QuoteWasn't that written by Bono, the horrendously overpaid tax dodging dwarf?
This is taken from a recent new york times article. What are peoples views on the merits of the argument.
Intellectual Property Developer
Caution! The only thing protecting the movie and TV industries from the fate that has befallen music and indeed the newspaper business is the size of the files. The immutable laws of bandwidth tell us we’re just a few years away from being able to download an entire season of “24” in 24 seconds. Many will expect to get it free.
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.
We’re the post office, they tell us; who knows what’s in the brown-paper packages? But we know from America’s noble effort to stop child pornography, not to mention China’s ignoble effort to suppress online dissent, that it’s perfectly possible to track content. Perhaps movie moguls will succeed where musicians and their moguls have failed so far, and rally America to defend the most creative economy in the world, where music, film, TV and video games help to account for nearly 4 percent of gross domestic product. Note to self: Don’t get over-rewarded rock stars on this bully pulpit, or famous actors; find the next Cole Porter, if he/she hasn’t already left to write jingles.
In Trap we trust
Wasn't that written by Bono, the horrendously overpaid tax dodging dwarf?
I did not put who wrote it up because I wanted to see the merits of the argument and do they stand up on their own.Originally Posted by dahamsta
Last edited by dahamsta; 04/01/2010 at 3:14 PM. Reason: Fixing QUOTE
In Trap we trust
Bono's opinion is never worth jack, so no.
Fine I'll make no further reference to him and will stick to the merits of what he's saying -and there are some -but they all have perfectly legitimate counterpoints as well.I did not put who wrote it up because I wanted to see the merits of the argument and do they stand up on their own.
I'll preface my comments by saying I'm a songwriter, musician and recording artist myself by the way. Just for transparency sake. I don't download or file swap but then again I never bought records or CDs in any great volume either.
That which can happen -will happen. Especially when it comes to all things technology related.Caution! The only thing protecting the movie and TV industries from the fate that has befallen music and indeed the newspaper business is the size of the files..
'Many' have been reared in a culture where they've been file swapping since they could drag a mouse. Music files are of little fiscal value to them ...and if Moore McDowell* were here to give us all a lecture in right wing economics (is there any other kind?) he'd tell us anything, anything at all, is only worth what the market is willing to pay for it. He'd also tell us that finance is like water and will take the path of least resistance and let all in it's way be damned. Accepting this as fact because I'm a good little Irish person who defers to the McDowells and O'Learys of the world I move on. So the question ultimately comes round not to why the kids see music, in whatever format, as pretty much valueless -but rather who rendered it so? and why?The immutable laws of bandwidth tell us we’re just a few years away from being able to download an entire season of “24” in 24 seconds. Many will expect to get it free.
...well y'know what -maybe they shouldn't expect to live off ticket, t-shirts OR record sales.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 —
Maybe they should get a regular salaried job and supplement their income with what little they derive from doing something they unanimously profess to love.
Maybe what's been happening through the 20th century where often quite large amounts of wealth were concentrated on often quite modestly talented people was in itself a bit abstract and that situation is perhaps in the process of righting itself somehow. If it were to ultimatly lead to some greater spread of the jam, some democratisation of the music industry -it might just be a good thing.
But we're then told "part-time" artists won't be able to function as such because they won't be able to tour their records. By and large bands can't tour anyway because the major media groups sponsor and facilitate a growing slew of these cursed festivals in an attempt to maximise market share for their (tiny minority of) major label artists and squeeze the independent, smaller operators in the process.
This has had the effect of diminishing and degrading touring circuits and is an ever decreasing circle as the numbers attending decline and the "culture" of regular attendance is eroded.
The winners in all this are the big labels who get the multiple plugs for their headline artists in the run up to festivals, the fortnights bounce in sales after AND they don't have to pay tour support to anyone.
...at best/worst all that's changed there is the name of the hijacker. Ask a record company to explain why it is their artists get 10% (if they're lucky) of the revenue they generate. Ask a large record retailer to explain a 3+1 deal.and the people this reverse Robin Hooding benefits are rich service providers, whose swollen profits perfectly mirror the lost receipts of the music business.
I'd not be surprised if a lot more is known about what goes in out up and down to our terminals already. Just because I'm paranoid....We’re the post office, they tell us; who knows what’s in the brown-paper packages? But we know from America’s noble effort to stop child pornography, not to mention China’s ignoble effort to suppress online dissent, that it’s perfectly possible to track content.
The 'moguls' of the record companies are largely reponsible for their own demise. Their sheer, brazen greed when it came to formats and re-formats ....the lure and the promise of 100% fidelity recordings led them ultimately to where they are today. It's bittersweet that I'm flushed down down the toilet with them but 1. I was never gonna shift much anyway and 2. the most important thing is THEY'RE in the toilet.Perhaps movie moguls will succeed where musicians and their moguls have failed so far, and rally America to defend the most creative economy in the world, where music, film, TV and video games help to account for nearly 4 percent of gross domestic product.
Not to self: buy Bono some dulcolax. (sorry ...couldn't resistNote to self: Don’t get over-rewarded rock stars on this bully pulpit, or famous actors; find the next Cole Porter, if he/she hasn’t already left to write jingles.)
Last edited by Lionel Ritchie; 04/01/2010 at 1:29 PM.
" I wish to God that someone would be able to block out the voices in my head for five minutes, the voices that scream, over and over again: "Why do they come to me to die?"
Record Companies have got what they've deserved. If this is the way TV and movie companies go, so what. It's interesting that it's only the big bands that seemed arsed about file sharing. A genuine question, is it wider and there is a grassroots movement against it and it just doesn't get coverage, or is my impression of new bands embracing the new environment correct?
If I acquire something (music, film or TV) that I like I will generally try and buy it, if I can find it at a reasonable price. However, even now, what the media companies consider reasonable is clearly different to what I do.
If you attack me with stupidity, I'll be forced to defend myself with sarcasm.
It's a very weak argument. Adam's right to be dismissive - it's been discussed to death elsewhere, and the only constant I've seen is that the content industries are willing to lie, bully and bribe their way into legal protection of their business model.
I might quibble with the time-line, but it's more or less true that we'll eventually be able to download video that quickly, and have the hard drive space to handle more movies than we can watch. But, what exactly is the fate which has befallen the music and newspaper industries? Online music piracy is rampant, but single sales remain very healthy. Album sales have been decimated by the fact that people can now buy the good songs and leave the filler, but that's not a piracy issue - rather, it's an example of how digital distribution has benefited consumers.The only thing protecting the movie and TV industries from the fate that has befallen music and indeed the newspaper business is the size of the files... we’re just a few years away from being able to download an entire season of “24” in 24 seconds. Many will expect to get it free.
Meanwhile, newspapers have been hurt by the fact that they are essentially massively redundant on a global market... ironically a fate that the likes of Bono has already brought to the music world with the global distribution of his music marginalising local artists who wouldn't have had to compete with him in the past.
Four points here, all of them extremely questionable: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.
- File-sharing hurts the creators. As far as I can tell, the reality is that file-sharing acts as a kind of advertising. Music sales have remained healthy - the rise of filesharing has not been mirrored in a fall in music sales. Studies have found that heavy file-sharers typically either possess large libraries of legally purchased music, or could not have afforded to buy the music anyway.
- Particularly new acts. This is totally false. Digital file-sharing lowers the barrier of entry to the market. Whereas in the past, a new band would have to (a) be signed to a label or (b) cough up thousands to get a private run of their CD. Now, we have things like Gnarles Barkley's Crazy taking off due to word of mouth about a demo on the internet. Meanwhile, no small band has ever made their bread and butter from music sales - after manufacturing, advertising, distribution and other costs, management fees and other sharks' cuts, their cut of the profits is typically tiny. Instead, they make their money from live concerts and merchandising.
- Service providers are profiteering. Nonsense. Internet access has not been heavily driven by file-sharing. If anything, those customers are considered a nuisance, as they use more bandwidth than the average.
- The music industry has lost money. This is the most common claim made, usually backed up with a claim that every single which has ever been pirated would have been purchased if there was no file-sharing, and completely ignoring the free advertising provided.
Our profiteering is threatened - quickly, government, spend money propping up our business model. Those efforts are all spotty, exactly like the efforts of the music and other industries to suppress file-sharing. This displays complete ignorance of basic privacy rights and technology.We’re the post office, they tell us; who knows what’s in the brown-paper packages? But we know from America’s noble effort to stop child pornography, not to mention China’s ignoble effort to suppress online dissent, that it’s perfectly possible to track content.
Last edited by John83; 04/01/2010 at 3:34 PM.
You can't spell failure without FAI
Dahamsta this is the current affairs thread surely you should back your argument up a bit more than that rather than make it personal against one person. I think you want the Current Affairs forum to be much better than one line comments that slag a certain individual.
In Trap we trust
That's my opinion NeilMcD. Bono's opinions are worthless, so I stated that. There my argument ends.
Some interesting graphs here: http://labs.timesonline.co.uk/blog/2...-file-sharing/
You can't spell failure without FAI
I would argue that nobodies opinions are worthless and certainly not someone who comes into contact and has so much experience of the music industry for so long. Of course his opinions are biased in favour of one area but then again, all statements are biased and subjective. But to say they are worthless is very simplistic. On first reading his opinions on this seem to be plausible and reasonable but like anythng else the devil is in the detail, and I was hoping that those on the other side of the fence and who know way more about this than me would enlighten me, maybe thats selfish of me, but hey what are forums only an avenue to discuss such things. I was just a little dissappointed that you focused on who wrote what was said and dismissed it on the basis of that rather than what was being said. I could go into the tax dodging remark but I wont, but again its a rather simplistic view of a much more complicated issue.
Yeah very interesting and not really surprising to me anyway. I have always felt that I supported the artist more by going to live gigs and I try to spend the money on live gigs rather than albums nowadays and probably go to more gigs as a result of hearing lots of music that Iwould not have heard. However that is only anecdotal. I would be interested to see further analysis on the aspect of heritage acts, in that the likes of U2 will do well out of the new environment but that new bands do not do so well. I think if I was the standard customer I think new bands would favour well in this new world but I am not sure I am.
Last edited by dahamsta; 04/01/2010 at 5:43 PM.
In Trap we trust
I had already read what he said in another location, which is how I knew it was him. It was garbage the first time I read it, and garbage when I was unfortunate enough to read it again here. In that, it's just like everything else I've ever seen or heard him utter. I didn't think it was that difficult a concept to understand. The man talks rubbish, in my opinion. End of story.
Read the thread title and thought it was an oxymoron....
...figured maybe Mick Wallace but who else..?
Its an interesting insight into bonos mindest. I mean how much money does he have? Yet he uses the soapbox of NY Times to moan about loss of profits in the music industry!! Greedy.
The one thing I rarely if ever download illegally is music. if i want a song I usually just use itunes. 99c seems reasonable enough price to pay. If there was a decent album I would buy it. If there was....
I meant to add: the tax dodging issue isn't complicated in the slightest. The flawed artists' exemption was rightly capped, U2 didn't like having to pay more than the ridiculously low amount of tax they pay in the country that they leverage daily to their own end, and took the ball home with them. I would prefer it they took themselves too. It's quite simple: Greed, pure and true
.
It only applies to their artistic production so in their case it is royalties on albums. There publishing compnay which looks after that was moved to Holland. Everything else in their businness they pay tax on in Ireland. As less and less money is made from the sale of music, it has become actually a small part of their income in percentage terms. They will still play tax on all their income from concert sales, t shirt sales and any other bit of money they earn, in Ireland. In addition a lot of their staff and crew are Irish and pay their tax here, so there is an awful lot of good and lots of money they have contributed to the Irish tax system for them to be accused of simlly of been tax dodging dwarf. LIke a lot of the companies that set up here in Ireland on teh basis of a low corporation tax, we can hardly give out when one of our companies goes to holland to do the same.
In Trap we trust
That may be true Neil, but it looks awful even for the members of the band that don't choose to lecture about how we spend our tax revenue.
If you attack me with stupidity, I'll be forced to defend myself with sarcasm.
I agree the optics of it are not good but the reporting on it has been terrible also. lIke most thinks the facts are forgotton in favour of the story and the agenda.
In Trap we trust
The optics? I hope that was an attempt at humour.
It doesn't matter what percentage is involved, they did it because they were going to have to pay more in tax - but still less than most countries - as if their earnings weren't enough already. It's greed no matter how you try to justify it.
Last edited by dahamsta; 10/01/2010 at 3:48 AM.
Well I am going to pay less tax by buying my bike under the bike to work scheme so therefore will pay less tax as a result. Is that greed. Most people in society pay as little tax as they can which is legal. There are people who have never paid tax in their life giving out about Bono and U2 being tax dodging even though the taxes from U2 have paid have ran into the millions over the years. Also the key word you use is earnings, which comes from the term to earn something. That is their money, its as if they did not work to get it, it is their money like my earnings is my money and the same for yourself. Just because they have loads of money does not mean they should not try to make the company as profitable as possible using legal means. Where it runs into problems is when you juxtapose that with Bono's views on the governments contribution to developing countries.
Last edited by NeilMcD; 10/01/2010 at 1:10 PM.
In Trap we trust
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks