purchase. Then we move to the net and well, it goes against all of them rules and laws that have been printed in every package that we have purchased. In hind site though, I must mention that if it wasn't for the internet I wouldn't have found some of these underground bands or films that I've rented or have purchased. The information highway, if utilized properly, is beneficial to the artist and the consumer. The consumer finds new and interesting things that can be an extension of that consumer while the struggling artists reach new people that would otherwise be untouched by their art.

It is a foil or a compliment, depending on how you look at it.

A nice view that gets the gears grinding for many.

Joe, you should probably pick a different band than Led Zep as an example...one you maybe know something about. They lasted only 10 years and sold a shit load more than 10 million albums. In their day, all the rules were different.

In fact, because they were as popular as they were is the only reason why they were able change the rules (for all that followed)to wrest some control of their merchandising and concert revenues.

The record companies have been stealing as much as they could get away with from bands since the beginning of recording. Now they see that control slipping and we get these bullshit tactics as a way to protect the precious revenues that most bands under their contracts never see.

Scott

Joe,

I'll address your points one at a time.

1) Recording costs have certainly come down a lot in the last decade, but in the 1970s when Zep recorded many of their records it was massively expensive. Pro recording was not an option for most bands unless the label was fronting the money. Zep made such a deal, and nobody forced them to. Its a risk you take in business - you do your homework, hire a good lawyer and sign on the dotted line if you agree with the terms. The label is investing big money in you and in exchange you assign them the copyright to the recording (which they are paying for).

Whether a band is on a major label like Zep, or goes completely DIY its their choice, and has no bearing on whether or not you should be able to download their work for free.

2) Sure Zep was a large enough band they could make good money touring, but I bet they did very well with their record royalties as well. Its an vital revenue stream, as well as touring.

3) I agree, internet distribution is a good thing, but I don't see anybody trying to destroy innovation, just to legitimize it. It would, in fact, be more anti-capitalist to let a formerly strong free market turn into a black market due to rampant infringment. Without effective law there is no free market. If an artist choses to legitmately offer free distribution on the internet and utilize all the innovation happening online, its their choice and I'm all for it, believe me.

4) I disagree, record labels KNOW that people will spend $20 for 10 songs...otherwise they wouln't have had a successful business (which they did). People used to gleefully fork over that and more for terrible Boy Band music. The only thing that the labels can see is that people have found a way to short circuit their distribution models and get their products for free. Its not a powerful protest statement by the masses at all, its just human nature finding the path of least resistance. People have only tried to turn it into something its not by self-justifying their behavior.

5) I did address it; the reason we still have to pay money for the works of dead artists is because the copyrights may still be in effect; the term on the copyright extends past the creators death so that their work can continue to support their family as long as the public is using their work.

I think Mr. Novoselic (saw you open up for Sonic Youth in LA 1990: great show) is more than right; I think the time for these arguments to end and for court-backed actions to block access to file sharing sites that traffic in pirated material to begin is now. In fact it was probably a long time ago.

The fee per unit model is the only fair and appropriate model for recordings of any kind: movies, music, whatever. As has been said ad nauseum, mass piracy has undermined not only the major labels (which probably deserve it in some cases), it has undermined the next generation of Fugazis and Ani DeFrancos too who could be successful independently only if their fans actually paid for their music.

It's going to be even worse for filmmakers. Lots of independent filmmakers (whose movies don't get widely distributed in theaters) earn a good share of their living from selling DVDs.

I'm glad to see a bunch more people chimed in on the other side of things. My original point was that there needs to be a balance from the old way and the current way. Before record companies were overly greedy, now joe everyman is the one who is too greedy. There has to be a happy medium.

To these people that think artists make sh*t tons of money on concerts - get real. The only ones that do are the ones that are immensely popular, and as many on the "music should be free" argument have stated, that's pretty much gone. Small acts don't make much on a tour...with places like liveNation and the venues raping them, it's very difficult to make real money.

Yes, success stories like the Artic Monkey's exist, but it's an exception more than the rule. I'm not saying we need to go back to the old way, but the industry needs to find a way to make money in the file-sharing age so they can resume investing in new artists. DIY is great and all, but it's very overwhelming...and too often you will find your favorite band breaks up before the really get anywhere.

It's a shame the subscription model isn't catching on, because it eliminates most of the arguments for why music should be free. You have access to unlimited amounts of music for a fixed cost and don't have to deal with any of the sh*t associated with file sharing (viruses). The problem there is Apple's greed is preventing it since an iPod isn't compatible with subscription downloads...they dont' want to cut into their iTunes sales. If Apple offered a subscription service, I feel it would really catch on. I think that is a nice balance...it's not expensive for people to have, and artists/labels can still be compensated.

Sorry to be way way off topic here. But over on Facebook at http://bit.ly/76rzZT I gave you the beyond dubious distinction of being my Libertarian Rawker of the Day. But, now I am getting some heat from the always cantankerous libertarians--telling me he is a great guy, great musician, but no libertarian. If you could-- would you let me know what you think?:

Look at the world that was created by the model you support. And come on...You could have produced everything Nirvana did for next to nothing these days... Musicians should make their money through live gigging..Oh wow they already do so your argument is centered to protect record companies and the top.001% of musicians...Bum

@Chris Fullam (Conflict In The Sky)

"Yes, success stories like the Artic Monkey's exist, but it's an exception more than the rule."

http://vimeo.com/5229486

First, just so you know, I loathe piracy. Almost all of the music I have on my iTunes playlist is bought, and I buy music whenever I can (that is, if given the choice between buying and stealing, I buy). That being said, I take issue with what Bono, Novoselic, and their defenders say.

I'll just respond to one of them:

[quote] Yes, success stories like the Artic Monkey's exist, but it's an exception more than the rule. I'm not saying we need to go back to the old way, but the industry needs to find a way to make money in the file-sharing age so they can resume investing in new artists. DIY is great and all, but it's very overwhelming...and too often you will find your favorite band breaks up before the really get anywhere.[/quote]

Actually, I can think of plenty of artists who have gained some level of success whilst being independent off the top of my head: Anamanaguchi, Ingrid Michaelson (both of our mothers have been friends before both of us were born), Jonathan Coulton, and MC Frontalot:

Ingrid Michaelson's album was #1 on iTunes overall. Jonathan Coulton, Anamanaguchi and MC Frontalot have both performed at the Penny Arcade Expo every year to thousands of geeks like me. To indicate that they are successful, Anamanaguchi made it to #26 on the iTunes electronic charts, Jonathan Coulton claimed that he made more money in 2007 than in his previous job as a programmer. I emailed MC Frontalot re: his finances, and he responded thusly: "It's working out such that I don't have to do other work. It is certainly not making me wealthy."

Keep in mind that with the exception of Ingrid Michaelson, two of these artists give their fruit away on creative commons and the other one actually doesn't mind sharing.

I do 100% agree that file-sharing is wrong and you should respect the artist's wishes and pay for the work if it is provided for sale. Hell, like I said before, I pay for all my music (at least those that are not given away for free by the artist)

However, to say that file-sharing hurts smaller artists is contradicted by the facts.

Music is like anything else. Lets say I said to myself on sunny day, "I don't have the money to buy a BMW. I guess I'll steal it, it'll be free advertising for them anyway." How is that any different than stealing music?

Molly, if I steal your BMW you no longer have it. If I copy your song, you still have your song. This is why copying music is not stealing.

Ironcurtain says: "I do 100% agree that file-sharing is wrong and you should respect the artist's wishes"

I understand respecting attribution and not using the work for commercial purposes, but could you explain your reasoning as to why citizens should not share published cultural works if the artist wishes it not be shared? I don't see why that wish should be respected.

I understand respecting attribution and not using the work for commercial purposes, but could you explain your reasoning as to why citizens should not share published cultural works if the artist wishes it not be shared? I don't see why that wish should be respected.

Because it's protected by copyright, and the artist intends to make money off of it. Believe it or not, some people intend to make a living with their music (my point of contention with Bono and Mr. Novoselic is that smaller artists have made a living in spite of, and because of file sharing). Also, the content could have cost a lot of money, like a film or major video game, so it'll be a major loss if those works were freeloaded.

As for music, I feel that even works from major labels shouldn't be freeloaded. Why? Sure, the major labels are thieves, but stealing from thieves doesn't make one any less a thief.

"Because it's protected by copyright, and the artist intends to make money off of it."

"Because it's protected by copyright" is not a justification. You are simply attempting to state what the law says.

As music is copied and proliferated, that doesn't stop the artist from earning money from its value (in fact, quite the opposite - its value increases) so "the artist intends to make money off of it" doesn't hold any weight either.

Krist and bono are right here, its a tough issue but it comes down to what these artists want to do with THEIR music...think about it, do you really want the dream of being able to live off of making music to end? thats where we're heading, i mean do you really want the recording industry to have the power to say "HERES A NEW BAND, HERES 'THEIR' MUSIC THAT WE TOOK FROM THEM WITHOUT COMPENSATION BECAUSE YOU WANT FREE MUSIC"....Sure the label will make money on the tours and blow up dolls, and maybe the band will make some off that too, but the music is what its all about and too many people cant see past their own entitlement to see that.....and to the people who say "if its about the music why do you wanna end something that GIVES away free music," please read the article again and learn to take some meaning from things you read.

"it comes down to what these artists want to do with THEIR music"

In the case where Lars' music is leaked without permission, this is true. However, once music is published there needs to exist a balance between the publisher and the public. A good balance is to allow the law to reserve some rights for the musician (e.g. attribution, commercial use) and allow the public at large to share culture.

Once music is published, it is absurd to claim that the artist's music is still entirely "THEIR" music.

Once music is published, it is absurd to claim that the artist's music is still entirely "THEIR" music.

No, it is not. The reason I mentioned copyright was to state the label's (and in this day and age artist's) intentions. What does "copyright" mean? It means an exclusive right to make copies. Technically, that means you're not even allowed to rip CDs, but since the RIAA doesn't even want to sue you for that, I'll ignore that part. The reason this is relevant is because this states the owner's intentions (at least legally). By sharing files you are not allowed to share, you are showing disrespect to the copyright owner(s) by not respecting his/her/their wishes. If you plan on buying the album later on which the song appears, I have no problem with that. Otherwise, you are taking without permission.

Once music is published, it is absurd to claim that the artist's music is still entirely "THEIR" music.

No, it is not. The reason I mentioned copyright was to state the label's (and in this day and age artist's) intentions. What does "copyright" mean? It means an exclusive right to make copies. Technically, that means you're not even allowed to rip CDs, but since the RIAA doesn't even want to sue you for that, I'll ignore that part. The reason this is relevant is because this states the owner's intentions (at least legally). By sharing files you are not allowed to share, you are showing disrespect to the copyright owner(s) by not respecting his/her/their wishes. If you plan on buying the album later on which the song appears, I have no problem with that. Otherwise, you are taking without permission.

"What does "copyright" mean? It means an exclusive right to make copies."

Copyright means whatever the law says it means. And copyright laws came into being long before anyone imagined nonrivalrous copies to be possible. Copyright law has not caught up with technology. In fact, it has gone in the opposite direction in some countries (e.g. the US and the DMCA).

Too many points I'd like to address to respond individually so I'll just keep it general.

1. Copyright was not introduced as a means for artists to make money, rather it introduced that facility as a means to encourage them to produce works for the public benefit. While the view that copies being treated as a commodity is there to enforce a natural right is a common one it, the idea that opposing views are irrelevant is arrogant and woefully ignorant of history. Here is an article on a notable American historical figure on the subject: http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2001/7/23/23214/3438

2. The suggestions that there are no alternatives to strong copyright protection seem to be based on not considering any of the alternatives, despite them being well documented and in use even today outside and inside the entertainment industry.

The irony is that economic study suggests markets currently influenced by copyright would be far more efficient without the burden. It is possibly one of the best cases for a 'true' free market because you don't have the same problems as say ensuring provision for a utility or healthcare. Artificial limits on a market inevitably lower the efficiency of providing people what they want for the lowest cost. This manifests in many ways, one of my pet hates is if I were to buy a punk CD from a major label I am possibly supporting the next Britney Spears more than the band whose CD I bought.

The whole economics thing is maybe more involved than is appropriate for here though. I'd suggest www.techdirt.com again for analysis from someone whose made it his job to report on studies of that sort of thing.

3. This issue about bands being 'forced' to play live to make money is rather poorly considered by both sides of the argument. My take on the issue is that in a truly free market the trend may well be in the other direction sans copyright. This would be because as the efficiency in providing people what they want increases, those who can provide what people want are set to make more money if they choose to provide it. Currently a band may be more popular on the internet than they are live (after all, the potential market is bigger) and losing money because the current system isn't efficient at providing what people are willing to pay for.

Personally I currently never go to live gigs but am always wanting new music. The big issue seems to be that artists aren't confident those who listen to their music like it enough to pay for it without being forced. An artist who makes it easy to access their music, easy to support them directly over the internet and keeps releasing new content is going to get much more of my money than someone who keeps to the prevalent business model.

Mostly I seem to hear objections from either artists who are either scared that there isn't sufficient real demand for their work to ensure they can operate in a truly competitive market, and those who have an entitlement complex that ignores how the rest of our capitalist society works. Hint: most of our system is there to solve the issue of distribution of finite goods. Take away that limitation and you have less problems to solve, not more.

"an entitlement complex"

Indeed. And it swings both ways at times. I've heard some argue for a complete abolishment of all rights typically reserved under copyright.

Lessig's work with the formation of Creative Commons comes the closest to defining the middle zone of both extremes. Bono's implicit suggestion that Deep Packet Inspection should be a common practice is as insane as suggesting that a free-for-all should be allowed under law.

To LongLiveLove:

1.That may not have been the original intention of copyright law but unfortunately, that is the application thereof today. I actually do agree with Peter and you that copyright law stinks. My only quibble is that while you work to change it, you should obey it in the meantime, and accept the consequences if you get caught. I plan on doing the same. Then you'll be civil disobeyers. This is why I hardly ever download illegally. I'm not prepared to accept the consequences.

"you should obey it in the meantime" followed by "Then you'll be civil disobeyers"

??

Civil disobedience is to actively disobey the law in a non-violent manner. If you obey the law, you are not engaging in civil disobedience.

I respect both the action of civil disobedience and the action of obedience combined with efforts to change the law. Both have their merits and both can be strategically appropriate given circumstances.

Regardless, this thread was started by a popular musician "supporting" the action to spy on Internet users (like China does) in order to stop culture from being shared. This is the debate at hand and if it is not clear already, I will say that I think both Paul Hewson and Krist Novoselic have failed to support their position with a rational defense.

Krist, you're right. Even when you get flamed, the truth is the truth. Thanks for speaking it.

Matthew, please state clearly what the "truth" is that Krist has put forth. It isn't clear at this point and though Krist has responded to me, he has yet to address the key question I put forth ---

Paul Hewson (please, let's not call him "Bono" unless we are referring to his art rather than his social policy arguments) implied that the consequences of filesharing isn't relevant to big name musicians but that it hurts the no-names trying to become popular. I don't understand this argument. Please explain how this is true.

While I do not agree with everything Bono says, I do agree that network providers must either be better policemen of their networks or lose their safe harbor. Network providers and unscrupulous internet ad companies are seriously profiting off of theft.

This argument is not just about music, but also the graphic design market and the software industry.

Lynn says: "network providers must either be better policemen of their networks or lose their safe harbor"

To do this means spying on computer users. Are you saying that spying on computer users in order to enforce copyright laws is just?

"This argument is not just about music, but also the graphic design market and the software industry."

I won't comment on the graphic design industry since I have not thought about it much. However, the software sector has an option that respects users rights and has room in it for business - it is called Free software and was a movement started back in the 1980s.

The comments are so off base. Avatar is indeed a great example. People are incorrecetly implying that because Avatar made so much money, free content does not matter. The reality is that avatar could not make that kind of money if bandwidth had gotten cheap enough to allow Avatar to be bootlegged and downloaded in 3D/HD for free. We're not there yet. The music business is a great example of an industry where we are there. Music sales have declined by 75% in the last decade. That means that professional recording companies will sign fewer artists and less music will be made. It started as long ago as the 80's when illegal cassette recordings cut record sales by 30% over the decade. It got worse in the 90's with illegal CD copying, and it continues to get worse today with illegal file sharing. Over time, it will spread to movies, software, books, games and other digital media and it will kill these industries as it is killing the music industry.

Few people on this blog are willing to admit that ISP's have made tremendous amounts of money illegally from this trend. They knowingly allow people to steal over their networks and are protected by tort laws. It's stealing, it's wrong, and every comment on this blog in favor of it is trying to justify taking something that doesn't belong to you and enjoying it without taking any responsibility for how the creator of that might feel.

U2's content is theirs to sell, give away or not release, as they choose. Nirvana's ditto.

How selfish of you all to think that these artists, two of the great ones of the last three decades, should be forced to allow people to steal from them.

By the way, Bono should be taken at face value when he says he is talking on behalf of the newer artists. U2 incubates new artists through their Mother records label and through taking them on tour with them. Sinead O Connor, Bjork, The Coors, Snow Patrol, Kanye West, the Black Eyed Peas and others owe U2 a measure of thanks for their successes, and U2 has shown that it is not interested in profits from its music by offering its last album for $3.99. They are one of the few that can actually make their money on tours. Most cannot and need to sell music to survive. By refusing to pay for the music you listen to, you are ensuring that some acts that could be superstars will not make it.

Stop Bono-Bashing. He's done more to change the world that you ever will.

Iron Curtain said: "My only quibble is that while you work to change it, you should obey it in the meantime, and accept the consequences if you get caught"

While I respect your choice to do adhere to the law in this case, I have to disagree with your suggestion that others should do the same. It is their choice to make and acceptance of the consequences is inherent in their awareness of such.

Consider whether you've ever ignored the law, most people have. I can honestly say I've never broken any drugs laws because my personal choices mean I've never even touched alcohol, but I could find plenty of people telling others not to file share that will happily ignore drug laws. Of course, good for them that they do because I hate the war on drugs every bit as much as I hate the war on 'piracy'.

To codeguy,
Your analysis is so shallow that you don't appear to have considered the fact that regardless of Avatar even existing, the film industry has been making more money year on year even with the recession. Your numbers for the music industry, wherever you've got them from, don't pretend to represent how much money the artists are getting as opposed to the labels. Here's an example of the bigger picture from a UK newspaper: http://labs.timesonline.co.uk/blog/2009/11/12/do-music-artists-do-better-in-a-world-with-illegal-file-sharing/

You tell us that file sharing will destroy everything but fail to even begin to make a coherent argument before resorting to pointless rhetoric about copyright infringement being stealing.

Since the consumer has been able to copy music he has done so. And this goes back more than thirty years!
Who is old enough can remember the days when you gave your friend a tape of the newest tracks you just bought, be it vinyl,cd or tape. And they did the same or not.

We will always have a situation where someone is prepared to spend the extra dollar/euro or what ever, for the music he believes in.

Thanx to the success of itunes and other retailers the digital era of the music industry is starting to look not so bleak. Just go to billboard.com and can see how many millions of people are prepared to buy one song even though they could have it for free!!!

I think one has to accept the fact that there has alway been and will alway be a situation where there people are willing to pay for there songs and that there others who are not.

The industry has to accept that the hay days are oven and adjust to the zeitgeist.

And no body can complain about the price of music. I can get a hole LP on itunes for 5.99€ this great. Or I can just the buy the track I wanted without having to get the rest of the shit.
For me this is great!
If don't want to buy the music you don't have to. But accept the fact that if you get caught you have accept the consequences!!!

And to those who site Radiohead, that was a one of!!!
They realized that this model did not work for them!!!

Flame Twitter and the unbalanced sad plastic actress (whose bored with spending $6o,000.00 a year on bottled water for her hair) now wants to be crowned the queen of tweet since she can`t sing like a Roc`n Robbin I SAY FLAME ON!!!!!

Oh my god. I came back to see if there were other commens and didn't think there would be this many. It even made it on google news: http://news.google.co.uk/news?hl=en&source=hp&q=krist%20novoselic&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wn and many more comments were made over the other pages there. Even though I don't agree with some of what you wrote, Krist, you've certainly got yourself heard.

A perfect example of letting the market determine the value is http://amiestreet.com

They use community pricing on music from independent artist. Every song starts off free, if no one is downloading the music it stays free. However, if a song or album becomes popular it will not stay free for long. As the community downloads and begins to buy the music, it goes up in price. As sales slow down, the music goes down in price. Sort of like a stock market for music except no one's getting Bernie Mac'd. Artist keep 70% of the profits, Amie Street keeps the rest.

I found Amie Street two weeks ago and downloaded over 350 songs for about $25 bucks, about half of those songs were free and the other half I paid MARKET value. Mind you I haven't bought a CD or MP3 in over 10 years. The beauty of it is even if you get the content for free, you are helping out the artist!

I love Amie Street and have been listening to the tracks exclusively for the past two weeks. This is the new model, conform or go away; I don't really give a s***!

As I see it, there is no debate on whether or not content should have a value, as it does. What is debatable is the method to return revenue to the creators of said content.

Charging service providers with the task of collecting said revenue seems to me to be akin to tasking local Departments Of Transportation to collect moneys for the intrastate trafficking of stolen and illegal goods that pass through their transit system. This does not make any sense.

The reason people steal things on the internet is because it is one gigantic free for all without order. It lacks community & cohesion. People need to feel a part of something to make a financial contribution.

Remember reading your local music rag so you could check out new music & find out what interested you? Remember going to your local record store to find their music? Remember fining that you liked that band & their shared aesthetic, so you purchased record of similar bands that were their label mates? Remember buying all the Sub-Pop singles & supporting these artists? (Or whatever label you were into at the time?) Remember supporting these bands when they came to town?

This business model fails because there is nothing comparable to this experience online. The internet is a great & vast place, but after a while there is only so much drinking from the fire hose that can be done.

Create a web space that allows people of a similar aesthetic to participate as a community. Charge people to be a part of it, but do not pull their pants down to do it. Disseminate funds to artists so they can do what they do -- create their art instead of working at the local Quickie Mart.

Remember, our own lack of vision is what becomes our undoing.

@Droid Revenge

The last 3/4 of your post describes exactly Amie Street is doing. Which is... making music fun to buy again.

Amie Street, has a community and it's growing. I myself feel like "I'm apart of something" so therefore, I'm willing "to make a financial contribution".

Again I've absolutely refused to buy music the for last decade and lived off radio and services like Pandora. That is... until I found Amie Street.

I think most commenters are missing the point. There is a great deal of time and money that goes into any recording, and the recording's mere existence does not entitle people to have it for free. I'm an independent artist who has gotten great reviews, widespread distribution, and even a Grammy nomination on my latest project, but am not even close to breaking even on just the money paid to the musicians who played on the project (much less manufacturing or promotion which actually cost more than the production) . I'm very grateful to have the distribution afforded by the internet, and am happy to give out samples and price the recording reasonably, but I've seen my CD available for download on a Russian website (among many others) that I know is pirating it. That doesn't even include file sharing sites and legal entities like Pandora which take the place of CD purchases while paying almost nothing. Again, I'm glad for the exposure, but at some point I've got to make a little money or I can't make the next CD (or pay my rent). Even the most careful DIY production costs money, and when it's taken for free it's the independent artists that are hurt the most.

ill sex adrenaline, party with villains
wet any clique with the “semi-tech” who want it
the broke “mac” it don’t spray right
don’t give a fuck who it hits
long as the drama’s lit

backward masked
and dyslexic nas

as always, I don't think you'll find the answer at either end of the scale of opinion ;D

It's a brave new world, but I'm sure it'll all work out in the end, did we not go through a lot of this in the pirate radio days?

When there's more supply than demand...value depreciates. It's simple math, nobody can deny this. The current state of affairs is that people expect media to be free and they get it for free. Artists are simply competing for attention, not money...which means, they are the one's who get hurt.

Unsurprisingly, the majority of the comments on this editorial are ignorant, pro-theft, and selfish. It's clear reading a random sampling of thirty or so of these self-righteous diatribes that the majority of their authors a) did not read Bono's editorial, b) are engulfed in an enormous sense of entitlement to any creative output by anyone living or dead, free of charge, and c) place full blame on musicians and filmmakers rather than themselves. It's rather revolting. You all should be ashamed of yourselves, but I strongly believe you have forgotten the definition of "shame."

How about instead of discussing Bono lets talk about something positive, like Led Zeppelin. Honestly...tangerine...classic.

Bono is right, Novoselic is right!

Free music hurts every creator who ever dreams of making a living off their art instead of working a day job to support their music... because they can't make a living at music anymore; because everyone is ripping off their shit and thinks it's OK!

Pete: great looking site, not one I'd heard of before. I personally recommend http://www.magnatune.com

Tommy: what do you base your own sense of entitlement on? We have property laws because there is not enough resources to go around. We have contract laws so people can negotiate for work being done. The music industry is in the minority that have chosen to build their business models around the reliance on an artificial scarcity. There is an irony that copyright has fostered the problem of people not recognising the value of the artist.

Kevin: well put, but I'd add that the artists only 'hurt' if there isn't sufficient demand for their music or they are unwilling to change their business model to suit the market.

LateNight: if there is insufficient demand for an artist to make a full time job out of it then why would they need to? Not many people get to have a full time job doing something they enjoy just because they want to.

Kris,
I hear you , you make a lotsense... but the guy who quoted "Please. Comment on your own country and politics. England & the U.S. have you millions from 1980 on. You are part of the capitalism you mock. "

YOU ARE ALL THIEFS.

ALL SALES ARE DOWN ACROSS THE BOARD - CDS, DVDS COMPARED AGAINST PRE-FILE / STEALING DAYS.

YOU ARE ALL FKN THIEFS.

NOW LET'S GET ON WITH SETTING UP POSITIVE PAY MODELS FOR THE INDUSTRY THAT PRODUCES OUR CONTENT.

WE HAVE LOST AT LEAST A DECADES WORTH OF CORPORATE SUPPORT FOR OUR YOUNG ARTISTS.

ARSEHOLES THAT SPEAK DIFFERENTLY ARE ARSEHOLES. THE LEGITIMATE FOLKS ARE DONE WITH YOUR PATHETIC REASONING.

I would like to say that I do think it's disingenuous to say (like what Adam and Codeguy are doing) that some of the opposition to Messrs. Novoselic and Hewson's stances are "pro-theft." While some are, to paint with broad strokes is similar to when the former president likened those who were against the PATRIOT act and Guantánamo bay to being pro-terrorist. It's an ad hominem attack, and it cheapens the discourse.

I mean, they may have other motivations, like privacy concerns. I also take enormous insult that I am called a thief, even though I am someone who pays for music legally anytime I can (which is 99% of the time).

My main contention with Messrs. Bono and Novoselic is when they say File-Sharing hurts smaller artists when the opposite has shown to be true.

The reality is that avatar could not make that kind of money if bandwidth had gotten cheap enough to allow Avatar to be bootlegged and downloaded in 3D/HD for free. We're not there yet.

Wrong. We are there. Even if we have 3D at home, we will still not have IMAX at home. Maybe that will come in a few years, but I can speak from personal, anecdotal experience that I saw Avatar two weeks after it was released, and the theater was packed. Keep in mind that this was neither IMAX nor 3D. So Sid Gilbert's point still stands from my experience.

YOU DO NOT PAY FOR MUSIC OR FILM 99% OF THE TIME.

THE SALE DO NOT BEAR THAT FACT.

YOU ARE ALL FKN THIEVES!!!!

WAKE THE FK UP!!!!

I think the argument could just continue going round and round depending on what side your on. Those that want content for free vs those that create it and deserve compensation for it. Unfortunately free is winning and artists are loosing. I think that was the point of Bono's statement and those that are attacking him for it are most likely not artists but THE PROBLEM.

LateNight: There is no evidence to suggest that those who want the freedom to share content want all content to be free. The ability to access content freely allows people to make the most out of the money they have available to support artists. How much money is wasted in buying a CD that only had one good track on? How much money is wasted on unnecessary distribution and marketing costs? How much money from a record sale goes to an artist?

The best way to get the supposed freeloaders paying for music is to make sure they know that their money is being spent in a way that serves them, e.g. tell them plainly how much is going directly to the artist to enable the artist to make more music. The example I gave earlier, magnatune.com, has on its front page that 50% of all money you spend there goes to the artists you listen to.

"There is no evidence to suggest that those who want the freedom to share content want all content to be free."

Good point. Similarly, many support Free software because they desire liberty, not because they can typically get copies of Free software for zero cost.

Citizens should have the right to share published culture. This doesn't mean they should have the right to use the work for their own commercial gain or misattribute it.

Peter: ironically, in many cases those who use copyrighted work for financial gain have more rights under current law than those who are sharing it for free. The issues of commercial infringement are important but largely unrelated to that of file sharing. I can see a lot of people bringing out the spectre of ISP's benefiting financially but I've not heard any serious arguments on that point.

Mr Masnick at techdirt.com is great at explaining why even commercial 'exploitation' of copyrighted works can be beneficial to the original artist in many cases. I would love to see more serious discussions on the subject but it gets overshadowed by the whole file sharing issue.

Yes, I've been reading Masnick for some time. I certainly agree that there are many cases where allowing commercial use is actually the most beneficial action an artist can take. I suppose my underlying argument is that I'm OK with laws giving artists the choice to restrict (or not) commercial use but I think a law that restricts citizens from sharing is unethical.

The "ISPs are stealing" argument isn't clear to me. They are providing network access, that's all.

"Sharing" is not correct in this context.

If I buy food and give you some of it--that's sharing. There is self-sacrifice involved.

Distributing other people's music is not "sharing."

If you write your own song and give that away--THAT'S sharing.

All those who insist that music should be freely distributed should follow Richard Stallman's example. He wanted software to be free. Did he start bootlegging other people's software and rationalize it as "sharing"? No. He wrote his own software and gave it away. Now there is a rich world of free software that would not exist if it people had simply bootlegged the software.

Did Bono get any money for the use of his image on this?

"g says:
"Sharing" is not correct in this context.

If I buy food and give you some of it--that's sharing. There is self-sacrifice involved."

Excellent point g! Well said!!!

Q to Peter and vivaelamor: got any skin in the game? If you did, I don't think you would be so pro sharing! Quoting g,... if you don't have any self-sacrifice involved, actually creating the content that is being given away for free then your distributing not sharing.

Sharing does not imply sacrifice.

Back in the day artists would put out one good song and surround it with utter crap and sell it for $15 because it was rare that you could find a single (even then a single would cost you $5). Now the public is able to buy only the songs they want. I think it keeps the artists more honest. They have to work harder to make a bit more money.

These artists and record companies make millions a year. Even IF -and I don't believe they are- they are losing a bit they aren't working nearly as had as the rest of us who make pennies compared to them. They're whining about millions and then trying to screw us? F*** you, Bono.

TV was free, with commercials, until cable allowed controls on content that allowed MORE content selections and thus everything from ESPN to HBO blossomed--and we paid for it, literally. ISPs are now analog to the "cable companies", and they don't want controls--and folks like Google have responded with a profits model that depends on ad traffic. And YouTube gets paid THE SAME WAY. The only people NOT getting paid are the artists creating the content that drives the traffic! Essentially, for file sharers, your theft--and it is YOUR theft of someone's creative work, so man up and own up and stop sniveling and get some backbone about your crimes--ONLY hurts the artists. YouTube, Google, the ISPs, etc., they all get paid for allowing you to STEAL. When you grow enough hair on your balls to understand that and face it, you'll get what Bono said.

You are all common, dirty thieves, every last one of you. So choke on the truth of that next time you load up your personal player and computer with "free" music and movies.

I think the point has been made. If you don't have skin in the game then it's file stealing and distributing. Markets can not function properly when someone is able to buy one product and distribute it for free to millions of others. It's very hard to compete with free. Think about that. What if you showed up at your job and you've been replaced because they found someone who would do the same job for no pay. Right now this is the same scenario that musicians and creators are facing.

Steven: Have you ever written a song? Do you even know how long it takes or how much time and training goes into being a professional musician. Some artists might write 10 great songs in their lifetime out of hundreds that are labored over. Sure it's nice to be able to cherry pick the best but do you really think that the artist is trying to rip off the fans? Come on! Don't be so naive. I don't know any artist that isn't hyper sensitive to what material is being released and that it's their best effort at that moment in time. So dude ease up and support the artists. Most of us aren't filthy rich and just trying to make a living with are talent.

Peter: You got no skin in the game! Think about it next time you're downloading and uploading and downloading and uploading... 1x10x100x1000x100,000x1,000,000,000

Dear Late Night, first of all, I think you're a little over-fond of the term "skin in the game". Mix it up a little. FWIW, I have skin in the game, having worked both sides of the mixing desk, I receive royalties and I make music.

A little pointer on terminology: copyright infringement is not theft any more than it is murder or arson. You make yourself seem either uninformed or unnecessarily hyperbolic when you use that term.

Then, please consider this: attention is a currency. With the wealth of material - illicit or otherwise - available online, it's worth something if people pay attention to you by, for instance, listening to your music.

Also, "free" is not free. Just because someone is not paying cash for something they download, doesn't mean they're not paying in time and effort. Paying to reduce time spent and effort made is what service economies are built on.

And please don't forget that fans will pay artists if they get the incentive to do so. Which is why goodwill is more important than ever.

Finally, please read the below. It comes from a musician who has actually understood what's going on: http://www.stevelawson.net/2010/01/dear-rock-stars/

From what I understand, you have zero control over any Nirvana content anyway so what do you care?

Dear Teleflax, I do like the term SITG and I have no idea what FWIW means. SITH means you have something to loose. Sounds like you have some SITG but maybe not enough to be affected by illegal file sharing. Which is very possible if your music is not in demand. This isn't a level playing field for all artists.

Thanks for your lesson on copyright law but I don't think anyone was confused between the term infringement and theft but it's good that you know the difference between the two.

I checked out the Steve Lawson post and although it was interesting and somewhat delusional he had a few relative points. The really interesting part was that Steve is giving away one of his songs for free "sharing" and if you follow the link it takes you to his site where you are able to download the other songs for a price.

That's exactly what I've been talking about!!!! He has SITG! and.... he wants to make money from his efforts.

It's his music not someone else's. He can use it to promote his other songs by giving it away for promotional purposes as its been done for years. There's nothing new about that.

Now, how the "Social Experiment" is different: If I were to pay for Steve's songs and upload them to all the P2P sites around the world thus making his music "TOTALLY FREE" to anyone with a computer who could bypass his licensed distributors like iTunes, his website or any other valid distributor that would put $$$ in his pocket from the LEGAL distribution of his music.

Would he benefit from it or would he then fail to sell as many downloads of his guitar and base infused instrumental music?

So Steve should put his money where his mouth is and put his music up for free file sharing. This may not really make much of a difference, because how many people will really care, Hey! It's free, must not be that good. But if somebody steals it, it must be good. IT's worth something then. If I steal it from a record label I'm sticking it to the man.... He's obviously confused sharing his own with the stealing of others. Why not just give it away on his website for free? That is after all true sharing. What say Steve? Are we FREE or just conveniently FREE if it doesn't hurt me?

Sorry to bring you into this Steve, but hey you bagged on Bono... he's just trying to make a point why the music business is no longer a business anymore because of illegal file sharing. Artists need promotion and without promotion you end up like that chick cellist Steve spoke about with a 1.3 million twitter followers and probably not a lot of cash to show for it, that's why the record labels don't give her all that much credit or interest. OK, it proves your a really good networker but the truth lies in the numbers. OK, cash isn't everything but it comes in pretty handy sometimes and especially for buying things... like music. I doubt Cello Chic gets much practicing done anymore keeping up all the twittering and all. So the new successful artists are reduced to savvy social networking busy bee marketers with some musical talent, not enough time to really develop it too much typing to do.

There's nothing new here, it's all old stuff with a new package. Steve wants to make money from his music, nothing wrong with that, except he seems to bag on Bono for it... Steve is a hypocrite. He is an advocate for the illegal distribution of other artists music for free but not his own or maybe I just don't get it. I don't think so.

"maybe I just don't get it."

No kidding. I really think you need to take a course in reading comprehension, considering your interpretation of Lawson's post. And, honestly, it's a bit of a sign that you can't even get my screen name right.

A counter-point to the "indie artists" who have done everything with self-promotion

http://money.cnn.com/2010/01/11/news/companies/am_octone_music.fortune/

So Krist,
Your pissed off over YouTube,Twitter,and U2...BUT we always rip-off Nirvana on YouTube...We also do that to Kurt Cobain...better think twice Krist...

LateNight wrote: "Q to Peter and vivaelamor: got any skin in the game? If you did, I don't think you would be so pro sharing! Quoting g,... if you don't have any self-sacrifice involved, actually creating the content that is being given away for free then your distributing not sharing."

I wasn't planning to add anything more to this thread considering the time passed but as you direct your question to me specifically I shall give an answer.

First off, distributing is a possible part definition of the word sharing. If you're going to play semantic games I suggest you join the side that knows how to use a dictionary.

I don't suppose I have 'skin in the game' (what an awful phrase, is there some slang meaning to skin I'm unaware of?), but I'd defy anyone to explain why considering views from beneficial parties only is a good thing.

Wow, this post opened a bag of worms. Just for the record, I will put my two cents in.

I think musicians who think they are losing money by way of pirating are mistaken...If anything, musicians make more money due to the excessive exposure that "pirating" offers.

When I was a kid, we were too poor to buy tapes or cds. So we waited for the song we liked to play on the radio and taped it. Don't arrest me now.

Before the business people realized they could make money by exploiting musicians, money in the music business was made by putting on concerts. The music industry is using musicians as pawns to convey their argument, designed to line their pockets, and subsequently ruining the careers of (fading) cultural icons.

Just look what happened to Metallica after Lars went to court with Napster. Their fan base is gone--they only make money because their label puts a bag full of money behind them. Lars doesn't care about his fans, he just wants their money.

All I'm saying is that working musicians don't benefit from record sales--they benefit from publicity and hype.

The music industry is losing control of marketing--the internet has made it difficult for them to essentially create culture. I'm curious to see what culture actually looks like when you remove the capitalistic gerrymandering. I imagine it would be more niche driven and punk rock like. Listeners don't want music pushed down their throats just because some pencil pusher thinks it will sell.

Put the music out there and let them find it--that's how musicians will make money in the future.