The interwebs were buzzing angrily yesterday because of something Bono* said. Bono, remember him? He’s the frontman for that famous Irish rock band U2. In a recent op-ed piece for the New York Times, he suggested that the net should be policed to a certain extent to stop what he dubbed reverse Robin Hooding. He wrote: “A decade’s worth of music file-sharing and swiping has made clear that the people it hurts are the creators — in this case, the young, fledgling songwriters who can’t live off ticket and T-shirt sales like the least sympathetic among us — and the people this reverse Robin Hooding benefits are rich service providers, whose swollen profits perfectly mirror the lost receipts of the music business.”
His opinions drew criticism from across the board, some of it sanguine, most of it less than so. Most pointed out that the idea was infeasible, both from an economic and practical point of view. They argued that even a repressive government like China has failed to completely monitor net traffic, and that it isn’t entirely true that online file sharing has killed off the music industry. True, the argument that free online music is hurting artists is hard to swallow, coming from a wealthy rocker like Bono. And it probably wasn’t a smart move to use Chinese totalitarianism as an example of how the internet might be curbed to benefit the free world, though China has not only monitored and censored the net to crush dissidence.
Rupert Murdoch caused some grinding of teeth as well a few months ago when he threatened to hide his news sites from Google. He claimed that Google was effectively stealing his copyrights by organising content that had originated from News Corporations sites, then selling advertising against it. Google and other search sites have changed the way news is distributed by making themselves the news destinations of choice. Murdoch doesn’t like this at all. He suggests that by hiding content from Google, consumers might be convinced to dip into their pockets to gain access his websites.
Personally, I think that Murdoch is a shrivelled wine sack who should have been put to pasture years ago, but he does happen to have a point. The current news distribution model is unsustainable because the people who lose out the most are the producers and writers those news articles. Going cold turkey on Google may not be the answer, the consensus does seem to be that the status quo cannot be maintained forever.
Both Murdoch and Bono speak to a deeper issue here. Ever since its birth over 15 years ago, the internet as grown at an unfathomable rate and is now a gigantic behemoth that devours everything in its path. Copyrights, child protection laws, intellectual property, all these ideas have been sacrificed on the altar of “that free forum”. A determined person with the right set of tools could gain access to anything — anything, d’ye hear — that is online. The unrestricted flow of information on the internet has gutted the music and news industries. As Bono hinted in his column, Hollywood could be next. The only thing stopping you from downloading the entire season of 24 is bandwidth, and that problem is going to go away soon.
It seems that efforts to curb the devouring leviathan that the internet has turned into have finally begun. It’s a shame that the faces of this new movement are a drooling onanist in the form of Murdoch and that filthy rich rock star Bono.
*Real name Paul David Hewson. Yeah, I’d have gone with Bono as well. His name belongs on a plumber.
the only thing stopping me from downloading the entire season of 24 is just how crappy it is
.
anyway, i kind of agree that search engines are profiting from the work of others by selling advertising off content that was originated from elsewhere.
funny how big gus like Bono, Madonna and Metallica are always saying “it hurts the little guy”.
did anyone ever ask the little guy? Read Janis Ian’s comments here,
http://www.janisian.com/article-internet_debacle.html
The only thing stopping you from downloading the entire season of 24 is bandwidth, and that problem is going to go away soon. —— Yeah that problem does not exist at all in a proper 1st world country, man I miss downloading 24, but this year I have cancelled DSTV and got myself an uncapped 4 m/bit line in its place, now I can choose what I want to watch, when and never have to hire a video again either… yipppeeee
@me hahaha
The internet has changed the world?? Not really. Internet has changed access to information? Yes! Internet has opened the world for the good and the bad and the indifferent.
The news agencies, news printers, music makers and music distributors have to change their business models.
A creative music maker will continue to make music. They just have to stand out more than in the days that we were fed tons of rubbish on a 33 record. The real ones still get stadia full of people. Not just thanks to their publicity agents.
Why should a CD cost us R200 if one can download, copy and give to friends for the price of a CD (= R8)?
We are entering a era where copy right and patents are under pressure. History has taught us that these “rights” have been exploited. The public has now the means to defeat those practices.
Why should we pay royalties to the Presley or Sinatra or Jackson families? The guys are gone! No more new music. Let’s have it for R 8.– instead of R200.-
Newsmakers? Zuma or Malema are not paid for generating news. Why should I pay more for it then the costs of distribution? Advertisers do not necessary need newspapers. Why should I?
Opinion pieces? Interesting at times, but we have bloggers. At least you can respond with your own opinion.
The Internet also publishes people’s work where nothing else would; it promotes talent none would hear of without it and many are charmed to see their names in print on-screen, in lieu of in the printed word. You can’t have it all ways…
“The only thing stopping you from downloading … is bandwidth”
Actually, nothing is stopping me from downloading most things I want, because sufficient bandwidth is available right now.
But I agree with you that it’s only going to get easier and cheaper and faster.
Mm, and how did Bono get to be a filthy rich rock star? Did he pick it up when it fell off the back of a truck? Bono has been well rewarded for his efforts. It may never happen on the same scale again, but that seems to be OK with you guys. No more “filthy rich rock stars”. Then again, what would you have to write about? Something substantial, god forbid.
surely one would download something else over than that 24 drivel!
24 was Bono’s idea, Marty. Rather revealing, isn’t it? When he thinks of siphoning series from the web, he thinks 24.
Dear Bono: the reason why your band’s albums no longer sell as much as they used to is not that people use the internet to pirate them; it’s that nothing your band’s released since “Achtung Baby” has been worth the plastic needed to press it to CD.
Benzol – I wanna respectfully disagree. I make my living through copyrighted items – I’d hate to lose my living because the cost of materials (A CD, in your example) is less than the cost of the intellectual property ON the CD.
I’m a photographer, and I make a living selling images (Both fine art and stock). Its VERY easy to steal a photo off the internet. So you can now use my product for free – whereas I’ve spent hundreds of thousands on equipment that needs to be repaid and any given photo-shoot puts me back at least a grand? Erm, no, sorry, does not work that way.
However, I WILL put my photos up for the world to see – low res, watermarked, “comp” images. That way I make a name, I get recognition, and people approach me (or my agencies) for copies, and I get paid. Like my photo? Download it, send it to a friend! But they are not “usable”. That’s how one makes a name without destroying your property.
The internet is a wonderful marketing tool – but no intellectual property should ever be free.
I downloaded (past tense) lots of music, and I discovered many new artists and guess what – I went out and bought their CD’s.
I’m a re-born capitalist, after all. And just because my work (or any digital media) is easily and cheaply duplicated electronically, it does not mean I should not profit from my work, no?
@Gerry: “I’m a photographer, and I make a living selling images” …so do I, but only part time. I can afford to give some of my images away for free. I do use the same protection for images I do make public. Low resolution and watermarking.
Music guys have the same technology available to them. One does not get Hifi quality from Youtube.
Text? The content of a publicised dissertation is a different matter all together. Many University professors make a good living out of reworking and publishing dissertations of their students under their own name without referencing. Their name makes it newsworthy, the student name would not. Is it ethical? NO. Can we stop it? Not under the current practice.
If one puts an idea, picture, song in the public domain it does become public property. The task to protect this “product” is on the owner.The ultimate protection is “not publishing” which would prevent you from making a living of your creative mind.
Interesting point of view, Benzol – “If one puts an idea, picture, song in the public domain it does become public property”
I’m not sure I agree with that… I’ll have to think it over.
As a distributor of CDs and DVDs of mostly local artists, I believe that artists should be rewarded for their work. To expect someone to put time, effort, talent and capital into a project and not be paid for it is a ridiculous concept- would Benzol accept not to be paid for what ever he does for a living? Furthermore why should royalties die with the artist? If Benzol were to purchase an investment building , for instance, should the tenants live rent free after his demise, rather than pay to his heirs? I agree that the retail price of R200 a Cd is excessive and in fact promotes pirating, but R8- come on!!! A Steers burger costs up to R30 these days, and is a lot less value than a CD which gives pleasure time and time again. The average wholesale price of a CD which we distribute is R45 and retails for about R80.
This gives the artist around R20 after manufacture and we find that at this pricing sales are good.
Sipho, Bono is ‘filthy rich’ because he is sucessful and why scorn that? As far as i know his wealth hasn’t been created out of crime, environmental abuse, political manipulation, or on the sweat of others. Download by all means, but pay the artist.
It comes as no surprise that Bono has sided with the police state… again. This is the same uber-wealthy pseudo-leftist who at the G8 Summit in Genoa stood alongside Russian President Vladimir Putin – whose forces were lobbing thousands of artillery shells every day into Grozny – and had the cheek to denounce the trashing of a few bank windows by legitimately aggrieved anti-capitalist protestors.