http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/11/st_essay_nofreebird/
How To Save The Music Industry
(By Paul McGuinness, [British] GQ Magazine, Aug 2010)
Even
after three decades managing the world's biggest rock band, I have a lifetime
hero as far from the world of U2 as you could ever get. He was a feisty
19th-century composer of light orchestral music. His name was Ernest Bourget. It was Bourget who in 1847, while enjoying a
meal in a Paris restaurant, suddenly heard the orchestra playing one of his own
compositions. He was startled - of course he had not been paid or asked
permission for this. So he resolved the problem himself: he walked out of the
restaurant without paying his bill. Bourget's
action was a milestone in the history of copyright law. The legal wrangling
that followed led to the establishment of the first revenue-collection system
for composers and musicians. The modern music industry has a lot to thank him
for.
I was
thinking of Ernest Bourget on a January day two years ago when, in front of
some of the world's best-known music managers gathered in a conference hall in
the seafront Palais de Festivals in Cannes, I plunged into the raging debate
about internet piracy and the future of music.
I had been invited to speak by the organisers of the Midem Music
Convention - the "Davos" of the music industry - where, along the
corridors, in the cafes and under the palm trees, the music industry's great
and good debated the Big Question that dominates our business today: how are we
going to fund its future? My message was
quite simple - and remains so today. We are living in an era when
"free" is decimating the music industry and is starting to do the
same to film, TV and books. Yet for the world's internet service providers,
bloated by years of broadband growth, "free music" has become a multi-billion
dollar bonanza. What has gone so wrong? And what can be done now to put it to
right?
To my
amazement, my speech was splashed across the world media. Partly this was due
to the timing - President Sarkozy of France had just become the champion
of the global music industry, tabling a new law requiring the telecom companies
to finally crack down on internet piracy for the first time. But there were
other reasons too. Well-known artists
very seldom speak out on piracy. There are several reasons for this. It isn't
seen as cool or attractive to their fans - Lars Ulrich from Metallica was
savaged when he criticised Napster. Other famous artists sometimes
understandably feel too rich and too successful to be able to speak out on the
issue without being embarrassed. Then
there is the backlash from the bloggers - those anonymous gremlins who wait to
send off their next salvo of bilious four-letter abuse whenever a well-known
artist sticks their head above the parapet. When Lily Allen recently posted
some thoughtful comments about how illegal file-sharing is hurting new
developing acts, she was ravaged by the online mob and withdrew from the
debate.
Nevertheless,
Bono has stepped into the argument. Quite unprompted by me, he wrote an op-ed
piece in the New York Times in January and he pulled no punches. "A
decade's worth of music file sharing and swiping has made clear the people it
hurts are the creators... and the people this reverse Robin-Hooding benefits
are rich service providers, whose swollen profits perfectly mirror the lost
receipts of the music business." Bono is a guy who, when he decides to
support a cause, does so with enormous passion. But even he was amazed by the
backlash when he was mauled by the online crowd. You have to ask how these inchoate, abusive
voices are helping shape the debate about the future of music. I rarely do news
interviews but when I spoke to the influential technology news site CNET last
autumn I was set on by a horde of bloggers. One of them was called
"Anonymous Coward." I'm not worried about criticism from Anonymous
Coward. But I am worried about how many politicians may be influenced by his
rantings. The level of abuse and sheer nastiness of it was extraordinary.
Without Anonymous Coward and his blogosphere friends, I think many artists and
musicians would be more upfront about the industry's current predicament. They
might tell the world what they really feel about people who steal their music.
But it's understandable why they don't - and that is partly why I don't mind
filling the vacuum.
It is
two years on from my Cannes speech. Some things are better in the music world,
but unfortunately the main problem is still just as bad as it ever was. Artists
cannot get record deals. Revenues are plummeting. Efforts to provide legal and
viable ways of making money from music are being stymied by piracy. The latest
figures from the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI)
shown that 95 per cent of all music downloaded is illegally obtained and unpaid
for. Indigenous music industries from Spain
to Brazil
are collapsing. An independent study endorsed by trade unions says Europe's creative industries could lose more than a
million jobs in the next five years. Maybe the message is finally getting
through that this isn't just about fewer limos for rich rock stars.
Of
course this isn't crippling bands like U2 and it would be dishonest to claim it
was. I've always believed artists and musicians need to take their business as
seriously as their music. U2 understood this. They have carefully pursued
careers as performers and songwriters, signed good deals and kept control over
their life's work. Today, control over their work is exactly what young and
developing performers are losing. It is not their fault. It is because of
piracy and the way the internet has totally devalued their work.
So
how did we get here? How is it in 2010, in a world of iTunes and Spotify, of a
healthy live music scene and hundreds of different legal sites, that making
money fairly from recorded music remains so elusive? It is facile to blame record companies.
Whoever those old Canutes were, the executives who wanted to defend an old
business model rather than embrace a new one, they left the business long ago.
Last year, more than a quarter of all the music purchased globally was sold via
the internet and mobile phones. The record companies know they have to monetise
the internet or they will not survive. If
you had to encapsulate the crisis of the music industry in the past decade, it
would be in one momentous word: "free." The digital revolution
essentially made music free. It is now doing the same with films and books. For
years we (and by "we" I mean the music business, musicians, creative
industries, governments and regulators) have grappled with this new concept of
"free." One minute we have fought it like a monster, the next we have
embraced it like a friend. As consumers, we have come to love "free"
- but as creators, seeking reward for our work, it has become our worst
nightmare. In recent years the music business has tried to "fight free
with free," seeking revenues from advertising, merchandising, sponsorship
- anything, in fact, other than the consumer's wallet. These efforts have
achieved little success. Today, "free" is still the creative
industries' biggest problem. In America there
are no more Tower Records or Virgin records stores and many independent stores
are just about hanging on. Consumers now buy CDs in a bookstore such as Barnes
& Noble or Borders.
The
good news, I think, is that we have woken up to the issue. In the early years
of the decade, it felt almost like heresy even to question the mantra of
"free content" on the internet. But attitudes have changed. Today we
take a far more sober view as we see what damage "free" has done to
the creative industries, above all to music. Governments around the world
today, led by Britain and France are now passing laws that, if effectively
implemented, would dramatically limit the traffic of free music, films and TV
programmes. This is progress even if it comes years late. We are, I hope,
beginning to understand what "free" really means for the world of
music and creative work. Numerous
commercial strategies have tried to deal with "free." Today, many
believe music subscription is the Holy Grail that will bring money flowing back
into the business. I agree with them. A per-household monthly payment to
Spotify for all the music you want seems to me a great deal. I like the idea of
the subscription packages from Sky Songs too. These surely point the way to the
future where music is bundled or streamed and paid for by usage rather than by
units sold. Why should the price paid not correspond to the number of times the
music is "consumed"?
Spotify
is the service capturing the headlines. But it's just as potent an example of
the difficulties of fighting free as any other initiative of the last decade.
Spotify came into being as a free-to-user service funded by advertisements. It
can never survive that form in the long term and now has the tricky task of
converting free users into paid subscribers. I wish it success. Clearly the
revenues currently flowing through to artists are not sufficient. There are clever minds working out how the
business model of "music access" is going to work. Perhaps this year
Steve Jobs, the genius behind Apple, will finally join us. Jobs is a man of
decisiveness and surprises. Bono and I did a deal with him, sitting in his
kitchen in Palo Alto,
to launch the U2 iPod in 2004 - I still have the notes I scribbled down in the
back of my diary. Jimmy Iovine was there, too, and I remember he said of
iTunes, "This may be the penicillin!" Sadly it turned out not to be.
Steve is the guy who has always magically known what the consumer wants before
the consumer even knows it. I wish he would put that great mind and that great
corporation of his to work devising a model that finally allows artists and
creators to get properly rewarded for their work. Maybe he's working on it
right now. I hope so.
Newspapers
and magazines are trying to reinvent their businesses to deal with
"free." It started with a honeymoon while mainstream titles opened up
websites and attracted vast numbers of online readers, dwarfing their physical
subscriptions. But the honeymoon has come to a miserable end. Newspaper
circulation and advertising revenues have fallen sharply. Rupert Murdoch has
re-introduced the "paywall" for some of his flagship newspaper titles
such as the Times and the Sunday Times. Murdoch has great influence - his
empire straddles all the businesses with stakes in the debate -- from the
social network MySpace to the Wall Street Journal to Fox Movie Studios and the
broadcaster Sky. I'm disappointed that he didn't take a closer look at the
music industry's experience and see the dark side of "free" earlier. Tougher strategies have been tried against
free, too. Suing and prosecuting iconic businesses like the Pirate Bay,
whose operators were fleecing creators, does not look pretty in the media, but
it has proved necessary, and it works as a deterrent. Newspaper proprietors and
book publishers today are doing battle with Google to protect their revenue
from the free flow of news and literary works.
But
litigation has its ugly side, too. Suing consumers is not a good strategy. Some
years ago record companies in America
and elsewhere launched tens of thousands of legal action against individual
file-sharers. I never supported them. Even as a measure of last resort, the
lawsuits were cumbersome, deeply unpopular and ultimately ineffective.
Headlines about a grandmother being fined hundreds of thousands of dollars did
not properly present the big picture, and they were terrible PR for the
industry.
It
was with this mixture of semi-successful and failed strategies to fight free in
mind that I took to the stage in January 2008. I felt the music industry had to
unite around a stronger position on the whole issue. Managers of well-known
bands generally do not like to do this -- like their artists, they worry about
alienating fans. Many managers I know have the cosiest private relationships
conceivable with record companies, yet publicly will refuse to acknowledge that
music piracy is a problem. Great artists need great record companies. They can
be big or small.
So
what's the answer to "free"? It starts by challenging a myth - the
one that says free content is an inexorable fact of life brought on by the
unstoppable advance of technology. It is not. It is in fact part of the
commercial agenda of powerful technology and telecoms industries. Look at the
figures as free music helped drive an explosion of broadband revenues in the
past decade. Revenues from the "internet access" (fixed line and
mobile) business quadrupled from 2004 to 2009 to $226bn. Passing them on the
way down, music industry revenues fell in the same time period from $25bn to
$16bn. Free content has helped fuel the vast profits of the technology and
telecoms industries. Do people want more
bandwidth to speed up their e-mails or to download music and films as rapidly
as possible?
I'm
sure the people running ISPs are big music fans. But their free-music bonanza
has got to stop. That will happen in two ways: by commercial partnership, with
deals such as Sky Songs' unlimited-streaming subscription service; and by ISPs
taking proportionate responsible steps to stop customers illegally file sharing
on their networks. I've done a lot of
debating on this issue in the past two years. I have walked the corridors of
Brussels, learned about the vast resources of the telecoms industry's lobbying
machinery and encountered truly frightening naivety about the basics of
copyright and intellectual property rights from politicians who should know
better. More than once I have heard elected representatives describe paying for
music as a "tax."
I am
convinced that ISPs are not going to help the music and film industry
voluntarily. Some things have got to come with the force of legislation.
President Sarkozy understood that point when he became the first head of state
to champion laws to require ISPs to reduce piracy in France. In Britain, the
major political parties have understood it, too. Following the passing of new
anti-piracy laws in April's Digital Economy Act, Britain and France now have
some of the world's best legal environments for rebuilding our battered music
business. At the heart of the approach
France and Britain are taking is the so-called "Graduated Response"
by which ISPs would be required to issue warnings to serious offenders to stop
illegal file sharing. This is the most sensible legislation to emerge in the
past decade to deal with "free." It is immeasurably better than the
ugly alternative of suing hundreds of thousands of individuals.
Two
years into my odyssey investigating this whole debate, I find a curious mixture
of optimism and pessimism about the future of recorded music. I was back at the
music industry's annual Cannes
shindig in January - this time in the audience, listening to luminaries like
Daniel Ek, the quietly spoken 27-year-old Swedish dynamo who runs Spotify.
Spotify could be the future model, but it will have to demonstrate that not
only can it collect revenue from its users and advertisers, but that it will
fairly pass on those sums to the artists, labels and publishers. The fact that
some record labels are shareholders in Spotify makes it an urgent priority that
these transactions be transparent. On
the whole, though, I want to be optimistic. I'm convinced there are sunlit
uplands for the music industry ahead. What will those sunlight uplands be like?
The truth is, I don't know -- but I like to imagine them. It will be a world in
which the norm will be for artists to get paid for their work when it is
downloaded or streamed off the internet. A world of millions of micro-payments,
paid daily and triggered by technology that will track every use of a song,
identify the rights owner and arrange instant electronic payment.
Music
subscription will be the basic access route to enjoying tracks and albums, but
by no means the only one. Households will pay for a subscription service like
Spotify, or they will pay for a service bundled into their broadband bill, to
an ISP such as Sky and Virgin Media. But many customers will also take out more
expensive added-value packages, with better deals including faster access to
new releases. There will also be a healthy market in downloads to own and
premium albums. iTunes will be fighting its corner in the market, probably with
its own subscription service. And a significant minority will still buy CDs,
coveting the packaging, the cover designs and the sense of ownership. Sound quality will once again be a huge
issue. People are cottoning on to a dark little secret of the digital age - MP3
files sound terrible. The online "lossless" audiophile movement is
gathering strength with one label. Interscope, creating a new master source
file, that will ensure that the efforts of musicians and producers in the
recording process are not wasted when the sound gets to the listener. Jimmy
Iovine and his team at Interscope/Beats Audio Sound Solutions hope this
super-file will become ubiquitous. They are also working on a variety of
headphones and better sound chips in HP computers to improve the listener
experience. Most listening nowadays is through tiny ear-bud headphones.
In
the future I envisage every piece of music will be licensed to be available at
any time on any device. All music will be transferrable between computer and
portable device. ISPs will be reporting significant revenues from their
"content ventures." These are the added-value businesses that over
time they must move into as their flat-rate broadband business reaches
saturation point. This is not fantasy: an independent survey by Ovum recently
predicted that ISPs in the U.K.
could earn more than £100m in digital music revenues by 2013. In the beautiful
future of my dream, every record label and every ISP will be joined in
commercial partnership, sharing revenues and strategies to get their music to
as many millions of people as possible. There
are politicians, ISP chief executives and government ministers in my dream,
too. They speak with renewed respect about intellectual property rights and the
copyright of creators. Copyright infringement by internet users will be
dramatically reduced. The ISPs will be working seamlessly with rights-holder
groups to warn the most serious infringers to stop. No minister will ever - as
in 2009 did David Lammy, Britain's minister of state for higher education and
intellectual property - compare illegal file-sharing to taking a bar of soap
from a hotel room.
We
have some way to go until my dream world comes true. But we're making progress.
Governments, not just in France
and Britain, but also in South Korea, Taiwan
and New Zealand,
are tackling piracy and adopting new laws. The mindset regarding free music is
changing. Managers and artists I meet take the issue far more seriously than
they did before. Newspaper editors no longer think the problems of music are
from another world - they actually ask our advice on how to address them. More
artists are talking about piracy hurting their lives. Film-makers and actors
can see that they are next.
I
think we are coming to understand that, across all businesses that invest in
and trade in creativity, "free" comes with a price - and in my
business that means less investment in talent and fewer artists making a living
from music. If this point really is sinking in then we are making headway. It
may be that the crisis for music has now got so bad that the issue of
"free" is really being properly understood for the first time. Of course, we're never going to convert
Anonymous Coward to our cause -- but at least we're finally standing up to him. If the engineers who built the iPhone, the
geniuses who made Google reach every home in the world in less than a decade
and the amazing talents behind Facebook were to apply themselves to our
problems and help, what a wonderful world it would be. Great work being made,
distributed efficiently and everyone in the value chain being fairly paid.
Reader’s
Comments On: “How To Save The Music Industry” By Paul McGuinness
One more thing
to add to the list of reasons why U2 is one of the greatest bands in history,
they chose a FANTASTIC manager right out of the gate. I can speak for The
Restoring Music Foundation when I say that we all support your notion of change
and we appreciate you and Bono championing the issues boldly. Real conviction
can move a mountain. The music industry is in crisis, and we believe that for
every problem there is already a solution. "There is one thing stronger
than all the armies of the world, and that is an idea whose time has
come." One idea can change everything, and I believe that paradigm is just
around the corner.
Chris Purifoy
17 Aug 2010
We need more articles like this to rally the music
community around this issue. Musicians in general have always been non
confrontational, preferring to create. We need to stand up to the current
abuses regarding "free" music. If we can't make a living in the music
business, then we can't be "professionals" in the most literal sense.
Chuck Anderson www.ChuckAndersonJazzGuitar.com
Chuck Anderson
17 Aug 2010
What a totally one sided arguement put forward here.There
has never been so many musicians who actively take part within the
industry.This year there has been record numbers of people going to music
festivals in the UK (many at £100+ a ticket).Recorded output has shot up
multifold in the last 20 years.Live music has seen a massive boost with a
slight downturn recently due to over pricing & the not to be ignored
recession we are going through. All that this article is about the accountants
& music managers who are finding it difficult to justify the high returns they
take off major artists.There have been some lost revenues due to the changes
within the music industry, yes.Trouble is the 'popular' artists are loosing out
the most while these money men behind the scenes revenues have not gone down in
the same preportion.If they want to keep their incomes up they should become
more innovative not rely on old models to line their pockets. There is still
plenty of money out there to be made for people in the industry.The demand for
music has never been higher - & it has never been easier to obtain music -
the music has always tried to restrict the music people listen to create a
false shortage of supply.The internet has made it much harder for the industry
to stop this shortage of supply old trick they used at their peak.There's competition
out they for you now Major labels.Your tactic of buying out top selling
independant labels is no good no more, as independant artists are forming their
own labels.Face up to the competition your eventual fate is inevitable.
Scratchy7929
17 Aug 2010
Maybe you should stop whining and adjust your business
model. Explain this to me. I got to a store and they have CDs and DVDS for
sale. They are both similarly priced. However, one cost the creator let's say
100,000 and the other 100 million. What is the better value for my
entertainment? Obviously that's just an open ended question (especially since
I'd listen to the CD more than watch a movie) but my point here is value.
Twenty years ago, the perceived value of music was a lot higher then it is
today. We didn't have the web and for the most part entertainment other than
film & television that grabbed our attention. It wasn't easy to create and
discover music - you pretty much were forced to like what hit the radio and
after you heard it so many times, you became addicted and needed to have it.
It's hard to be that addicted now with all the media we have. It's hard to
create value enough with so much competition. A digital file isn't worth a
thing - it's not tangible and nothing it ever going to change that, we will
download files for free forever and that's why we've come so far with
technology - because of the sharing the Internet has brought us. Yes the music
industry, as well as others, are feeling dramatic effects this new technology
has brought us. And guess what? Tough shit. The days of the giant record labels
making millions off of the Britney Spears and Nickelbacks of the world will
someday be over, because no one is buying. No one cares. Anyone can create
music. Only those that get their heads out of their asses and learn how to
really create a unique business out of their art will make a living off of it.
evolvor
17 Aug 2010
If we want to continue to have great music we need to be
willing to make sure those who's work we love have a way to make a living and
pay for our music.
Alexis
17 Aug 2010
I've always admired Paul and know exactly what he's
talking about when it comes to artists standing up against the Pirates and
Parasites... the vitriol is not just aimed at rich rokc stars I've seen
independent artists, filmakers,writers attacked by the bloggers. Everywhere we
here the same rallying calls about how more music is being made than ever, how
the industry needs to find new business models etc but one question they never
answer ... have you asked the artists if they want to be "shared" or
would they rather be paid...because in the end it shoudl be their choice.
Steve Kane
17 Aug 2010
I love that the manager of U2, which has just made $300+
million touring the world, is complaining that people in the music business
can't make money and blaming it on piracy. Boo hoo.
Bryan Colley
17 Aug 2010
Dear Paul McGuinness You seem to want someone to come
along and magically rescue you. It is not going to happen, the cost of content
is going to zero. Its basic economics. You state that "this isn't
crippling bands like U2 and it would be dishonest to claim it was." You
would think you would be happy about this since it means less competition and
your next line is ... "I've always believed artists and musicians need to
take their business as seriously as their music. U2 understood this." You
do not seem to understand business all that well. If you did you would see this
is a perfect opportunity to capitalize on the death of the record labels. Here
are some suggestions ... U2 has a big name and brand recognition, use it. Set
up a mentorship program for younger artists, and new bands. Cut the record
labels out of the supply chain. Find the bands using contests of all sorts. Use
an American Idol style format, where one person a week goes home. Or run the
contest like a tennis tournament with winners being voted up through the
levels. Next in places that have collection societies for radio, use a modified
CC that allows for radio broadcasting with no fee. Under price the collection
agencies by allowing "free use" on the radio for promotional
purposes. Double the length of your stage show. Take all the bands and artists
you discover and have them warm up for you. The ones garnished the greatest fan
base closest to the time you go on. I hope that helps .... David
Hephaestus
17 Aug 2010
"When Lily Allen recently posted some thoughtful
comments about how illegal file-sharing is hurting new developing acts, she was
ravaged by the online mob and withdrew from the debate." Maybe if artists
had any backbone, people would respect their point of views.
Mike
17 Aug 2010
A few comments: 1. the subhead should be: ...and do we
really want to? 2. Music has become a "single song" industry. You
ignore this at your peril. A future model might be thousands of small-footprint
but well-equipped studios run by adventurous and talented engineer/songwriters,
who could contract/be funded by previously huge record labels. 3. We need to
lose the "grandiosity" of the "album". Let's face it: albums
were created to sell 10 songs at once, instead of singly. The business model is
now completely reversed. 4. As you say, what's the point of recording at 24/96
or higher when the end product is the aural offal of MP3s.So who needs the
multi-million dollar studios? Break those studios down into pods of much
smaller but more cost-efficient studios. There's more but it would require a
few bottles of good red wine...
Peter LeRoy
18 Aug 2010
Everything said by Mr.Paul McGuinness is a meter of
dispute..except the fact that "Europe's
creative industries could lose more than a million jobs in the next five
years"..that`s a fact that we`ll face it very very soon!
Freeman
18 Aug 2010
I agree with both "evolvor" and especially with
"Hephaestus" on this one. U2 could, just as many other former
major-label artists have done, use their brand to work on their own. While I
realize that "big artists/bands" are losing what was formerly a huge
influx of revenue, surely there are more artists making a living today than
there used to be. How? They make it going around the whole piracy problem and
find business models that comply with todays standards. Granted it might not be
as much as it used to be but better live your dream with enough to make it
around than take a job you don't really like for the same wage? The problem is
that the big corporations have ruled the entertainment industry and the money
earned by the "frontline" have always been ridicilous. Movies, music,
litterature and what not - in the future we won't have to pay for it to enjoy
it at home.
Sound
18 Aug 2010
You reap what you sow, gentlemen. Whilst I dont doubt the
sincerity of Paul McGuinness and Robin Millar, I'm afraid I have no sympathy
whatsoever for the major labels. You nearly convinced me Paul, until you said
that we need great record labels. No. Not any more. Yes, piracy is theft and
theft is bad. Yes, the business model has to change. Yes, we need to find a
solution. But, as another contributor pointed out, the breathtaking arrogance
and incredibly insular, nepotistic view taken by the labels over the last
thirty years, the stupendous sums of money made from artists through trade
restrictive contracts, control over artistic direction, all this has led you
all to this point. There is no need for the existing corpse of the old industry
to be revived. Pop (pretty much) finally did eat itself. There are established
artists out there who use the internet as their means of selling their material
directly and they do well out of it. They dont need the labels any more. And as
for developing new acts... give me a break. The last time a major label broke
and developed, truly developed, a new act was when Kate Bush was signed by EMI
back in 1976. Developing new acts, my foot.
Steve
18 Aug 2010
Attacking the service companies, the Internet Service
Providers or ISP's, is absolutely wrongheaded. Not everyone who uses an ISP
downloads music, legal or otherwise. The record labels buried their heads in
the sand a decade ago hoping that the Internet would go away. Well, its here to
stay. What McGuiness and his lacky Bono, both of whom are incredibly rich men,
are trying to achieve, is a handout from the ISP's who in turn will pass along
any expenses to us regular folks. So riddle me this Mr McGuiness - how do you
separate the music freeloaders, legal or not, from those of us who use the
Internet for business or other creative work and entertainment? Dave Allen
http://pampelmoose.com
Dave Allen
18 Aug 2010
If we do go down the road of paying music artists from a
levy on broadband connections and ISP profits, would that mean all music in the
UK is then available for free to everyone? Presumably it must otherwise
McGuinness would be advocating paying for something twice, and that would be
ridiculous. Should that be the case, you'd wipe out the music retail industry
overnight. You'd deliver a hammer blow to radio too, and knock brands that rely
on radio advertising for some or all of their business. You'd cut off a revenue
stream from movies and television programmes that sell soundtracks. You'd close
the door on new artists who'd have to compete with the existing fanbases of
established, well-funded artists. And lastly you'd increase the costs of
broadband so ISPs would have to make job cuts somewhere. This is how U2 thinks
we should save the music industry? By devastating a raft of other industries
that rely on (and pay handsomely for) music to promote themselves? I don't
think that's a particularly good plan.
Chris Neale
18 Aug 2010
Hey scratchy, you are missing the point. Nobody is saying
people aren't making and enjoying music. In fact the last paragraph states
there is a "healthy live music scene". The problem is in the return
these artists are getting for their musical efforts. People will always make
music, but the ability to make a living doing so is what is in jeopardy here.
And although artists like U2 aren't the ones greatly affected, they are the
ones that have enough influence to speak on behalf of the rest of us.
Derek
18 Aug 2010
And let's go after the gosh-darned blank cassette makers,
too! I'm sure Paul shudders to think about all of the illegal copies of
"War" and "The Unforgettable Fire" that were made in the
80s on blank cassettes for friends. I blame Memorex and Maxell for the massive
erosion in music industry revenues. It couldn't have been a reaction to the
labels steadily increasing prices ($18.99 for a CD? Really?) after telling us
in the early 80s that the development of the CD format would eventually bring
music and packaging prices DOWN. The labels used to control pricing like
DeBeers controls diamond prices: they controlled the entire distribution chain.
Now the labels don't, and they lost pricing control. I have a lot of respect
for U2 and Paul M. -- and also believe very strongly in strong copyright law
and enforcement -- but this is a piece written with very limited scope.
Q
18 Aug 2010
Just to continue this lesson in copyright history: The
copyright protection for 'motion pictures' was introduced in the US in 1912.
That same year a very large, seemingly invincible vehicle full of wealthy
businessmen was brought to a watery grave, after proving a distinct lack of
agility when presented with a large, and seemingly obvious obstacle.
Apparently, the musicians played on.
Andy Carne
18 Aug 2010
Well my solution to piracy is and continues to be, not
releasing any new music digitally for sale at all. Well at least original
material. This is not a feasible long term strategy however. The only long term
strategy, since this is a digital issue, is a digital DNA copyright database
which would need to coincide with file filtering legislation enforced onto ISP.
ISP would need to ID copyrighted material and block it. Until then I have other
trade secrets for the major labels for them to stop piracy, but since I don't
work for them, it is proprietary information and will sit in my brain worth the
millions that it would save. One last thing, is that I promise to anyone
stealing my music, to personally rip off their arms. It is only an effective
deterrent because I can.
CrowfeatheR
18 Aug 2010
Paul- it is foolish to think that any type of barrier to
technology will work, especially if the reason behind is to save the old
music/movie system. not that i support illegal piracy, IT IS wrong and is
theft. no different than if i went into HMV and put a dvd in my pocket and ran
out. but, to slow tech growth for an industry is dangerous to all of humanity.
look at history to examine the impact of technological growth and answer
whether we should have banned automobiles, radio, tv in order to save their
predessors. maybe the old music/movie model was wrong --- a limited few (execs,
studio chiefs, top managers) benefitted significantly from artist's work
without truly sharing the $$$. your opportunity to be truly great is to expand
the entertainment marketplace and help develope new talent and new audiences
without imposing artifical barriers. are you prepared?
mal
18 Aug 2010
Dear Paul, "Indigenous music industries from Spain to Brazil are collapsing." This
isn't helped by the media's push for anglo-american artists(guaranteed
money-spinners). See the MTV Europe awards, a massive advert for huge artists
that almost always excludes performances from non-anglophone artists. Who
headlined last year in Berlin?
Oh yes, U2 and Jay-Z, neither are German. You've made plenty of deals that have
monopolised the media for U2's ends (the illegal BBC campaign, the strange iPod
thing) not exactly sharing the wealth are you? Radio stations have playlists
that work to benefit major label artists like U2, meaning that Spotify HAS to
exist to satisfy curiosity. I use it to HEAR songs, not to own an album. I
would never be satisfied to merely stream Joni Mitchell's Blue online, I have
to own it. Sadly not all albums are that great, I made lots of mistaken music
purchases in my youth and HAVE to be more careful now. I don't suppose you have
any concept of how the price of food, utilities, bus fares, home repairs etc.
have increased over the last decade, coupled with insecurity over jobs and
house prices that was obvious well before the depression started. I would not
be able to pay for the use of Spotify, that would just take a bit of happiness
away for people like me.
Jenny Eardley
18 Aug 2010
I am a musician, my music is free for anyone who wants it
and I will never consider it a robbery. People that think like you are the
reason why Justin Bieber is a success today. After years of exploring and
monopolizing promotion and media attention, major labels are finally losing
money and shutting down. I will feel bad for you the day i turn on the radio
and I dont have to listen to horrible music. Until then, I will enjoy seeing
you bleed and suffer through this, losing the battle every day.
Renato
19 Aug 2010
What I don't understand is trying to pin the blame on the
ISPs and saying that their "swollen profits perfectly mirror the lost
receipts of the music business". Profits for ISPs increased as more people
required and gained access to the internet (now seen as a human right in
certain European countries) but those companies have no obligation to an
industry that enjoyed supernormal profits for many, many years. This is an
industry that is very wasteful with its resources and is in serious need of a
change of business plan. Technology has changed, why should the music industry
not be expected to change along with it? Offering music for sale via iTunes etc
was a step in the right direction however. Paul, you're a dinosaur. You and
your ilk need to evolve or else you'll die out. Stop trying to blame others for
your lack of innovation. You've had it too good for too long.
Doc R.
19 Aug 2010
You're misunderstanding the quote. "swollen profits
perfectly mirror the lost receipts of the music business" is describing
how entertainment dollars went from allowing a kid to buy say 3 or 4 CDs a
month to subscribing to the internet so that kid can have access to
entertainment. The implication is disposable income that went to music went to
the net. And with the 'net comes illegal downloading. So logically, if you're
spending $40 on internet service instead of CDs...and you're then downloading
music illegally...yes there's a little problem there. I don't think the
argument is even that EVERYONE is downloading illegally. But it is common. The
music industry simply needs to figure out how to compete. I don't think that
any reasonable company could imagine to do otherwise. BUT the thing that many
anti-label folks mis-understand is that the internet alone is NOT an
architecture for success. If it were every idiot alive with a website and an
intention should be rich and famous. Many staunch anti-label types also seem to
mis-understand the very obvious fact (as many imply artists don't need
labels...just the tools of the internet) that artists don't really have a
command on how to be successful via the internet. The internet as business
conduit...is still a business conduit. These are still artists not businessmen.
Saying they should be both is like telling a doctor h/she should also get a law
degree. Handling marketing and promotion is not some innate skill that comes
packaged with musical ability. Anti-label types should also divorce themselves
of the arrogant belief that the internet gives equal opportunity to independent
artists. Its simply not the case. The sites with the highest traffic ratings
providing music coverage are STILL focusing on larger acts so somebody is STILL
much more likely to find Lady Gaga on the internet than Bob's Backyard Band.
Period. Take a look at even Pitchfork's front page. Artists like Arcade Fire or
Flying Lotus (indie crusaders maybe) certainly may not be mainstream, but they
are also NOT without a PR budget (meaning there is a lot more at work than the
artist being "net-savvy"). I also notice that with the fading power
of labels, many indie artists are relying on corporate sponsorship (i.e.
Mountain Dew's Green Label). So some are now saying "screw the
labels", instead I'll make records for soda pop company? Lets also not
forget that MANY successful artists both before and during the internet era
have run their own companies...many of those labels have folded from The
Rolling Stones' label...right on down to the recent shuttering of Def Jux...and
the merger of Downtown records and Mad Decent (a move by two
"successful" labels chock-filled with 'net stars that seemingly
couldn't make it on their own). Its also ironic that its NOT net savvy grass
rootsy artist-run labels that are making a killing in this era. Its Apple...and
Amazon...and those corporate rebels like Walmart. So the venom towards labels
even in this regard is a bit childish. Its like Bob's Big Boy just closed down
and they put up a McDonalds and everyone's pointing at Bob laughing at the guy
for his failure. Stupid. Lets not forget MOST of these net upstarts are either
STILL unprofitable, or just barely getting there. When/if investors pull the
plug what's the plan then? Clearly the newish economy hasn't figured it out any
better than the labels have. Don't kid yourself. The bottom line is without an
infrastructure for professional musicians that can provide services like
marketing, pr and tour support. The quality in music is going to take a nose
dive...the net has also played its hand in this...I mean more people know the
song Chocolate Rain than know who the aforementioned Flying Lotus is. That's a
damn shame.
Martydom
19 Aug 2010
Don't you find it, should I say 'hypocritical', when
socialist billionaires complain about loss of income?
Seb
19 Aug 2010
Attacking the service companies, the Internet Service Providers
or ISP's, is absolutely wrongheaded. Not everyone who uses an ISP downloads
music, legal or otherwise. The record labels buried their heads in the sand a
decade ago hoping that the Internet would go away. Well, its here to stay. What
McGuiness and his lacky Bono, both of whom are incredibly rich men, are trying
to achieve, is a handout from the ISP's who in turn will pass along any
expenses to us regular folks. So riddle me this Mr McGuiness - how do you
separate the music freeloaders, legal or not, from those of us who use the
Internet for business or other creative work and entertainment? Dave Allen
http://pampelmoose.com
Dave Allen
20 Aug 2010
My 12 year old daughter is "all about the
music" and has purchased LOTS of music from Itunes and CDs from retail
stores. However, there were a couple of songs by her favorite band that were
not available on Itunes - at that particular point in time. So she downloaded
them without paying for them. She felt so AWFUL about this that she asked me
how she could relieve her conscience. I thought she was going to be sick,
really. I suggested a couple of things she could do. First, delete the songs
and do without them. (Nope, didn't want to do that one.) Second, send their
record company $$ explaining what it was for. Third, when she would go to see
the band in concert, see if she would be able to pay for the songs at the merch
table or someplace else. (She thought both of those were viable options.) In
the meantime, she would always check to see if the songs had become available
on Itunes. As luck would have it, one of her Itunes searches showed that those
2 songs had become available. She deleted the old files and paid for the
legitimate ones on Itunes. She sure felt alot better about the entire
situation. I felt very proud of her for being so honest. The record company
& band and whoever else would really have NO IDEA that one 12 year old girl
had 2 songs she didn't pay for but the thing for her was that she knew she had
stolen them. I suppose by honestly purchasing them afterwards, she really had
only borrowed them. :-)
Music Mom
20 Aug 2010
To all those people who have said anything negative about
the above article>>>> How would you feel if you found something you
had created available for free? That's the issue here, not how much money the
artists/managers are making. It's about rightful ownership! To those who have
left comments like "boo hoo" etc... grow up! You are the reason that
the industry is struggling. If you don't like the fact that someone else is
making more than you, do something about your own situation instead of ripping
artists off & critising those who are trying to protect their own
livelihood. To Paul McGuinness, well done on an intelligent article. U2s music
has touch many hearts, including mine. Keep on rocking.....!!!
Mike Cook
20 Aug 2010
McGuinness should have asked the question: is the music
industry (and I mean the powerful and very wealthy publishers and collecting
societies, not the poor labels) willing to change?
Hessel van Oorschot
20 Aug 2010
I do agree there should be more articles like this, I
also agree that the music industry is having a major revenue loss because of
piracy. I disagree that this piracy is because of consumers. Of course, they
are the ones who actively provide from sites like:
"Supertorrent!.net", "Pirateheaven!.hell" and
"Megadownload!.totallyillegal.com" But this is because people always
want what's best for themselves and especially, what's easiest. If only most
governments would listen to modern technology more, I think there would be more
people who would enjoy music (and don't forget films and games and other
software too) in a legal way. This will not have to be forced through the
throat by ze government. We all know there are enough solutions to be legal and
profitable nowadays. It's the governments job to stimulate the implementation
of this. Oh, and please don't whine at mister McGuiness people. I think he's
already showed what his importance is in the industry. And that's not something
to whine about. Cheers.
Thijs
20 Aug 2010
I realised very early on that my musical ability was not
matched at all by my creativity. Accordingly, I went out and found a job. It
keeps the rain out. The market decided that there was no place for my
"talent". So now the market has decreed that there is no place for
your old business model, well boo-hoo. Your new business model decrees that we
should willingly shell out £0.99 for each MP3 when the full CD can be had for
£8 >£12 (ish) Unbelievable. Nearly as warped as a market that withstands 10
second pastiches of popular (sic) songs as ringtones for £2 >£3 each. WTF? I
despised T-I-N-A but she sure had the market forces figured out. I have never
downloaded an MP3 illegally and guys and gals, I wont do so legally either.
Even my workshop shattered ear drums can still tell the difference. It follows
that it's not me that's tearing your play house down but I have no problem with
those that do. If it's all about intellectual property then how about buying
the vinyl, the cassette, the CD and now the downloaded digital version? How
many times do you want me to pay for the intellectual property? If it's about
the method of distribution, how did the CD become to be perceived as worth more
than vinyl and so on? How did it become acceptable to charge more for a stamped
DVD than to run off copies of video cassettes? In our culture, the marketing
men decide what the market will withstand and that's that. Now the marketing
men are bleating because the control is slipping away. Nice try- no cigar...If
you can't make ends meet in entertainment, go get a job. Sorry but there it is,
I've done propping you lot up. Shift some microwave ovens. Live with common
people. One last thought, the best output comes from the young and the hungry.
"there's no more swimming in a guitar shaped pool, no more cocaine now
it's only ground chalk, but didn't we have a nice time? oh wasn't it such a
fine time" Deja-vu?
Steve
21 Aug 2010
I pay for all my music so that the artists feel supported
and continue to make more music. Try and make a case like that against the
company that just painted your house , or sold you a bike, its still stealing.
Many hours and months go into making records... If you sit and click your mouse
and rip it off who's going to be there in the long run?
Bobby
21 Aug 2010
People's mistake starts from the "ILUSION" of
FREE DOWNLOAD, that simply doesn't exists. They're paying montly internet
services even more money than they use to pay for cds, cassettes, etc in the
old days. the diference here is they're paying to the wrong people, Giant
monopoly companys that they don't care for music. People don't know but when
music industry will colapse, the internet providers will take over, they're
gonna make sure they'll be no ilegal download anymore, cause are the only ones
with power to do so and also make sure independent artists will have no chances
to have their music out there and finnally make people listent and buy whatever
make more profits. So the cultural damage will be huge. SO PEOPLE, OPEN YOUR
EYES!!! this is not only about money, it is about control. If you want to keep
choosing the music you want for your life stop supporting this huge monopoly
companys plans otherwise in the near future they'll be no good music at all out
there, only stuff like American Idol. Of course all this is happening with the
complicity of the goverments all over the world cause Internet providers are
clearly breaking copyright laws, in some countries they even advertise their
services inviting people to download music faster before they have legal online
music stores.
Dany
22 Aug 2010
technology invented recorded music and the big profits
attached, now technology has taken it away again. What we are left with is what
we had before, live music..ie musicians doing work and getting paid, not
sleeping and getting paid. When the technology is up to it, we will
pay-per-play (say 1p), but the 1st play has to be free, and after say 200 plays
you stop being charged because you've paid the full fee. 7 billion with access
to YOUR tune, with a % to the writer, % to the studio etc etc, all handled in
the cloud, i'm pretty sure good music will get income.
Mytheroo
22 Aug 2010
technology invented recorded music and the big profits
attached, now technology has taken it away again. What we are left with is what
we had before, live music..ie musicians doing work and getting paid, not
sleeping and getting paid. When the technology is up to it, we will
pay-per-play (say 1p), but the 1st play has to be free, and after say 200 plays
you stop being charged because you've paid the full fee. 7 billion with access
to YOUR tune, with a % to the writer, % to the studio etc etc, all handled in
the cloud, i'm pretty sure good music will get income.
Mytheroo
22 Aug 2010
It's an interesting argument. I wrote a few
recommendations for Paul here: http://www.newcicada.com/2010/08/gremlins-multiply-open-letter-to-paul.html
Gremlins Multiply: An Open Letter to Paul McGuinness, Manager of U2 (My
Favorite Band) Dear Paul, It's really disappointing to read yet again another
very long opinion in the August 2010 issue of GQ on how you feel that internet
piracy is destroying the music industry. Isn't this argument pretty tired by
now? Our world is entering into a new age of collaboration and participation in
the way that has never been known before. Old centralized and bureaucratic
models are being challenged. It's really not about people stealing music
(although that is a bad thing) rather its about a consumer who has changed
their behavior and you just don't like it, or rather, you don't understand how
to harness it. Perhaps instead of continuing to wallow (BTW - it's really not
all that sexy especially since U2 ticket prices have risen from 17.50 in 1987
to 100 bucks today) you might look a things a bit differently? Why not learn
about the cool things about the interwebs and take advantage of your
pre-established community? Learn about what's coming down the pike from tech
companies and how U2 could lead innovation in the music industry? After all you
are one of the richest bands in the world. Just a few ideas for you: 1) Hang
Out With Tech Peeps: Paul, if you need some help connecting with the technology
sector, I'll be happy to help you out. I know people who would be happy to help
you too. But you don't need me (well maybe you do) to create a Music +
Technology Summit in Silicon
Valley with the industry. If I can create roundtables about
cybersecurity, you can certainly show up with Bono in tow at the Googleplex or
Infinite Loop to hear from the people who are dreaming up the future. They
already have the next five years in the pipeline, you might want to pay
attention to them. Seriously, you have a pulpit of cool not complain. There is
not one door of a technology company who would not want to talk to you. Really.
Who are you working with that give you pause to say to the Financial Times, "...what
dismays me a little about the online universe is that these corporations, like
Google and MySpace and Apple, don't have anything that's the equivalent of
artist relations." Five bucks says within an hour if you asked, you can
have meetings booked with the CEOs of those companies and ask for someone who
will liaison to you. If they don't, I would do it for you in a heartbeat. We
all want you to succeed. I might be a little biased. I am a super fan. But just
a quick question, you know Bono is a partner in Elevation Partners a private
equity investment firm that includes a form VP from Apple? And just last fall
he was chums with Eric Schmidt during the Vevo launch. So why do you feel
disconnected? Just sayin' 2) Midem Isn't CES or TED (it ain't Davos either):
When you talk to your own people in the music industry, well you get the same
tired ideas (and too many partners to commiserate with). Perhaps Midem needs to
blend with folks in the Valley? Maybe you need to have MidemTech? Really, it
doesn't take much to bring people together. Get the top ten music managers that
you know, have them come to Silicon Valley to
see the new shiny tools and hear about cool things happening in tech. It can be
that simple. Glass Houses: I hate to point this out, but before you complain
about losing money on record sales perhaps you should check out all of the
missed business opportunities using technology to engage and yes, sell things
to fans. Not to bust it out, but your deal with Live Nation is not a good deal
at all they are fracturing your community instead of bringing it together.
Simple things - U2 doesn't even have an @U2 twitter address. The Twitter
address you do use for the tour has been stale for almost a year! The You Tube
Live Show at the Rose Bowl was a multi-million dollar advertising opportunity
that was totally missed and U2's social good engagement is very sad and
completely not representative of the band's values or desires to encourage
their fans to get involved. Basically someone just threw up boilerplate content.
Not too compelling. Let's run the numbers: U2 360 Tour - 3.2 Millions People in
44 dates U2 Live at the Rose Bowl - 10 Million People in 1 Night You reached
three times more people in one night via online stream than you did the entire
tour. 10 Million people. Largest viewing audience of all time and you missed so
many opportunities. You had dead air. No sponsorships. No public service
information. No fan engagement and sadly if you saw U2 on that tour, the exact
same set list. Perhaps instead of fighting Google, you might want to join them.
10 million people, that's a lot of ads. If you owned the site you streamed from
like U2.com then you can sell you own ads if you wanted. 10 million people -
lots of companies would want their products to be part of that experience,
notwithstanding your own tour sponsor, Blackberry/RIM. It goes without saying
that U2's web presence should be one of your top priorities. Did you know if
you sold tickets direct (not through Ticketmaster) you would make more money?
Did you know if you sold digital copies of your shows (at the show) you could
make 40% more money for each show? Did you know if you did a short code to have
your fans interact with the band to crowdsource the encores you can make 10%
more on your show at least? What if you had Video on Demand for you entire
tour? What if you had the shows streamed? I would bet for whatever money you
are loosing on record sales you could make up two fold using technology to
further connect the U2 fan with the band. Seriously, with a band who has so
many resources not only could you do this for U2, but you could do it for other
bands that U2 wants to help. 4) The Power of Good: This is the part that just
kills me. You have millions of people around the world who would do awesome works
if you asked them or pointed them in the right direction. U2 has a community of
millions. The future of music is YOUR ability to harness your community. If you
won't use technology to harness your community for business, then why not for
good? Today people are using technology to connect aid directly where its
needed and to help people in crisis. If U2 took an interest in using technology
to connect their fans with opportunities they can do to change the world, why
wouldn't you do this? 5) Gremlins Multiply With Water: One thing you might not
want to do is to diss the blogosphere. It's just not a cool thing. There are
millions of people around the world that write about U2 and say how great they
are. They are U2's fans, they are at the end of the day your customer. The
bloggers aren't "anonymous gremlins", we are people who want to say
good things about your music. Weare your street team, but on the internet. You
want us to be informed, you us them to be part of the process. If you gathered
the top 50 U2 bloggers (and a handful internet blogger celebs) you would garner
more engagement and traffic to buying U2 music and merch than any press
release. Didn't you hear at SXSW that the press release is dead? Seriously,
bloggers are your friends. Yeah, there are some trolls out there, but for the
most part people want to help. If I got to be on a conference call with you and
Bono once a year I would freak out. All that takes is an hour of your time.
There are so many advantages of creating a blogger community to support U2 than
dissing them. They aren't stealing your music, they are promoting it! I will
leave you with a quote from Ghandi, "Be the Change You Want To See In The
World." Yes, maybe you can't save the music industry but what you can do
is be the light for the future. You, meaning U2, has the resources to create
innovation in the music industry. You can be poking around the streets of El
Camino Real and Sand Hill Road
to get indicators for the future. I bet Google would love to have a U2 Droid or
Microsoft have premium live shows only available on XBOX. So if you aren't
making money on records then make money using the technology that is there,
sell advertising, VOD, ring tones, short codes, after digital live shows and
enhanced fan engagement. If you don't even want to do that, use technology for
good. But if you do anything, please think about U2's fans. We want you to
engage us. We want to see live shows from home because sometimes our lives
won't let us go to a concert (kids, aging parents, money, ect.). We want to
have a special moment with Bono to share with the world. Want to be have a
religious experience at a U2 show. We want to know that each engagement is
unique and that we are special. We also want to help tell all of our friends
about you and how awesome you are. We want hear the show that we just saw (in
the car ride home from the show) and trade songs with our friends to relive
movement of our lives that U2 shared with us. Don't loose sight that it's the
fans who make U2 go round, not the music industry. The world had changed, the
music industry may not chose to move quickly, but you can lead by example.
Paul, I challenge you to lead the music industry into a new age of engagement
with fans and embrace the new age of innovation. If you do that, you just might
be able to steer the U2 ship where the wind is at your back.
Heather Blanchard
22 Aug 2010
I've been an executive producer and principal to roughly
2 decades of recording, film, and television projects. This type of commentary
from people like this is not only hurtful, but self-mutilating to the industry.
Some talking points - 1. 95% of every musical work is stolen? riiiiiight? just
like film, right? An NGO investigating similar claims with film interests
finally got them to admit that they never ran any studies, probably couldn't
even if they wanted to because of the nature a statistical study asking
participants if they're thieves. The truth is the film industry doesn't have a
f'n clue whats getting stolen, and neither does the recording industry. Taking
on wild accusations like that carries a side effect of calling 95% of your fan
base thieves knowing you haven't a clue. So lets deal with some facts: we all
know the film industry just pulled out of what could be considered one of the
most profitable years in decades - and just like recording they got all that
cash from the 5% of their customers that still pay. 2. The copyright system has
filled up and spilled over. Why is it that we protect the interests of greedy
studios and labels to keep britney spear's grandchildern in a lear-jet 70 years
from now. Why does it cost 750 us dollars to sing happy birthday in public when
the 5 notes came about in the mid-1800's? While penecillin, possibly the most
beneficial drug of our time ran out of copyright protection decades and decades
ago, reducing the cost of a tablet of this life-saving drug to $50c or less but
licensing happy birthday to sing to your kids in a restaurant costs about 1500
times this amount? The reality is your greed in protecting the interests in a
few studios has made your music/films/tv writings only real viable copyrighted
works at this point. Thats why we have to watch 900 channels of reality shit on
TV. Everything is already been copyrighted. Try to write something and its over
a 50/50 shot someone else not only owns prior art but will sue you to get their
cut of something they came up with 50 years ago. Of course, they'll be dead so
its the label and attorneys making the cash and stunning innovation, not
spurring it. Think about it, how many permutations of an 88 key structure
reduced by chords and then multiplied by 2-3 instruments over a 3-5 minute song
and now add english words is it possible to come up with in 100 years of filing
20 thousand new works a month? Its all a scam to keep rights to a few studios
that already own all the works. Look at even the large outfits when they try to
write for a film or TV show... Even with reality TV they're stuck in lawsuits
with every show they produce. Our copyright system was invented not for us - IT
WAS INVENTED FOR A HANDFUL OF STUDIOS PROTECTING THEIR INTERESTS - not millions
of 12 year old kids sending off patents on the internet every day and supplying
900 sat channels with 24/7 content 365 days a year - and even if it stayed at
they're pace in the 1900s, they intended it to drop off 50 years ago. your
passionate buddy, bono got the shit extended through another lifetime. If it
protects innovation for future artists, why does medical patents keep running
out and still medicine gets invented? Ever wonder why a drug like penicillin
can save your life for 1/3 the cost of a plastic CD from U2 even after markup
from the pharmacy and drug company after profits are paid and materials
covered? COPYRIGHT WAS SUPPOSED TO MAKE A MONOPOLY OF CASH FOR AN IDEA BECAUSE
THAT CASH FLOW PROVIDES INCENTIVES TO (CREATE) NEW IDEAS. COPYRIGHT INSTEAD HAS
FILLED UP AND IS SPILLING OVER WITH NO HOPE OF EVER RUNNING OUT AND INSTEAD
STIFLING ANY NEW IDEAS OF CREATION IN FILM, MUSIC, OR TV. I was featured in a
techcrunch article on this issue after one of the co-creators of American Idol
took one of my concepts for a TV show and never paid royalties or asked
permission. He managed to blow that one on his own and possibly stands as one
of the biggest single entertainment failures of our lifetime. He made press
statements including (his) innovation that would draw 130 million fans to his
show in months. It has less than 5 thousand fans and most of those are his own
producers and their families. He's good at managing a monopoly franchise and
brainwashing little kids and keeping them from learning to read and write - but
apparently not even his friends have an interest when it comes to an expression
of his true creative talent. 3. I didn't notice you mentioning the (real)
reason music recoring industries fell. Truth is at this point no radio stations
are playing anything worth a damn despite solid content anywhere. Its devalued
the worth and percieved value of every radio station in north america, which
not coincidentally allowed for monopolies to come in and permit congress to
remove anti trust protections of our waves and buy up any amount of stations
they wanted to without any repercussion or consideration of the power that
invokes to one person when you control airwaves of 5 different media
organizations in 5 different formats and 145 metropolitan cities. The big
labels aren't bribing stations anymore to play your crap because they wouldn't
play well known music if it killed them. They're devaluing the worth of these
stations and buying them up for pennies on the dollar. Without the radio acting
as your medium to teach people to buy your artists music, you couldn't sell
music to your own kids. 4. Outside of playing your music 15 times an hour and
forcing exposure to a wide array of customers nationwide, which is
psychologically known to make women think billy ray cyrus really does have a
cute butt and they couldn't live without 'achy breaky heart'. Perhaps if you
hadn't spent so much time at the big labels forcing us to listen to crap like
that and making it the only options for purchase, thus precluding us from
finding quality music, we wouldn't be so upset at this point. That being said,
I'm not suggesting people are stealing content at this point. No one knows for
sure. No one has the numbers to know. You just keep playing the same recording
for congress that you've had since the 70's. If we don't make the big labels
rich, they'll quit investing in new talent and no one will get paid. The
reality is if a business is operating as it should, it doesn't use cash on hand
to finance future profit making ventures any more than it would borrow money
from the bank to make those same investments in new talent. we don't have to
give an attorney somewhere $750 to sing happy birthday in a restaurant to keep
my kid inside his recording contract he'll get when he turns 18. Because he has
no contract waiting either way, nor does anyone else. But we still keep
delivering royalties from 100+ years. 5. Record labels historically never put 2
new hits on 1 cd. See, spend 5 months recording 1 song and market one song for
nationwide play, and people are willing to pay 1 dollar for it. But instead of
forcing us to buy 10 of these hits to fill up the 60 minute format, for 100
years we presume we pay for 1 hour of music based off what we heard on the
radio, when most times we find out only after we've made the 16 dollar purchase
for a 3 minute song that you recorded the other 15 songs in one afternoon after
spending 6-12 months + producing the 1 song that made us want to buy the album,
then presume 16 dollars divide by 16 songs or so makes them 1 dollar a piece or
so and bereally we're paying 16 dollars for 1 song, not 1 dollar for 1 song. So
here's what happened to your profit margin. 100 years in the history of
recording from phonograph to 8 track to cassette to cd to minidisc and beyond
you sell us only 1 song per purchase and deliver 3 minutes of content with 50
minutes of shit. The cost of 1 song - 16 dollars. Profit margin for an audio
album with 1/100 the cost of making a motion picture = comparable to profits
from a film with 200 employees working 1-5 years on a similar project Then we
can purchase the 1 song on the internet for 99c. Price drops from 16 dollars to
1 dollar because we no longer buy 15 songs of shit for 1 song we want. Later,
we just give up on the abuse and some begin to not pay at all, then profits go
from 1 dollar to 0 OK, class. Where did you loose more money? when your 1 song
went from 1 dollar to 0 dollars from piracy? Or when it went from 100 years of
your greed charging 16 dollars for that 1 song and then watching it get sold for
1 dollar on the Internet at this point? SO THE AGE OLD ADDAGE THAT WE'RE
STEALING YOUR VALUABLE SHIT IS STILL A LIE. WE'RE NOT STEALING IT AND EVEN IF
WE WERE YOU WOULDN'T HAVE A CLUE SINCE YOU'VE NEVER TAKEN A MOMENT TO TRY TO
FIGURE OUT WHY YOUR GOING BROKE. NEXT, EVEN IF ITS TRUE, AND EVERYONE IS STILL
PAYING 1 DOLLAR FOR YOUR MUSIC, THE DROP IN PRICE FROM 16 DOLLARS FOR A CD OF
SHIT TO 1 DOLLAR FOR THE SONG YOU WERE PROMOTING TO BEGIN WITH IS AN EXPENSE 16
TIMES GREATER THAN IF WE HAD 100% THEFT OF YOUR 'HARD' WORK. I'm an executive
producer with a ton of cash invested in all these industries, but I don't spend
a second crying to people about why I'm not making 200 million dollars a second
from a plastic disc featuring marginal talent that I"m forcing on
consumers with a gun to your head from the FBI enforcing my authority to rape
you. Now ask yourself why the FBI chases around more people that listen to
music for free than blew up the trade center in NYC. Where's bin laden? We
dunno? perhaps its because the FBI is still working daily with people like this
to figure out who to storm down next and hold a gun and prison sentence in
front of you and force you to comply and pay their ungodly rates for human
intellect and ideas common to each and every one of us. if your tired of
getting raped in public formats, maybe you should spend more time in hiding
from the people you intend to coerce cash out of and, like your other rich
buddies that don't have much of a problem stealing from us because they don't
come back and complain about its current profitability in GQ. the american
public - where's bin laden? a rich producer at a major studio - fuck bin laden.
i need hundreds of millions of dollars from people that can't afford to spend
it to put with the billions I've made over my lifetime and tacked on to the
millions thats accrued in interest. here's how I've made my money in this
industry and it represents our future - I deliver entertainment worth paying
for and ask people to pay for it. and they pay for it. and if they stop paying
for it I use a combination of business skills and research combined with a
product they'd like to purchase and sell it to them again. and if it gets worse
- I don't put 7 companies together and develop a technology so pathetic to secure
my interests that a 12 year old kid decrypts it on the first night its
released. I hire the 12 year old kid to encrypt my shit and laugh while the 7
major companies haven't a clue how to steal it. let alone my customers.
kent fuselier
23 Aug 2010
As someone who is paid on intellectual property (software
development) I would never pirate anyone's content. That being said, I will
never pay for a crappy product. If music is bad, I don't buy it. If I go to the
theatre and the movie sucks, I walk out and demand a refund. Today, I find
myself not wanting to buy media content in increasing and alarming frequency.
I'd be very, very curious as to see broad, and multi-faceted research on how
impacted and diluted media consumption as a whole (movies, music, books) is by
the wealth of other things we all can do now. This is NOT 1970, 1980, 1990 or
even 2000. There are now tons of (newer) things competing for our spare time,
the amount of which continues to drop as our jobs demand increasing amounts of
productivity and spare time. Has the author looked at the fact that people are
not consuming as much media per capita as they once did? And what about the
quality of the product the corporate run, mass media produces. You know, the
high quality stuff like one hit (music) wonders and parades of motion picture
sequels. Where is the artist development? And for that matter, where is the
CONSUMER development?
David
24 Aug 2010
Great article. The points are valid. This is what death
smells like, at the beginning. Fighting for the cheapest thing instead of the
best, bubble economies supporting substandard product and diluting the
established market until it is destroyed along with children's lunch money, and
tooth and nail claw to the very bottom of the bucket on price and quality, and
a cry for freedom from the very perpetrators of the crime. Rot all around.
Brian Knight
27 Aug 2010
Stick a fork in the music industry - it's done. People
like the author are entirely to blame, not the big bad ISP's. Music industry
executives have been trying desperately to protect their old model for years.
zoinks
05 Sep 2010
@evolvor 4th comment 17 Aug 2010 You hit the nail on the
head + 1
batman!
21 Sep 2010
1. When Bono was channel surfing during the Zoo TV tour,
how did U2 ensure that all the appropriate copyright clearances had been
obtained and how diligent were they in paying the royalties to the holders of
the intellectual property they were using? Or is he entitled to violate
copyrights because he's more important than the rest of us? 2. Is there some
reason why we should consider traditional recording studios being displaced by
the internet as any more deserving of concern than the cinemas who faced
declining audiences when television took part of their market? Or the silent
film actors who were displaced by sound films? Or vaudevillians who lost their
employment to the development of film? When new technology appears (whether it
is the recording technology which made the music industry so profitable for a
few, or the internet which has reduced their profits), some will adapt to the
new medium and develop appropriate ways of making money, while some will remain
committed to their traditional methods and lose money.
GB
24 Sep 2010
If artists want people to go out and buy their music,
they need to make it less expensive. I appreciate the fact that CDs and such
cost a fair sum to manufacture, but that doesn't stop the record labels from
jacking up the cost. A lot of people who download music illegally also buy the
most albums, so it would seem to me; I know plenty of people who download
day-in-day-out, but also regularly buy CDs, MP3s, merchendise and attend
concerts. Bands like Radiohead, who released In_Rainbows for a "name your
own" price, release their music inexpensively for the sake of musical
freedom. After all, forcing people to pay extortionate prices for the music of,
say, a new band on the scene, would scare off quite a few people with the
"is it worth the price?" mentality. If new artists were encouraged to
release there works for a small cost (through a platform like iTunes) or even
for free over Peer-to-Peer or for download from their website, it could stand
to greatly boost their career from the offset. Maybe it would be better for
everyone if the music industry would kindly move over just a little, because as
far as I can see, "illegal" music downloads are actually helping the
industry to facilitate the musical arts again, instead of staying the corporate
money-spinning machine that it has become.
Luke
24 Sep 2010
The record industry fails to realize that it was
technology what made it happen in the first time. Ever since recording devices
have been made the industry has been reluctant to embrace change. Radio was
supposed to kill record sales - it did not, Tapes were supposed to stop sales -
they did not, etc. CDs represented a golden era for the industry as it got to
re-sell old inventory while making consumers buy entire albums if they only
like a song. It is amazing how little consumer understanding there is on how
consumers value and buy music. There are several examples of bands and
companies embracing the new technologies to distribute their music. What the
industry needs is to find ways to generate value that is link to today's
technology and consumers behavior. In an era when consumers are overwhelm by
media choices the "industry" needs to adapt and embrace the challenge
and not cry about the good old days of LPs, CDs, etc.
Luis C Diaz
24 Sep 2010
I'm amazed that BMI, ASCAP, Record Companies, Publishers,
Songwriter Guilds and all music artists don't get together and create a
competition to Google/YouTube and P2P nets. But then again I'm not surprised,
they were slow on the P2P's that are still a pain in there rears. Losing
billions of dollars in potential artist compensation while the Google/YouTubes
and P2P nets make a killing does not make very good business sense. U2 and many
others artist expose the hunger of the world, buy what about the next
generation music artist. Where is the call for this hunger, this musical rights
genocide. They need to create a Internet Royalty Fund (IRF) paid for by ISP's,
Earthlink, Cox, AT&T, Verizon, Google, Yahoo, Bing.....based on paid
subscribers, offsetting the illegal content that flows freely between those
providers. Its very simple..just use your imagination like most of us creators
do. Take your head out of your a** and just do it and quit complaining. If we
can't shut them down...force them to pay. Do it for your kids and there kids
and so on and so on. Peace to you all and may god help us.
Dalton Priddy - USA
25 Sep 2010
