U2 frontman and humanitarian Bono had a page-long op-ed in this past Sunday’s New York Times, where he describes what he calls “10 ideas that might make the next 10 years more interesting, healthy or civil. Some are trivial, some fundamental. They have little in common with one another except that I am seized by each, and moved by its potential to change our world.” So let’s look at some issues that made the list…. a twist on cap and trade, fighting the rotavirus, new cancer research, the rise of Africa and… limiting the scourge of file sharing.
Yes, that’s right, file sharing, clearly one from the “trivial” category. Bono blames Internet Service Providers for “this reverse Robin Hooding” which he says hurts “the young, fledgling songwriters who can’t live off ticket and T-shirt sales….” His “big” idea for stopping the scourge? Enforcement of copyright through deep packet inspection and filtering:
We’re the post office they [ISPs] 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 trace content. Perhaps movie moguls will succeed where musicians and their moguls have failed so far,….
This “idea” is mind-bogglingly ignorant for its lack of recognition of how these wonderful media “moguls” exploit the “fledgling songwriters” Bono professes to care about or how they helped to destroy the music industry through a combination of greed and incompetence. Nor does he have a clue about how these filters would work in the copyright context - blocking lawful content and encouraging an encryption arms race that would allow filesharing to proceed unabated. And of course it is shocking that any “humanitarian” would advocate use of technologies used by a repressive government to suppress online dissent.
But the most absurd thing about Bono’s endorsement of draconian copyright enforcement is that it undermines just about everything else he professes to stand for. Look at the activities and goals of One, the nonprofit organization Bono co-founded. One is “committed to the fight against extreme poverty and preventable disease, particularly in Africa.” It “campaign[s] for better development policies, more effective aid and trade reform. We also support greater democracy, accountability and transparency to ensure policies to beat poverty are implemented effectively.” Among the specific issues One works on are the treatment and prevention of HIV/AIDs and malaria, increasing access to quality education and ensuring trade policies that “create economic growth and opportunities for the poorest people.”
If Bono truly cares about poverty, education, health care and fair trade in developing regions like Africa, he should be against draconian intellectual property rights (IPR) enforcement regimes and for more balance. Numerous studies (including from the World Bank) have concluded that the strong IPR regimes exported from the West to the South (many through trade agreements) mainly benefit industrialized countries. There are a number of reasons for this, not the least of which is the cost of re-aligning national laws to fit these regimes and the cost of enforcement itself. Resources that could be devoted to education, or health care or fighting poverty are instead spent on protecting transnational media companies.
Nor is there any evidence that stronger IPR regimes help promote greater creativity and/or innovation in developing countries, and indeed, there is evidence to the contrary. Artists in developing countries are hindered because the cost of licensing and clearance in strong IPR regimes are prohibitive, and at least one study has shown that strict enforcement of copyright laws in poor countries would “dramatically decrease the already low computing capacity in such countries..,” and would not stimulate any local development of software, because “the structural and market model of Western-owned copyright protected proprietary software directly discourages such development.”
But the harm is far more concrete than that. Here are some examples from the 2002 “Study (pdf) on Intellectual Property Rights, the Internet and Copyright,” by Alan Story of Kent Law School at the University of Kent in England (commissioned by the British Government’s Commission on Intellectual Property Rights), which demonstrate how Western copyright regimes have interfered with AIDS prevention education, limited access to educational materials and impeded opportunities to improve access to education in Africa:
a) In Southern Africa, nursing teachers, public health nurses, and other medical personnel who wish to distribute copyrighted materials to students and patients about HIV/AIDS, how to avoid becoming infected, and how to deal with the symptoms are required to pay copyright royalty fees. As a result, circulation of such information is seriously restricted….Most such fees are paid to publishers in developed countries. In the face of the HIV/AIDS pandemic in this part of the world, it is difficult to refrain from an editorial comment that this is simply “scandalous.”
b) Both the cost and availability of printed works remain central problems, especially in the poorest African nations…. African public and most academic libraries are severely under-resourced. “Libraries in Africa have been shown to be hard to sustain … the reality (is) empty shelves and worn-out book stock.”
c) The traditional limited Berne exemptions such as the right to use quotations (Art. 10, (1)) or the “ fair practice” use of works “for teaching” (Art. 10 (2) ) fail to appreciate the much wider access requirements to materials across Africa….
d) Distance learning is an increasingly common approach to the provision of educational opportunities in Africa, in part because of internal transportation and communications barriers. Distance learning students are particularly in need of good access to materials because they cannot easily visit a library at their school or university. Yet, copyright use allowances often are restricted only to those that occur within the physical location of a school or a library and hence tens of thousands of students and their teachers cannot access badly needed print materials.
e) There is a major problem with the translation of materials. This is particularly serious as many African countries have more than ten languages.(various e-mails and interviews) In the production of materials across Africa, “ local languages are ignored in favour of English, French or Portuguese.” ….There are also few translations of works from one African language into another ( e.g., from Bantu (South Africa and elsewhere) into Edo, Yoruba or Hausa ( Nigeria) or vice versa.) Generally the right to make a translation must be individually acquired for each translation into a different language. The overall situation reinforces the inequality of languages, privileges European languages, and means that tens of millions of Africans are unable to get access to or read books and articles published in languages other than their own.
f) British universities which seek to establish linked (“sister”) educational programmes in least developed countries run into a number of copyright restrictions; for example, materials cleared by the UK Copyright Licensing Agency for domestic UK use cannot legally be used by overseas students.
g) Copyright clearance officers in schools and universities must regularly engage in heated negotiations with publishers, especially international publishers, regarding the cost and use of works to be photocopied for student use. The rates charged are “extremely expensive” and most copyright clearers generally tend to prefer dealing with local publishers where copyright fees are less expensive.
I could go on and discuss the negative impact of Western IPR regimes on traditional knowledge, access to essential medicines and free expression in developing countries, but I think you get the idea. Even if Bono doesn’t.
Comments:
By posting, you agree to our Comments Policy.
Reply
Yes, agreed you are right but Bono wrong. But the haranging language (This “idea” is mind-bogglingly ignorant for its lack of recognition of how these wonderful media “moguls” exploit the “fledgling songwriters” Bono professes to care about….”) is so thick with emotion, or passion, or anything but dispassionate reasoning that it just makes it a big messy dog fight. Why does Bono’s ignorance have to be mind-boggling? He’s only taking on nine other enemies about which he is perfectly correct. As an artist himself his ignorance is more understandable rather than mind-boggling. Songwriters Bono “professes” to care about? Give me a break. For those of us who want the clear reasons why Bono is wrong, it’s a hard, sloshing walk through a field of rhetorical slam-banging to get to that reasoning. I prefer icy intelligence to this kind of emoting—it’s distracting from your conclusions, with which I entirely agree. Better to attack the ideas than the person if you want the ideas to win out.
Reply
@Mary: It’s a blog, and most people expect some personality in the format. You “prefer icy intelligence to this kind of emoting” and I prefer a wider range of rhetoric, so we cancel each other out. Calling Bono’s idea “mind-bogglingly ignorant” is fine with me, but you may be a bigger fan.
Reply
i can’t read about bono and calls for government aid - let alone IPR - without remembering the hypocrisy of the tax shelter U2 set up. they pay little on royalty income in ireland and almost nothing on global royalty income which flows to their tax shelter in amsterdam. bono’s non-refutation is here. “People who don’t know our music – it’s very easy for them to take a position on us” he complains. PK, you obviously don’t know their music either, or you couldn’t possibly object to a crackdown on file-sharing!
Reply
“The guitarist, better known by his stage name The Edge, has upset residents of Malibu, the seaside city north of Los Angeles, by attempting to build five new luxury homes on a pristine hillside overlooking the Pacific Ocean.”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/the-edge-vs-the-people-of-malibu-1670435.html
Reply
I have been a hugh U2 fan - I even enjoy the salmone cds and their 100 takes or so takes of Bono wailing “Baby Love, Baby Please don’t go …” but after reading his comments in the NY times, I have bought my last U2 music. Truthfully, NLOTH is pretty much elevator music (all atmosphere stuff and little in the way of the compelling rock and roll music Bono is always claiming they are making), the sound and security at their concerts poor, their tax shelter deprives the poor of Ireland money they could use and his support of repressive governments like China who just executed a man with severely diminished mental capacity.
Bono, I can live just fine without you.
Reply
It sends a virtual chill up my little e-spine to think that a fellow artist, Bono, is in favor of government and/or ISPs examining the content of web transmissions. The potential abuses from such monitoring are absolutely frightening.
I was inspired hearing you speak at the FCC hearing in September, Gigi, and since then I’ve been giving a great deal of thought to net neutrality issues and just how crucial an open and uncensored internet is for all artists. Molly and Frank over at NewMusicBox just posted this offering of mine, that’s eerily relevant to the free speech concerns you raise in your post here.
As Important as the Printing Press: Net Neutrality and Artist’s Freedom
Reply
…for the rule of law and for artists. Bono is right; there’s wholesale theft going on. The only thing about which he is wrong is that he blames ISPs. We are certainly not in favor of having crimes committed using our networks; we merely lack the tools to stop them, because we have no way of telling what is legal and what is not.
Reply
I didn’t think much of U2 in their heyday, but then most of my favorite musicians are dead.
The big media companies are trying to legislate p2p out of existance. Not because of the personal-use copyright infringements which are no worse than radio airplay in terms of affecting sales, and not even to combat bootleggers, who are no worse than they ever were.
These two disparate uses, personal and for profit are lumped together under the misnomer “piracy”. Because pirates are hurt the media industry p2p and bitTorrent is bad, evil even. Everyone who uses this technology are pirates and thieves.
Repeat this over and over again because when enough people believe this, it will be childs play to outlaw p2p.
They don’t care that Project Gutenberg and open source software from Ubuntu to Open Office reply on p2p networks for free global distribution.
They are fighting the fact that 30% of today’s music is recorded by independents. This technology makes it possible for musicians to record and distribute their own music. Which means music is no longer locked up by the big media companies, who have lost their total control of content… and their means to force the real content creators to surrender their copyright.
They want a world where they control copyright and competition. With independent free distribution possible we’re seeing the beginnings of a golden age of recorded music… and an explosion of content on the market. This is good for everyone — except the record companies.
When you’re a burnt out old rocker like Bono, an explosion of competition is the last thing you want.
Reply
Actually, “ISP,” in my writings and statements on the subject of net neutrality, like this one from the latest essay linked above, I do happen to stand up, as you suggest, for the “rule of law and for artists”:
“Free speech and free access does not mean free music. All creators of content, whether they are large companies or sole artists who upload their own works, should be protected from piracy, and nothing about net neutrality claims otherwise. There is an important difference between the platform and the content.”
Of course rampant theft is occurring. I am a composer and publisher, and as the holder of many copyrights I, too, am a victim of piracy. But as a citizen deeply concerned about my civil liberties, I do not support a manner of theft detection that would jeopardize the privacy of all who use the internet. It’s essential that we develop tools to stop the infringers, but just as essential that we protect individuals from unconstitutional searches of their private transmissions.
Just as the U.S. Postal Service is, under normal circumstances, not allowed to open our mail, nor should the government, nor ISPs, have the right to read our emails, uploads and downloads. Further complicating matters is that the internet is international, and other countries have even stricter protections on the privacy of their citizens than does the U.S. I am all for stopping illegal transmissions of copyrighted material, but we must first and foremost protect all people against illegal searches.
Reply
ISP is a professional folks, they pay him to put such comments in, works for the man…That’s just another of their underhanded dealings , to have bloggers, etc. act as independents when they are espousing the corporate line. Support real independent ISP’s with your patronage.
Reply
Bono’s always been lame, period, a wanna be cashing in on the latest fad, exploiting the poor and the green movement, w/e is “cool.” His kind should die along with the cocaine snorting, useless middle men, payola system that is in the last breaths of that old paradigm, where only if you played into it, did you get play, talented or not.
Reply
Excellent post! Love it and the comments as well…
Jay
Reply
I’m one of the non T-shirt earning musicians he talks of. I also “pirate” a lot of movies and music. It’s because I don’t earn anything from T-shirts (he forgot the qualifier “like I do” there), but it helps me come up with awesome musical ideas of my own.
And yeah, using the word “mogul” in itself is offensive and revealing.
Reply
I receive no funding from anyone for my advocacy. Public Knowledge, on the other hand, receives substantial support from Google. (Every paycheck each of PK's employees receives contains money from Google. It has even had employees of Google -- called "Google policy fellows" -- working directly inside its offices!) Along with other organizations such as the New America Foundation, which is chaired by Google's CEO, Public Knowledge is effectively a lobbying arm of Google in Washington, DC. Since Google would like there to be no copyright at all (that way, it could suck in ALL of the Web's content, as well as every book, and redistribute it for profit), Public Knowledge naturally lobbies against all forms of copyright and copyright enforcement.
Reply
The Constitution protects individuals against unreasonable searches by government. It does not say that a private carrier, such as UPS or FedEx, cannot search packages for dangerous or illegal content; in fact, their contracts of carriage specifically allow them to inspect packages. The issue of ISP monitoring of traffic is not a civil liberties issue unless that monitoring is done by, or on behalf of, the government. And even then, it’s perfectly reasonable if there’s a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity (which is the case with any P2P, since all but a tiny percentage of P2P activity is, indeed, illegal).
I’m all for privacy, but not for criminals.
Reply
And who regulates the ISPs? The Federal Communications Commission. The government.
Reply
Are you an auto mechanic? A truck driver? A grocer? A doctor? A farmer? All of these industries are regulated by the Federal government. (In fact, so are shippers like UPS and FedEx.) This does not make them agents of the government. And it certainly doesn’t prevent UPS or FedEx from being able to inspect the packages they carry (as they should).
Reply
Brett -
You can call PK names all you’d like, but please refrain from outright lies. It is blatantly false to say that “each paycheck each of PK’s employees receives contains money from Google.” Google is nowhere near one of PK’s biggest contributors, as our Form 990s for the past 3 years attest. Also, Google fellows are not “Google employees.” The are law and graduate students who get a stipend from Google to work for public interest organizations, some of which, like the Cato Institute, agree with you on broadband policy.
If you are going to make accusations like that, you’d better back them up with evidence. Good luck with that.
Reply
Google may not be the largest contributor your organization lists, but it is indeed a substantial one, and since the funds are co-mingled, each of your paychecks does include money from it.
Oh, and how many “individual” contributions do you get from Google employees and executives? Or from foundations which in turn are funded by Google? Or from other organizations that are funded by Google and in turn contribute some of that money to you? Or as legal help that never shows up on your books? Google has created some fascinating, labyrinthine money trails to hide its purchases of lobbying and of influence inside the Beltway.
Also, Google fellows are indeed employed by Google. By Federal law, they have to report the income they receive — as compensation for doing Google’s bidding at your offices — as employment income from Google. Consult any tax guide, such as J. K. Lasser, or ask your tax accountant.
And, of course, a large, monopolistic corporation such as Google does not do such things out of the “goodness” of its nonexistent heart. You’d better believe that it expects a “quo” for that quid.
Sorry to blow your cover, Gigi. If you are embarrassed by the truth, perhaps you should act ethically in the future instead of shilling for Google. And stop trying to put hard working, productive ISPs and artists who (unlike DC lawyers and lobbyists) actually work for a living, and do good for their communities and the world, out of business.
Reply
@ISP - Your statement:
“Since Google would like there to be no copyright at all (that way, it could suck in ALL of the Web’s content, as well as every book, and redistribute it for profit)”
Google certainly doesn’t want an end to copyright. If they did, they wouldn’t be scanning all the public domain works and copyrighting the “new” digital version.
If they did, they wouldn’t be trying to acquire digital control of all copyright publications though the Google Book Search settlement.
In fact, when you add it all together, it kind of looks as though Google is angling to control the digital copyright for all published works period. Why on earth would they want an end to copyright when they are very close to achieving digital copyright on every published work.
Excuse me… the first settlement proposal was thrown out by the court and most of the other countries of the world have succeeded in getting their published works removed from the ill advised settlement. If the court allows the new settlement agreement to stand, Google will only be able to control the copyright publications of American, Australian and Canadian writers & artists who have not opted out.
Canadians can sign the petition to try to remove Canadian content creators from this dreadful settlement at: http://blog.sarahsheard.com/2010/01/calling-canadian-writers-join-our-anti-google-petition/
More legal information is available at the NWU FAQ : http://www.nwubook.org/NWU-GBS2-FAQ.html (if you have trouble with their sample opt out letter I have it in html on my blog.)
As a Canadian writer, I would not have a problem with Google digitizing books and making them available online. My problem is with Google taking copyright.
On the other hand, I don’t know anything about the workings of Public Knowledge, other than what I have read here on occasion. And from what I have read, none of the accusations you level ring true.
One of the ways people are trying to monetize web content is to get donations. A donation is a gift, free and clear. If it isn’t, it isn’t a donation. You use the erroneous argument that copyright infringement is “wholesale theft”. This is not and has not ever been true, legally or morally. Saying it over and over does not make it so.
Your attempt to bully other participants does not constitute an argument and merely makes you look bad,
Worse, accusing someone of lacking an e-spine only makes you look foolish. He was posting under his own name while you are not.
You talk of rule of law… during the French Revolution, all French law required was for someone to say was J’accuse, and the accused was off to madame guillotine. Rather like today’s DMCA takedowns where people are judged guilty until proven innocent on the basis of unsubstantiated allegations. The ACTA treaty being negotiated in secret also falls under this type of law, which is actually the Rule of man. For definitions see http://duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/R/RuleofLaw.aspx
You also talk about the constitution, saying “The Constitution protects individuals against unreasonable searches by government.” I never heard that the American constitution gave corporations the right to break into their customer’s homes or read their mail.
If in fact courier companies do have the right to open their customer’s packages, I would assume that there are at least legal probable cause requirements… something along the lines of a bomb sniffer dog flagging it, or radiation setting off a geiger counter. Because the only justification for this breach of civil rights would be public safety. Courier companies tend to get and keep customers by giving good service, not attacking them.
Copyright infringement is just not a public safety issue. It is a civil matter. The attempts of the big media lobbyists to criminalize customers are at best ill advised. P2P is not and should not be illegal.
Even if there happened to be some copyright infringement happening on an ISP, ISPs are not law enforcement. Law enforcement agencies may not be perfect, but they are professionals operating within a legal constraints.
Corporations don’t do anything they don’t believe will provide a financial return from. Why would an ISP want to tackle the extra work of investigating and enforcing copyright infringements against their customers? The only possible reason I can see is that there is money in it for them. Possibly so they can mount their own download service?
Better than all my words, YouTube has an excellent parody “Downloading is Theft” commercial from a britcom called The I.T.Crowd.
Reply
Brett would be out of business if it weren’t for groups like New America advocating for unlicensed spectrum, however much he slanders them.
Reply
The New America Foundation. Now, there’s a lobbying group that’s bought and paid for, 100%, by Google. Google’s CEO gave New America millions of Googlebucks, thereby buying the chairmanship of the group — which never swerves a millimeter from Google’s corporate agenda.
And whenever any issue involving spectrum comes up, New America always sings the same tune: Make it into an unlicensed “junk band.” Thereby making that spectrum unusable for the delivery of broadband services with the reach and reliability that the public desires. And ensuring that small, local, and competitive providers, who cannot afford the insane prices bid for the small amount of exclusively licensed spectrum, are unable to obtain uncluttered spectrum on which to operate and must fight for survival in the unlicensed jungle.
Fitting in perfectly with Google’s general anti-ISP agenda.
You see, Google doesn’t want to see any more competition among broadband providers — and wants to destroy the competition that does exist. Why? Because the existence of competition makes a strong argument against the regulation which Google is pushing (and trying to buy) in DC. Google wants to see a duopoly — no matter what harm that would do to consumers — so that it can push for heavy government regulation of ISPs.
This same agenda is also, apparently, the reason why PK has lobbied so strongly against broadband mapping by Connected Nation. Connected Nation is particularly good at ferreting out multiple broadband options where other mapping organizations have missed them, and demonstrating that there is robust broadband competition. Google doesn’t like that.
In short, New America and PK are both part of Google’s well orchestrated lobbying campaign in DC. In fact, PK’s lawyers are arguing on behalf of Google and its regulatory agenda in court today.
Reply
I’m confused; I thought PK, like EFF, championed online anonymity. Someone called ISP is making statements contrary to the views of PK, so PK’s CEO calls ISP out, but calls him Brett. I don’t see anywhere in this chain where ISP has identified himself (or herself).
Does PK search the IP addresses of its commenters and “out” those using aliases? If ISP was outed in another post at some point, does PK feel that gives it a right to address him publicly here, re-outing him to people who haven’t read the previous comment?
Some clarification on PK’s policies toward anonymity would be helpful here. I usually don’t post anonymously myself, but I am doing so here to see how this post is handled.
Reply
You use the junk band, I guess that means you dont provide real competition.
There either is or isnt real broadband competition today. Why do you need to take other people’s spectrum.
Reply
In my previous comment “Google and Copyright” I mistakenly said (in tones of ringing authority no doubt) that:
As it turns out, Google is in fact scanning public domain works but they are NOT putting these works under digital copyright, they are only watermarking them. However the one I just tried to download wouldn’t actually open… but the point is, they are not copyrighting digital public domain works.
Mea culpa.
Re: ISP
I’ve only been here a few times, but I think PK is being too nice. There is a difference between encouraging free discussion and being bullied. ISP/Brett is not contributing to the conversation but derailing it.
I always assume people are capable of listening and learning (untill proven otherwise) so I spent a fair bit of time yesterday explaining to ISP/Brett errors in his/her/its “arguments” but clearly he/she/it is not capable of listening. However, I fell into the trap of talking to a brick wall once; I am capable of learning from my mistakes so I won’t do it again.
ISP/Brett is doing a huge amount of posting but hasn’t been anywhere near the subject of the article in a great many words. This is supposed to be an area for comments pertaining to the article, not a general forum. And I don’t know a single forunm that would allow this kind of behaviour.
Since ISP/Brett appears to be only intent on pushing his/her/it’s agenda, ISP/Brett needs to set up his/her/its own blog or website. Since he/she/it appears to be an ISP this should not be a problem. And anyone can get a free blog… of course getting anyone to come and read it is the trick.
My assumption here is that PK is bending over backwards to avoid censoring ISP/Brett because then he/she/it will feel vindicated. However, ISP/Brett is not following any rules of civilized discourse, but rather doing what is called “trolling”:
"http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=trolling
Most websites don’t allow this. I went to another of your pages and found ISP/Brett all over it. I don’t have enough time to do the things I want to do; this is that kind of thing that would very easily discourage me from visiting here often, and quite likely others.
After all, this is PK’s house, PK gets to make the rules.
Reply
I write in regard to ISP’s comment that Google Policy Fellows “do[] Google’s bidding”.
I was a Google Policy Fellow, interning at Public Knowledge, during Summer 2008. I was paid a stipend by Google that covered, for the most part, my summer living expenses.
I have stated before, and will state it again, on the record, that no one at Google ever “bid” me do anything, at any time.
If ISP/Brett chooses to use the term “employed” to mean solely that I received monetary funds, then it is appropriate.
If, however, he means it in the layman’s understanding of the word “employed” as to imply a principal/agent relationship, the instantiation of fiduciary duties, and/or the suggestion that continued receipt of funds was contingent upon Google’s ongoing approval of a Fellow’s performance, then I do not believe the term is accurate.
In fact, I have personally experienced that both Google and Public Knowledge welcome lively debate from perspectives contrary to not only their own philosophies, but to their financial interest.
-Jonathan Law
Reply
I find it odd that people expect art and music to be free, and those who argue this point most eloquently will charge you on the quarter hour for their time.
When most people want to be entertained and seek inspiration, they do not pore over a ledger of figures, or thrill to the efficiencies of administrative practices.
They go out to see art and listen to music… whether we like it or not, this has to be paid for. I’m not sure which is worst, the past greed of record executives or the present stupidity of the “free music” movement.
Tracey Dey
Reply
“They go out to see art and listen to music… whether we like it or not, this has to be paid for. I’m not sure which is worst, the past greed of record executives or the present stupidity of the “free music” movement. “
I do NOT want “free” music. I never wanted free music. I DON’T USE FREE music
I PAY ALL MY ARTISTICS STUFF
I PAID ALL. I PAY and I WILL PAY AND PAY will be MY WORD !
but still
I’m heartly disapointed by Bono telling me China is how things should be done.
To ask State and ISP to take full controle of internet is very BAD. it’s dangerous.
Internet allows people to be inform, to share and to create new services and enterprise.
yeah, I don’t care one seconde if some artists loose all because we gained amazon, google, itunes, hulu, youtube, myspace, magnatunes, twitter, blogs, and so many stuff
I bought thousands of items thanks to ebay
I found thousands of artists on magnatunes
I bought thousands of albums on itunes
I bought thousands of books on amazon
I saw so many movies and shorts and people creation on youtube
Myspace brings me so many young musicians
and you think I will spit on THAT because Bono want to control the internet like China ?!
Internet is OpenMarket, Internet is Freedom, Internet is a win for humanity
Bono should stop the madness and just create GREAT products I will like to buy! Digital or not, if it’s great, I will buy.
- Video games was alway pirated, did they ask the end of computer,, the controle of network by state ?
Did they gain political recognition in the 80 and 90s ? NO. but still, the industry is living, very living. and I can now buy MORE independant game, by little teams of passionnate people, than never before. Thanks to what ? to internet
A free, not controlled by state, internet, where everyone can create a business, to bring new stuff on the net, new services, without noone tampering, noone to ask permission
don’t ask the state to controle the network. It will not be helpful to artists. It will not help business, it will not help freedom. You will force the State to finance some artists and not others, to do a selection, to slow the development of the network or to tamper with people communications
for what ? because there are some sad artists ? NO.
ALL the numbers are out ! 2009 was a great year
yes cd is dying slowly, but people bought on internet shops, people still go to concert, people went to theater as never.
TV is still strong. Books are still selling
the world is not ENDING
The industry is still working, and fine. really fine. Hollywood is FINE. Music editors are not dying !
I read all the business week, and NO, they don’t die.
yes, the market is changing
yes the technology change how people relate to products
yes there are some abuse
but no, there are no industry dying and needing the State to put internet under its grasp.
Bono, you can contact ISP to find illegal services Bono, you can hire professionals to find who is leaking your music before the radios Bono, you can sell on playstation network, itunes, xbox live, amazon,phones and so many system and let people buy your music if it’s great.
You can also works more rich product, as video game, movies, interactive stuff, and so on. TO invent, to innovate.
The old world is no more
the new world will not disappear.
Internet is not the stuff of illegal kiddies or mafia. it’s a whole industry : computers and telecoms, and now, contents, and they do fine.
With the actual rules, they were able to create a whole very living and breathing industry. Why do you think we should break internet as in China ? there are no reason when it works and you can see all the days the industry is fine.
It brings money, every day. Ask to Apple, At&t, google, warner or Microsoft. and they need artists to fill the network. Work with them.
don’t break internet. internet is useful and allows so many people to create business because it’s an open network.
Reply
Shame on Bono for being the whore of these capitalist corporate - mostly American - pigs! I have much to say on this matter…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXyEc1oxVyM
Peace out! xo Osama Bin laden
Reply
They’re handpicked to represent Google’s interests, and they know that Google is supporting them.
Now, it’s an interesting question whether they’re actively seeking to act on behalf of their employer (and, again, Google is legally their employer) or if they’re what Vladimir Lenin called “useful idiots:” people who are driven by an earnest belief but can be made to do the work of a nefarious government or corporation. But there’s no question that Google would never pick a “Google fellow” whose work was not 100% in Google’s interest.