(01-29-2008) U2 manager 'wants end to piracy' - BBC News*

[A stor]

Originally posted by Lally1011 No doubt that artists deserve more. I found this interesting article with the breakdown of who gets how much in the business. It also sites sources as well as some some artists that were exceptions to the rule: http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=200983 But giving them more won't address this issue that Paul brings up. It's really up to the country hosting the websites because it all comes down to the form of government. Look at China.

Thank you for the link. Very interesting article. I believe with authors is it a 60/40 split between them and the publishing company after publication cost of course. Now, I see why authors do not want to use advertisement as much as a musician would.

Personally, I prefer to pay for my music. Being old school, I will buy the cds. I like, and then put it on my computer song list. Perfectly legal, no sharing involved. If a friend likes the same cd. I will purchase one for them.

[cydewaze]

Originally posted by vociti All I hear is greed, greed, greed.

There's a reason you hear that. When an artist releases an album, goes on tour to promote that album, sells a million copies, then ends up $200k in debt when it's over (while the record company walks away with all the profits), there's a problem. And yes, it happens.

Originally posted by vociti Record labels need to adapt. I'm all for that and you are right. However, that still doesn't make downloading free music right.

I don't think anyone is arguing that downloading is "right". The point I was trying to make is that the ones doing the downloading aren't the ones being punished, and while they claim to be punishing the ones who are sharing the music (offering it for download) they aren't really doing anything to make sure the people they're punishing are actually doing something wrong.

A few months ago, a college student got sued for $220,000 for having 24 songs on her hard drive that some snooping RIAA tech found. Again, with no attempt to verify that the songs were even downloadable. How is that fair?

Originally posted by vociti Second, the fact that limewire is used for legal purposes is more of a lawyer response because I'd be willing to bet that 99% of Limewire is used for non-legal downloads.

100% irrelevant. I'm willing to bet that most people who drive cars speed. Should we ban cars? How about guns? People use them to commit crimes. Do we ban those too?

I run an open source operating system. Whenever a new version comes out, in addition to offering it for download on their servers, they also place a copy on bit torrent (same place people can download music). They urge people to download the bit torrent version if possible, in order to save them bandwidth costs. There's nothing illegal about that.

Originally posted by vociti Everyone I know who uses it (which is a lot of people) only use it to download free music. Just because a few people actually use it for legal purposes doesn't mean it still shouldn't be shut down.

I'll take the keys to your car now. Just because some people don't speed or drive drunk doesn't mean we shouldn't ban them. right?

Originally posted by vociti You see, I truly understand that the music industry needs to change some what, etc. However, let's not look away from the fact that people should pay for music. And bands should be compensated for it.

No one is arguing that, but sinking the cruise liner because there are a couple of rats in the hold isn't the solution.

[MrBrau1]

Limewire is like the pawnshop that has 1 legally consigned item, and 458 illegally consigned items (ie: stolen shit.)

The shop owner may have no idea, but that's doesn't mean a crime isn't being committed in his place of business.

[cydewaze]

Originally posted by MrBrau1 Limewire is like the pawnshop that has 1 legally consigned item, and 458 illegally consigned items (ie: stolen shit.)

Wow, you sound like an expert. Could we see your references? I mean, you'd never say something like this unless you knew for sure, right?

Originally posted by MrBrau1 The shop owner may have no idea, but that's doesn't mean a crime isn't being committed in his place of business.

Limewire is a program, not a service, which you use to access the gnutella network, kind of like how IE is a program that you use to access the internet.

The gnutella network consists of a few million computers connected to each other over the internet. It's been around for ages, and there are a bazillion ways to access it. To effectively shut it down, you kind of have to shut down the internet. Not really practical.

So, rather than trying to shut down the internet, why not find a solution that 1) still makes money for the artists, and 2) stops punishing people without having evidence against them.

Ever ripped a CD so you could copy that music to your mp3 player? If so, according to the RIAA, the music on your player is now "stolen". According to the RIAA's website, you only own the copy of the song that's on the physical CD. If you rip it, the copy that you rip is now stolen. Fun, eh?

[vociti]

Hi Cydewaze,
Good conversation. Let's keep this going.

1) Your car analogy. If you use that analogy, then that means suing people who illegally download is the right thing to do. We don't ban cars, it's the police that go after the speeders. So, we don't ban Limewire, but the law goes after people that use it for illegal purposes, and the law has the right to. With limewire, it's almost as if police watching people speed buy and there is nothing they can do about it. Same thing with guns. We don't ban guns. However, we do go after gun dealers that don't legally sell them and we go after people that illegally use guns.

So, someone has to be penalized. Either the company that make the car or the people that use the car. With the car analogy, it's the people that use the car are response for being legal inside of it. If you use a car illegally and get caught, there are consequences. Using a car illegally doesn't mean you will get caught, but if do get caught, and there is evidence, there are consequences.

2) The drunk analogy. No, you don't ban people who don't drive drunk. However, cops are allowed to pull someone over and see if you are drunk. If you are not drunk, you drive on and nothing happens. However, if you are drunk, you are put in jail.

3) The question is, do we police systems such as Limewire just like we police the roads? As long as you drive legally, you're all good. However, if you drive illegally enough times, you will get caught and there will be consequences.

4) The cruise ship analogy. No, you don't sink the cruise liner, but they would go after the bad rats.

So, all of these analogy is pointing to going after the users that mis-use the system?

Also, about ripping a CD for your own personal use. The RIAA needs to change some policies, no doubt. Hell, I think if you buy a CD, you should be entitled to the MP3 versions of it as well for free.

[MrBrau1]

Originally posted by vociti Hi Cydewaze, Good conversation. Let's keep this going.

Most of this is already touched on here.

http://u2.interference.com/t183685.html

[MrBrau1]

Originally posted by cydewaze So, rather than trying to shut down the internet, why not find a solution that 1) still makes money for the artists, and 2) stops punishing people without having evidence against them.

yeah, you do that. Write a successful business plan for any product/service where your main competition offers "free" product/service.

It's so simple.

[cydewaze]

Originally posted by MrBrau1 yeah, you do that. Write a successful business plan for any product/service where your main competition offers "free" product/service. It's so simple.

Ok, let's try your way.

First we get rid of Limewire, which means closing down the company that makes it. Then we do the same for all the countless other file sharing programs out there. But there's only one problem. There are still millions of copies of all of them out there, running on people's machines, so now you have to go after all the same people you were going after to start with.

Then there's the problem that the people that already have these programs will just stick them on gnutella, so people will still be able to get them. And since these programs are all easily modified by someone with a little programming experience, they could easily build in a feature that makes them use an open proxy. Now the IP address of each person means nothing, and you end up chasing a bunch of people whose only crime is being behind on Windows updates and having their internet service poached.

Do you understand what I'm getting at? There is no way to fix this by going after the software itself. You cannot use technical solutions for social problems. If suing people indiscriminately for hundreds of thousands of dollars isn't stopping piracy, then how effective is it going to be to make the program they use a tiny bit harder to get ahold of?

@vociti:

Item 1) I agree on all points. I'm just trying to explain that banning the software isn't going to do a thing. I'm all for punishing the pirates. What I'm against is punishing people without adequate proof.

Incidentally, your item #1 seems to be a 180 turn-around from your previous position of going after the software.

Item 2) I agree again, of course, because you're proving that the offender is actually breaking the law. The RIAA however, is not.

Item 3) There's nothing wrong with policing the service, as long as you're punish the people who are actually committing the crimes. The problem though is that they've been doing this for going on 6 years, and it's not stopping the piracy at all. Mr McGuiness is suggesting now that we go after ISPs, which is a little worrisome, because the second they do this, the pirates will come up with a way to poach IP addresses from someone else, and now we're back to punishing the wrong person.

For every technical solution to this problem, there are countless countermeasures, and in the end the bill ends up being footed by people who have nothing to do with the problem.

Item 4) More of the same as above.

I agree that if you purchase a CD, you should be able to make an mp3 copy for yourself, keeping the physical CD for backup if nothing else. But that's not how the way things are going.

Recently I found out that we had someone poaching our wireless Internet. This was a 128-bit WEP encrypted system, but two kids who were parked out in front of our house in the middle of the night managed to get into it anyway (I have since beefed up the security further). I got paranoid that they might have been downloading music or movies, so I spent the next three weeks researching things online.

What I found is that the RIAA sues tens of thousands of people per year for "sharing music", and they do it without ever trying to download a song from them. The RIAA is legally allowed to scan your machine, and if they find music, they assume you're sharing it, and they do some law bending to get your personal info from your ISP. Then they send you what's called a "pre-settlement letter". This letter tells you that if you give them a certain amount of money - usually $3000-$5000 - then they won't sue you.

Most of the legal advice from lawyers in most of these cases recommends that you pay the fine, guilty or not, because you spend as much or more trying to prove your innocence, and then there's always the chance that you'll lose and owe $200,000+, so it's not worth the chance.

If they were doing this to people like your friends with 500GB song collections, hey, no problem. But they aren't. They're doing it to anyone they can find who has music on their system, and who they can say were "sharing" it. To make it stick, they try these cases in civil court, because the evidence is too shoddy to hold up in criminal court.

Oh, and FYI, when the record companies say they lost X amount of music sales because of illegal downloads, that figure assumes that people like your friends with the 500GB collections would have run out and purchased ALL that music if they were not able to download it. Call me crazy, but I have a feeling that's not the case. In reality, they have no way of knowing how much piracy is costing them, so they just calculate the highest possible number and throw that out.

Again, not trying to defend the pirates, just sharing what I learned.

[vociti]

Sorry if it seemed like I was doing a 180. I pretty much think both users and company are guilty. I think the people are mainly responsible and I think Limewire should put more in to place to help stop illegal activity. We put laws into action to help prevent illegal acts in society. Same thing should go with companies that provide this type of service. Youtube monitors their content for things that may cause copyright issues. There is no reason you should be able to type in with or without you by u2 in Limewire and see any results. And then download it!

Also, you can't police millions of people. I mean, think about the task at hand of policing 200 million people that download online. Wow. It would be impossible. Which is why I think the only way to work on this problem is to go after sites that offer these services. Or, you change the whole business structure.

1) I think everything should go subscription like Rhapsody. However, here's how it should be done. When you go to a site like rhapsody, in order to listen or download any music, you must go to the Artist's Rhapsody page. Within that page, advertisements are shown. The advertiser pays the artist to show their ads on the artist's rhapsody page. I mean, how much would it be worth to an advertiser to put ads on the U2 Rhapsody page knowing that million upon millions people will view that rhapsody page.

2) I also think rock stars should promote products, just like a professional athlete. Hell, Tiger makes 5-10 million a year off golf? 70 million off Nike, Buick, etc. If I became a rock star, I would have companies pay me to promote their products. Watches, clothing, etc. Why not!

[vociti]

couldn't filters be made so if a band doesn't want their material transferred on limewire, the company that owns Limewire could apply filters so certain search terms are filtered out. So, anyone looking for an mp3 of with or without would have a hard time finding it. This would be by band or record label request.

[cydewaze]

Ok, now we're getting somewhere.

Let's look at a few of your ideas, but before we do, I agree that policing all those people is a daunting task, especially since a huge number of them are going to be in countries that won't honor US laws. How are you going to police people in China or Nigeria when you're in the US or Canada? That's one of the problems.

Your #1 above. Sites like Rhapsody are cool, but they are actually contributing to piracy a little. How? Well, I'll try to explain (and this also explains why I still buy CDs).

I can't use Rhapsody. I can't use iTunes. In fact, I can't use any online music stores. Why? Because I don't use MS Windows, or IE, or a Mac, and either one or more of those are required for 99% of those sites to work. I have yet to find a pay music site that works with Linux, my OS of choice.

When a music site tries to dictate what operating system people use, most of the ones who use an alternate one will just not bother with the site. I'm not going to have a whole separate Windows installation just for my music, and Linux for everything else. It doesn't make sense.

And don't even get my started about how songs from one music player don't always play on another music player. That's a whole 'nother can of worms.

The other problem with sites like Rhapsody is that none of them ever seem to have a full selection of music, except for maybe iTunes. Of course, it's been a while since I've checked any of them, but as of a few months ago, the selection was pretty abysmal. If I buy a CD, I can get anything.

I'm a member of a Linux user group, and I can't tell you how many times I've heard, "Man, I really like this ONE song, but the rest of the CD sucks. I wish I could just buy this one song from a pay site, but none of them support Linux". Maybe this dude breaks down and buys the CD, or maybe he goes and downloads it.

As far as filters go, remember, Limewire is not a service like Napster was. It's just a piece of software, and there are many such pieces of software available that do the same thing. And they aren't hard to modify. Have you ever heard of Kazaa? Well, the original Kazaa was packed with spyware, so one of the Kazaa users decided to crack it open and pull out all the spyware. He then offered his new Kazaa (called Kazaa Lite) to whomever wanted it. It wasn't tough, and it would be equally as easy to remove any filters.

I don't have a good answer as to how to fix this problem (if I did, I'd be rich, heh) but I think a step in the right direction would be to make it easier for people to buy music online without dictating what operating system they must run, without dictating which web browser they must run, and without making them download and install special software.

For example, Linux has a media player called Amarok that has a built-in online music store (magnatunes.com). It's all independent artists, and you can sample any songs you want before you buy. And you don't even have to install Amarok to get to it, as it's all available in whatever web browser you wish to use by going to the website. Very straightforward and very easy, and it's been doing really well, as the music selection has increased tenfold since I first started using it.

Also look at what Radiohead just did back in October. They released their own CD online, and let people buy it straight from their site. Maybe it's the way of the future. Who knows?

Honestly, there are a lot of brilliant people in the record industry, so someone has GOT to be able to figure out a way to work around this problem without making enemies of music fans. If you can make it more attractive for people to buy music online than it is to steal it (better quality, good selection, ease of use, etc) then they'll stop downloading. I mean, the price is already right (a buck per song? Maybe less? Who can't afford that?) so there's got to be some other limiting factor, and I think it's the other things I've mentioned.

[Bonoho]

Originally posted by Harry Vest Shut up Paul...you stinkin rich ###!!! Geez, of all the things to complain about in this stage of your "career". Just shut up already pal.

I'm with you on this one. Fans will buy the music. Curious fans have a chance to hear the songs, which will most likely make them want to buy the cd or downloads for their music players. I'm getting so frustrated with U2 these days.

[MrBrau1]

Originally posted by Bonoho I'm with you on this one. Fans will buy the music. Curious fans have a chance to hear the songs, which will most likely make them want to buy the cd or downloads for their music players. I'm getting so frustrated with U2 these days.

If downloading leads to sales how are CD sales down year, after year.

All this exploring should be leading to an explosion of new cd purchases.

[cydewaze]

Originally posted by MrBrau1 If downloading leads to sales how are CD sales down year, after year.

Because every year, online sales are up by the same amount that CD sales are down. People are buying more from iTunes and less from physical stores.

But the record companies are still losing money because online songs cost less than CDs, and when you buy online, you can buy one song for 99 cents instead of having to buy the whole CD for $12.99 just to get that one song.

10 songs from 10 different albums on iTunes is ten bucks. Ten CDs are $120+. It's a big difference. The record companies are upset because if everyone switches to online purchases, their bottom like drops, even if it's all done 100% legally. I think they've convinced themselves that every pirated online music file is a lost sale, but I don't think that's realistic. If they stopped music piracy tomorrow, I don't think they'd be back up to their old profits.

The way people listen to music is changing, and they need to adapt to the current market. That's just the way it goes.

[MrBrau1]

Originally posted by cydewaze Because every year, online sales are up by the same amount that CD sales are down. People are buying more from iTunes and less from physical stores. But the record companies are still losing money because online songs cost less than CDs, and when you buy online, you can buy one song for 99 cents instead of having to buy the whole CD for $12.99 just to get that one song. 10 songs from 10 different albums on iTunes is ten bucks. Ten CDs are $120+. It's a big difference. The record companies are upset because if everyone switches to online purchases, their bottom like drops, even if it's all done 100% legally. I think they've convinced themselves that every pirated online music file is a lost sale, but I don't think that's realistic. If they stopped music piracy tomorrow, I don't think they'd be back up to their old profits. The way people listen to music is changing, and they need to adapt to the current market. That's just the way it goes.

Do you really think someone steals an album at 192 kbps with no DRM, then goes and buys a copy protected version at 128kbps?