Comments on: Bono vs The internet

By: The Nightwatchman

The Nightwatchman — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 13:30:50 +0000

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.

By: Justin Engels

Justin Engels — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 08:39:45 +0000

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.

By: Gerry

Gerry — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 06:20:17 +0000

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.

By: Benzol

Benzol — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 09:27:32 +0000

@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.

By: Gerry

Gerry — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 19:39:28 +0000

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?

By: Michael Liermann

Michael Liermann — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 16:54:57 +0000

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.

By: Sipho Hlongwane

Sipho Hlongwane — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 10:27:30 +0000

24 was Bono’s idea, Marty. Rather revealing, isn’t it? When he thinks of siphoning series from the web, he thinks 24.

By: marty

marty — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 08:33:01 +0000

surely one would download something else over than that 24 drivel!

By: Andrew

Andrew — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 06:55:14 +0000

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.

By: Richard Catto

Richard Catto — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 06:53:14 +0000

“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.