how-to block ads
|
Comments on news posted 2008-06-05 14:11:05: U2's long-time manager Paul McGuinness blames Silicon Valley's "hippy values" (see his post at the band's website) for the collapse of the music industry. He has long argued that ISPs and all technology companies should pay the music industry. ..
| |
 satellite68
join:2007-04-11
Louisville, KY
| Support your local/independent artists You know, the young folks riding around the country in a shitty van, playing club after club, selling their homemade CD's and tapes and tshirts. They're still out there, putting out quality products for people to enjoy.
The U2's of the world can all take a hike. The only $200 concert ticket I'll purchase is a Led Zeppelin reunion, and only because it's a once in a lifetime thing - U2 could be playing for free across the street and I wouldn't go.
Oh wait-U2 wouldn't play for free, EVER.  | |
| | 
Edge1
Workin' Ta Live
Premium
join:2006-03-01
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| Re: Support your local/independent artists said by satellite68  :Oh wait-U2 wouldn't play for free, EVER. Well, I wouldn't say EVER: »gothamist.com/2004/11/22/u2s_fre···oday.php
There have been others also.
Ironically this story is about a guy who, by definition, has made his money off the back of artists, so he truly is an ass-douche-fuckwad. No argument there. At all. The music industry continues to fuck itself, and the Paul McGuinness'es of the world ain't helpin.
I know nobody gives a shit and there's a lot of misinformed U2 hate goin on in here, but what the hell, I'll say this: if you ever watch or listen to a Bono interview he repeatedly and readily admits that they are lucky bastards (to be in the position they are in).
And, unlike a lot of other celebrity mouthpieces, they actually take action and do things to try to create a better world. Bono leverages his position and visibility to the hilt. Yes he can be boorish, seemingly overly self-important, and has a self-described messianic complex, but the guy does give a shit.
»www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHrqUvTpvjE
»www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUdrYDk8···=related
»www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UVa8M0Q···=related
Not even scratching the surface on what he/they have done. | |
| | | 
NANCY S
@comcast.net
| Re: Support your local/independent artists Lets get the facts straight. There are artist and then there are managers and music companies. Come on folks, there is a difference.
I’ve quoted several sources in my research in helping me form this opinion, so if I have broken anyone’s copyright law…SUE ME! – Nancy S.
Touring, more than ever, is where the money is: The vast majority of artists in our Top Thirty made the bulk of their cash on the road in 2005. Album royalties pale in comparison. "The music business has changed," says Paul McGuinness, longtime manager of U2, who came out on top last year, taking in an estimated $154.2 million after selling out more than 100 arena and stadium shows around the world. "Our recording income is not insignificant, but it's less than we make from touring. The figures used to be closer together." U2 make an estimated $15 million in advances for each album they release, plus additional royalties; they grossed $139 million on the road in North America in 2005 -- including as much as $150,000 per night in merchandise sales. Touring is simply far more profitable than selling CDs, explains Jim Guerinot, who manages Gwen Stefani (No. 16, $23.9 million). "With CDs, you're making between fifteen and twenty-five percent royalty," he says. "On the road you get a royalty of eighty-five to ninety percent" [from ticket sales].
Rock's Top Thirty Moneymakers (Rolling Stone Magazine)
1. U2, $154.2 million
2. The Rolling Stones, $92.5 million
3. Eagles, $63.2 million
4. Paul McCartney, $56 million
5. Elton John, $48.9 million
6. Neil Diamond, $44.7 million
7. Jimmy Buffett, $44 million
8. Rod Stewart, $40.3 million
9. Dave Matthews Band, $39.6 million
10. Celine Dion, $38.5 million
11. Kenny Chesney, $31.5 million
12. Green Day, $31 million
13. Coldplay, $30.1 million
14. Destiny's Child, $24.8 million
15. Diddy, $24.3 million
16. Gwen Stefani, $23.9 million
17. Toby Keith, $22.2 million
18. Motley Crue, $22 million
19. 50 Cent, $19.7 million
20. Bruce Springsteen, $19.6 million
21. Eminem, $17.8 million
22. Jay-Z, $17.5 million
23. Barry Manilow, $17.2 million
24. Hilary Duff, $17.1 million
25. Kanye West, $16.9 million
26. Dr. Dre, $16.9 million
27. Rascal Flatts, $16.3 million
28. Aerosmith, $16.3 million
29. Bon Jovi, $15.8 million
30. Tom Petty, $14.9 million
The list was compiled using interviews with record executives, managers, lawyers and agents. It uses figures from Nielsen SoundScan, Pollstar, the Recording Industry Association of America, Amusement Business/Billboard and other sources. Net figures reflect performers' earnings after expenses have been deducted and managers, agents and lawyers have taken their cuts.
But the online song downloading service that recently expanded to Europe has become valuable to Apple because it leads to iPod sales. Download sale revenue for the fourth quarter should be about $2.1 billion.
In 2007, Music Earnings Report concludes that file-sharing is responsible for the entire decline in record sales that has occurred, and that except for file-sharing there would have been an increase in sales since 1999 instead of the strong decline. Internet blogs when contributors state that finding (a positive association between the number of P2P downloads and CD album purchases for the sub-sample of downloader’s) is trivial and can be explained away by the fact that people with a high interest in music, do both: purchase CD albums and download P2P files.
Overall earnings of the industry are on the increase, not on the decrease (PWC, 2007). The broader music sector, is now worth more than $US 130 billion globally. Its economic importance extends far further than the recorded music sector, ranging from radio advertising revenue, record company revenues, musical instrument sale, live music sector, music retail sectors, portable digital payers, to music publishing (IFPI, 2007). The so called "demise of the music industry" is highly contentious; indeed and completely disingenuous, for example, Price Waterhouse Cooper argues that the media industry, including music, is in a strongest position since 2000; and predicts a 7.3 per cent growth annually up to $1.8 trillion in 2009 (PWC, 2005). While sales of recorded music (physical retail) have been on a declining trend since 2002, the sales of digital content have been on a notable increase (by 60 per cent since 2006). Some music companies and musicians, hold file sharing uniquely responsible for the decline in record sales i.e., largely unauthorized downloading, is basically erroneous and far too simplistic. Moreover, such an assertion indicates a lack of understanding of the dynamics of the current process of creative destruction and transformation to the digital paradigm in the "recorded" music industry(in other words they charge to much for a CD, which on average costs music companies 8 cents to manufacture). While record sales have declined, that does not imply that the entire industry is in the decline. Indeed, other segments have risen in volume and in earnings, more than offsetting the decline in record /CD sales.
There is no empirical basis for such a facetious assertion that downloading or P2P is the ultimate reason. Additionally, there may be many other reasons for decline in record sales (the white elephant in the room), other than increase in file sharing (e.g., transformation to the digital technological paradigm, excessively high prices of CDs, i.e., excessive mark up, standardized quality, decline in purchasing power for luxury goods, lower degrees of choice and diversity, etc).
File sharing and downloading not only increases market exposure but significantly reduces marketing and advertising costs. File sharing, as the imminent dominant mode of music consumption, is proving to be more "efficient" than simply purchasing pre-recorded music. Owing to diffusion of technical change, it is far cheaper, as it reduces the costs of intermediation and allows consumer’s greater choice over listening patterns; facilitating the growth of demand-driven patterns of consumption thereby enabling greater consumer participation, and more interactive modes of consumption. Global consumers as well as new producers can benefit greatly from the new P2P file sharing technologies that should be facilitated and legalized, rather than hindered.
Institute for Creative Industries and Innovation
Queensland University of Technology
Forbes Magazine
Rolling Stone Magazine
NYU | |
| 
yuutomo
The Wonder Kitter
Premium
join:2001-08-27
Missoula, MT | UWhat?? guess they are the new "Metallica". | |
|
brando99
@rr.com
thumbs down from:
dentman42
| sanity for once First of all, the article distorts McGuiness's message. But that's OK, none of you bloggers understand the first thing about freedom, fairness, property rights, responsibility, blah, blah. McGuiness is the only sane voice I've heard opining on the current state of chaos in the music world. Read the speech. »www.u2.com/news/ | |
|
An Actual Fan
@comcast.net
|  Wake up music industry....Your consumer has!
Touring, more than ever, is where the money is: The vast majority of artists in our Top Thirty made the bulk of their cash on the road in 2005. Album royalties pale in comparison. "The music business has changed," says Paul McGuinness, longtime manager of U2, who came out on top last year, taking in an estimated $154.2 million after selling out more than 100 arena and stadium shows around the world. "Our recording income is not insignificant, but it's less than we make from touring. The figures used to be closer together." U2 make an estimated $15 million in advances for each album they release, plus additional royalties; they grossed $139 million on the road in North America in 2005 -- including as much as $150,000 per night in merchandise sales. Touring is simply far more profitable than selling CDs, explains Jim Guerinot, who manages Gwen Stefani (No. 16, $23.9 million). "With CDs, you're making between fifteen and twenty-five percent royalty," he says. "On the road you get a royalty of eighty-five to ninety percent" [from ticket sales].
Rock's Top Thirty Moneymakers (Rolling Stone Magazine)
1. U2, $154.2 million
2. The Rolling Stones, $92.5 million
3. Eagles, $63.2 million
4. Paul McCartney, $56 million
5. Elton John, $48.9 million
6. Neil Diamond, $44.7 million
7. Jimmy Buffett, $44 million
8. Rod Stewart, $40.3 million
9. Dave Matthews Band, $39.6 million
10. Celine Dion, $38.5 million
11. Kenny Chesney, $31.5 million
12. Green Day, $31 million
13. Coldplay, $30.1 million
14. Destiny's Child, $24.8 million
15. Diddy, $24.3 million
16. Gwen Stefani, $23.9 million
17. Toby Keith, $22.2 million
18. Motley Crue, $22 million
19. 50 Cent, $19.7 million
20. Bruce Springsteen, $19.6 million
21. Eminem, $17.8 million
22. Jay-Z, $17.5 million
23. Barry Manilow, $17.2 million
24. Hilary Duff, $17.1 million
25. Kanye West, $16.9 million
26. Dr. Dre, $16.9 million
27. Rascal Flatts, $16.3 million
28. Aerosmith, $16.3 million
29. Bon Jovi, $15.8 million
30. Tom Petty, $14.9 million
The list was compiled using interviews with record executives, managers, lawyers and agents. It uses figures from Nielsen SoundScan, Pollstar, the Recording Industry Association of America, Amusement Business/Billboard and other sources. Net figures reflect performers' earnings after expenses have been deducted and managers, agents and lawyers have taken their cuts.
But the online song downloading service that recently expanded to Europe has become valuable to Apple because it leads to iPod sales. Download sale revenue for the fourth quarter should be about $2.1 billion.
In 2007, Music Earnings Report concludes that file-sharing is responsible for the entire decline in record sales that has occurred, and that except for file-sharing there would have been an increase in sales since 1999 instead of the strong decline. Internet blogs when contributors state that finding (a positive association between the number of P2P downloads and CD album purchases for the sub-sample of downloader’s) is trivial and can be explained away by the fact that people with a high interest in music, do both: purchase CD albums and download P2P files.
Overall earnings of the industry are on the increase, not on the decrease (PWC, 2007). The broader music sector, is now worth more than $US 130 billion globally. Its economic importance extends far further than the recorded music sector, ranging from radio advertising revenue, record company revenues, musical instrument sale, live music sector, music retail sectors, portable digital payers, to music publishing (IFPI, 2007). The so called "demise of the music industry" is highly contentious; indeed and completely disingenuous, for example, Price Waterhouse Cooper argues that the media industry, including music, is in a strongest position since 2000; and predicts a 7.3 per cent growth annually up to $1.8 trillion in 2009 (PWC, 2005). While sales of recorded music (physical retail) have been on a declining trend since 2002, the sales of digital content have been on a notable increase (by 60 per cent since 2006). Some music companies and musicians, hold file sharing uniquely responsible for the decline in record sales i.e., largely unauthorized downloading, is basically erroneous and far too simplistic. Moreover, such an assertion indicates a lack of understanding of the dynamics of the current process of creative destruction and transformation to the digital paradigm in the "recorded" music industry(in other words they charge to much for a CD, which on average costs music companies 8 cents to manufacture). While record sales have declined, that does not imply that the entire industry is in the decline. Indeed, other segments have risen in volume and in earnings, more than offsetting the decline in record /CD sales.
There is no empirical basis for such a facetious assertion that downloading or P2P is the ultimate reason. Additionally, there may be many other reasons for decline in record sales (the white elephant in the room), other than increase in file sharing (e.g., transformation to the digital technological paradigm, excessively high prices of CDs, i.e., excessive mark up, standardized quality, decline in purchasing power for luxury goods, lower degrees of choice and diversity, etc).
File sharing and downloading not only increases market exposure but significantly reduces marketing and advertising costs. File sharing, as the imminent dominant mode of music consumption, is proving to be more "efficient" than simply purchasing pre-recorded music. Owing to diffusion of technical change, it is far cheaper, as it reduces the costs of intermediation and allows consumer’s greater choice over listening patterns; facilitating the growth of demand-driven patterns of consumption thereby enabling greater consumer participation, and more interactive modes of consumption. Global consumers as well as new producers can benefit greatly from the new P2P file sharing technologies that should be facilitated and legalized, rather than hindered.
Institute for Creative Industries and Innovation
Queensland University of Technology
Forbes Magazine
Rolling Stone Magazine
NYU | |
| 
Dragasoni
We're All Mad Here
Premium
join:2001-12-14
Rotonda West, FL
| Screw Them! Now I'm glad I downloaded all my U2 MP3's from P2P. What a bunch of crap! How much money is enough for you people??
Here's an idea, how embracing technology, and actually finding some new talent? This crap you release now makes me sick!
-Dragasoni-
--
»www.dragasoni.com | |
|
djcrazy
@comcast.net
| The RIAA and the major 5 labels need to die off anyway U2,along with most of todays major label artists suck anyway.I dont either buy thier crap,nor do I download it.
The industry puts out nothing but shit these days.These dinasaurs need to die off.No more Britney!!!!
When I do buy music these days,its usually wav files from places like beatport.com or juno.co.uk where the EDM (trance,house,electro,techno,etc) lives.
Some of these tracks may cost up to $3.49 USD but they are worth it because your not supporting the RIAA cartel or the big 5 labels and the tracks are DRM free.they sell full versions and the remixes in singles.NOT the crappy albums full of "filler" or compilations full short crappy radio edits. | |
| nevtxjustin
join:2006-04-18
Dallas, TX
| Paul McGuinness on CNN »www.cnn.com/video/?/video/showbi···intv.cnn
CNN Interview Hugh Riminton (host) with Paul McGuinness (guest)
Battling online music piracy 4:27
Paul McGuinness, manager of the rock band U2, discusses the battle against illegal music downloading.
Source: CNN
Added On June 4, 2008
Hugh: The basic premise is: Is the music industry is in a crisis. Tell us about it.
Paul: What has replaced physical products sales is illegal peer-to-peer file sharing across the internet and that means the industry which is decreasing in volume by about fifteen to twenty percent per year is on the way to oblivion. It will be followed by the movie industry if cooperation from the ISPs on a world wide basis is not forthcoming.
Hugh: Where do you attach the blame? The prime reason.
Paul: Very simple - Very directly to the internet service providers around the world who sell broadband subscriptions all over the world which are primarily used to illegally download content whether its music, films, television programs or books. What we would like the ISPs to do is first of all prevent the flow, which they can do through filtering of illegal content, but also join us in a new business model where they would actually collect on behalf of content owners and share that revenue with record companies and film companies.
Hugh: Why is it so hard to get these people on board to get some sort of shared arraignment.
Paul: Well personally I believe the ISP industry has been quite cynical. They have claimed it is not possible to filter. And that’s not true. In several courts in Europe, in Belgium, in Denmark and other countries have determined this is not good enough excuse. They must sooner or later take responsibility for this because what’s happening is the deluge of illegal content is now clogging up their pipes and they’re unable to deal with the vast amount of illegal material passing though their systems.
Hugh: Now I know that baidu.com is one of those that’s been singled out by the music industry. Its the biggest Chinese search engine, its listed on NASDEQ, and its been subject to being deliberately named. But we couldn’t get anybody to talk to us, but they issued a statement in which they say they believe in copyright protection, they have announced a series of partnerships with companies including EMI, Rock Music Group, and more than half of the domestic recording companies in China. They take intellectual property rights seriously so they say and they continue to work to fight piracy on the internet. Sound great, isn’t it?
Paul: Its sounds very good, but I’m afraid the practice is not as good as the rhetoric. Baidu particularly makes very, very large sums from other peoples’ content and pass on very, very little of it to the content owners, and the content makers, and the musicians and the performers.
Hugh: Is there a legal strategy; is there a legal place in which you can seek redress for this?
Paul: Yes, the best example is what the French have decided to do. The French have - are introducing legislation which will warn once, twice, and on the third time will disconnect a serial downloaded of illegal material - illegal downloader of material. That is being recommended by certainly the music industry to governments all over the world. Its known as the Olivenne Initiative and should become law later this year in France and we certainly approve of that.
Hugh: Briefly, could U2 have been big as it was if it was starting now? Can you…?
Paul: This really isn’t a fight on U2’s behalf. This really is really to the extent that I’m a representative. I’m representing all artists…
Hugh: Sure, but I mean a new band. A new potential U2 starting today, could it get underway given that there is such a leeching away from potential profits?
Paul: It is a very big problem because the record companies, the traditional record companies are no longer able to make the investment in new talent that they used to be relied upon for.
Hugh: Fascinating. Paul McGuinness. Glad to have you on here.
Paul: Thank you. | |
|
djcrazy
@comcast.net
| LMAO The industry doesnt know what talent is.
Most of the better talent gets ripped off by the industry.
When are they gonna stop feeding us this line of BS.
New artists that have any sense at all will be using the internet instead to promote themselves,thus cutting out the mob consisting of the RIAA and the big labels.
This is a good thing.Everyone knows they are the ones really tipping off the artists (and the customers).As for the group U2,your tired....go away. | |
| |
djcrazy
@comcast.net | Re: LMAO typo: should be
This is a good thing.Everyone knows they are the ones really ripping off the artists (and the customers).As for the group U2,your tired....go away. | |
| | | |
|
