Bono comments on file sharing

[rob2001]

I guess his comments are getting him blasted on twitter....the next Lars Ulrich?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/03/opinion/03bono.html

Read "Intellectual Property Developers".

 

[SteveO]

His concerns are the exact opposite of Ulrich's, he pointed out that many established bands (such as U2) can survive on concert tickets and merchandising, but the smaller, lesser-known bands will be unable to make a living without the revenue from album sales. I think the real "bad guys" are all the countless numbers of people who want everything for free, with no respect for the people whose livelihoods they are affecting.

 

[semi-hollowbody]

His concerns are the exact opposite of Ulrich's, he pointed out that many established bands (such as U2) can survive on concert tickets and merchandising, but the smaller, lesser-known bands will be unable to make a living without the revenue from album sales. I think the real "bad guys" are all the countless numbers of people who want everything for free, with no respect for the people whose livelihoods they are affecting.

 

[marktweedy]

I read none of Ulrich in that.

 

[Plague Dog]

I would never download a U2 song. No worries there

 

[Marble]

well some unknown bands really benefit from file sharing of their music. How else are you going to find out about a band? If your live show is different and better, and you have merch, filesharing can work for all tiers of bands.

 

[rob2001]

well some unknown bands really benefit from file sharing of their music. How else are you going to find out about a band? If your live show is different and better, and you have merch, filesharing can work for all tiers of bands.

Wouldn't that unknown band benefit more if people had to purchase the music? Or is it your position that recorded music isn't worth anything besides promotional material?

 

[TubeStack]

I would never download a U2 song. No worries there

LOL!

 

[SteveO]

well some unknown bands really benefit from file sharing of their music. How else are you going to find out about a band? If your live show is different and better, and you have merch, filesharing can work for all tiers of bands.

There wasn't any file sharing in my youth, one guy would copy an album on to a cassette and give it to a friend. If the friend liked the music, he would go out and buy his own album. Bands did just fine back then.

 

[pete692]

well some unknown bands really benefit from file sharing of their music. How else are you going to find out about a band? If your live show is different and better, and you have merch, filesharing can work for all tiers of bands.

Well, on the flipside of that, there is such a flood of crud clogging up the internet that I gave up trying to find decent good music with the internet. Most of the quality acts are being drowned by a steady stream of ****. We need a gatekeeper.

 

[enigma]

The young generation (X and Y Gens) is so used to the idea of getting music for free (napster, peer to peer file sharing, etc.) that having them pay or even think to pay for someone's creative efforts and livelihood would be a tall order.

 

[rob2001]

His concerns are the exact opposite of Ulrich's, he pointed out that many established bands (such as U2) can survive on concert tickets and merchandising, but the smaller, lesser-known bands will be unable to make a living without the revenue from album sales. I think the real "bad guys" are all the countless numbers of people who want everything for free, with no respect for the people whose livelihoods they are affecting.

Totally agree with you....Of course Bono was careful in saying who was being screwed by illegal downloading but he's essentially saying the same thing Lars was...illegal downloading is not good for the people who make music.

 

[The Captain]

I read none of Ulrich in that.

Actually, if you read the transcript from the Senate hearing, Lars' statement is as calmly reasoned. The hysteria came from the proponents of Napster.
Furthermore, it turns out that they were right.

 

[greggorypeccary]

Wouldn't that unknown band benefit more if people had to purchase the music? Or is it your position that recorded music isn't worth anything besides promotional material?

Kind of a tangent, but 15-20 years ago bands like Phish built their career on allowing fans to record shows, and later distribute via the web. They delivered live and built a fanbase.

The salient point here is that if a band gives songs away cool, it's like promotion for the full CD or concert. But if a band has a CD (or download) for sale and it's torrented (or whatever) it's stealing. Ultimately, the recording is whatever the band wants it to be.

Side note, it used to be that bands would tour to support an album, these days the album (ie. download) is used to bring people to the shows.

 

[voodoosound]

This is off topic and I apologize but it just occurred to me while reading this thread. Why does everyone pronounce his name Bon-o When it is spelled Bone-O like Sonny Bono?

 

[jimfog]

well some unknown bands really benefit from file sharing of their music. How else are you going to find out about a band? If your live show is different and better, and you have merch, filesharing can work for all tiers of bands.

Right.

So, that should be their CHOICE if they want music given away for free.

Just as others should have the CHOICE not to have their work stolen without consent.

Seems simple to me.

 

[rob2001]

Right.

So, that should be their CHOICE if they want music given away for free.

Just as others should have the CHOICE not to have their work stolen without consent.

Seems simple to me.

This was going to be my next point. If a band chooses to use free recorded material as nothing more than promotion, they can. That shouldn't be considered the norm.

 

[trickness]

His suggestion that content should be monitored is a slippery slope - where does it end? And you can't just base it on how much bandwidth someone uses - what about photographers, musicians, and others who send around large files?

The solution is to accept the genie is out of the box, music isn't perceived to be worth as much as it used to be when all we had were CDs, and a reasonably priced alternative should be made available. The problem is that Bono etc want .99 cents for a download - a price which was reflects what they perceive as the value of a CD. They want downloads to be priced the same as CDs. In its heyday, a CD was viewed as a premium product, and priced accordingly. That was before CD burners, and obviously before file sharing. Right or wrong, those two things destroyed the perceived value of music as a product at the established CD price point. That cannot be changed.

Bono wants to turn back the clock and get a buck a song. While some people may pay that for a single, the real opportunity is to offer a reasonably priced, all you can eat download model. But the industry can't get their head around this, the publishers, performing rights societies and labels want downloads to cost MORE than 99 cents.

The lion's share of consumers buy less than one CD a year. "Active" music consumers buy 3-5 a year.

Instead of suggesting the internet be controlled (which is a ludicrous concept), there should be let's say a $10 option on your ISP, for unlimited, legal file sharing. If you had tens of millions of people paying $10 a month, you're into the billions of dollars annually. And you've once again got a channel of millions of people to market to, instead of suing. BTW this is essentially what Napster offered the record industry in 1999, which they rejected, and now many label people wish they could turn back the clocks and do that deal.

The music industry has done ZERO innovation in the digital space. They still want stores (iTunes) with new releases every Tuesday, for a fixed price. The whole thing is based on a physical world model. What's the last interesting commerce twist on a download offering anyone can recall - Radiohead's "In Rainbows" album. Pay what you think it's worth. Feh. It was still a product, for sale, on a date, from a merchant. The only thing different was the price.

Music is being shared every nanosecond, and instead of offering a better product (let's say, legal file sharing integrated with Facebook, enabling friends to turn each other on to new music, or listen to it together) they keep trying to turn back the clock, get the genie back in the box. It will never happen.

What the music industry is headed for is a complete collapse, where the product is worth nothing, and the established infrastructure for marketing and selling becomes inviable. Only then, out of desperation, and with no other options, will the innovations come, and we'll see the next evolution of the "music business". You cab b*tch about what's fair, what's right, like everyone else has since 1998. It doesn't change reality.

More than 95% of artists never get paid by labels for the CDs they sell. Before, the labels "stole" artists' money, now it's fans. An entirely new paradigm is needed, and with respect to Bono, he has no f*cking clue what it is.

 

[re-animator]

This is off topic and I apologize but it just occurred to me while reading this thread. Why does everyone pronounce his name Bon-o When it is spelled Bone-O like Sonny Bono?

its latin. supposedly his full stage name is Vox Bono which translates to Good Voice. a little arrogant, right?

i agree with him on the downloading thing though...

 

[marktweedy]

Actually, if you read the transcript from the Senate hearing, Lars' statement is as calmly reasoned. The hysteria came from the proponents of Napster.
Furthermore, it turns out that they were right.

You could well be right and I will defer, not having read the Senate testimony. What I meant was that Bono's statement seems more concerned with what is happening to other lesser known musicians, whereas in the clip I recall seeing of Lars he was totally concerned with him and his band.