Source/Link

Mathew Ingram, June 5, 2008 at 3:55 PM EDT


Another month, another rant from U2's longtime manager Paul McGuinness, about how everyone else is to blame for the music industry's problems, except of course the music industry and the major record labels. Primarily, he blames the Internet service providers -- whom he compares to "shoplifters" and says are "rigging the market" -- but he also tosses a few grenades at cellphone handset makers, telecom companies and (as far as I can tell) everyone other than your Mom (and he's keeping a pretty close eye on her too).

McGuinness's latest rant was a sort of micro version of his speech at the Midem conference in Cannes, in which he said: "Network operators, in particular, have for too long had a free ride on music -- on our clients' content. It's time for a new approach -- time for ISPs to start taking responsibility for the content they've profited from for years."

This is the music industry's equivalent of newspaper mogul Sam Zell's rant about how Google is "stealing our content" and should be forced to pay. And McGuinness thinks that if ISPs don't cough up some dough, then they should all be forced to do so by the government (something others -- including in Canada -- have recommended as well). While we're at it, why not force gun manufacturers to pay a fee to the financial industry because occasionally someone uses one of their products to rob a bank? There is no rational basis for what McGuinness is suggesting, other than the sheer desperation of the music industry.

The same goes for the plan that Jim Griffin has been hired by Warner to try and set up, in which users would pay an "Internet tax" (yes, I realize it doesn't meet a lot of the technical requirements of a tax, but I'm using the term in the sense of a "forced payment"). The Electronic Frontier Foundation and others have proposed a more voluntary arrangement, in which music fans could pay a monthly fee for the right to download at will, in much the same way that the radio industry was legalized through a compulsory licencing system. That's something that might be worth talking about -- but not with Paul McGuinness

The latest U2 CD, How To Dismantle an Atomic Bomb, sells for $0.98 used at amazon.com. Obviously a classic that everyone wants to hang on to, to bequeath to their posterity. Right? Uh, yeah.

The real villians are the manufacturers of CD-RW drives, and of course those nefarious factories making blank discs. Probably terrorists, don't you think?

What an ASSHOLE!!!

"McGuinness thinks that if ISPs don't cough up some dough, then they should all be forced to do so by the government "

Hey dumb ass, Napster wanted to license your work. Your RECORD LABEL and the RIAA wouldn't let it happen!!! Kind of makes you take a second look, doesn't it? Forcing every internet user to pay for downloading music is pathetic. Get your damn label to agree to license your work with P2P services. Duh!!!

What's really pathetic about this, is it shows how little this moron knows about the whole situation. All he cares about is that his 20% managerial fee from U2 has dwindled. He doesn't care about anything else. This rant proves it.

I very much doubt his management fee has dwindled. U2 is one of the money-makingest acts on the planet. If they never got another dime from CD sales, surely they would be rich beyond the dreams of avarice on concert tickets alone.

So that would make McGuinness' ostensible personal greed all the more reprehensible.

"Shoplifters"?
We'll need a shovel to tackle that degree of B.S.
Get a grip, McGuinness.

I think Mr. McGuinness is forgetting that folks these days, if they buy the CD, don't even play it in a standard hi fi system anymore. I primarily just purchase local music these days, but after managing to rip the shrink wrap and remove the sticker on the jewel case, I just go and rip it into my computer and convert that to mp3.

U2 missed a gigantic opportunity by not disassociating themselves w/ UMG and forging their own direct sales network, which they could have financed from the tax savings they earned from moving their publishing out of Ireland.

Either that or just set up licensing w/ E-Music for internet downloads and let somebody like Amazon handle distribution of the cd. Or....

I love U2, but they have been making a few boneheaded business decisions lately. ($40 a year for a fansite sub???, where if you order a 'vintage' tour shirt, you might wait 6 months for it to arrive) Fire Paul or at least put a muzzle on the fucker.

There was a "watermark" idea that I liked that was floating around awhile ago which would benefit all the artists, indies included. So seeing as it is a rational idea, they'll NEVER do it. lol

Basically -- each artists registers for a watermark. This registration would be free. The watermark would be embedded into the music file itself to identify who the music belongs to and it would be easy to track how many downloads from where for each song, etc...

This would allow for a new type of legal p2p service. (yes, p2p in and of itself isn't illegal, i know. what i mean is -- a p2p service that is not used at all for any sort of so-called copyright infringement).

However the p2p would generate income (either charging users a monthly fee, advertisement revenue or anything else) it would allow a segment of those profits (lets say hypothetically that segment was 50% of the profits) to be divided fairly among the copyright holders using the water mark to be able to track which songs got how many downloads.

This would mean -- it doesn't mater if you're Metalica or the garage band at the corner of your block -- you would get fair compensation!

Also just to note -- the proposed water mark idea is not a form of DRM. It doesn't restrict anything or keep anyone from copying anything.

-Dave

I like the watermark idea. It would make sure EVERYONE gets paid, including independent artists.

Of course, it is such a good idea the RIAA and record labels wouldn't hear of it. Why not? First of all, they don't want to make it EASIER to find and PAY their own artists royalties, now do they? Secondly, it would allow independent artists the fair chance to get paid too. We all know that's something the RIAA and Record Labels don't want to happen either, since this whole sue 12-year-old girls, disabled moms, dead grandmas and colleg students thingy is just to increase their monopoly and make everyone use them.

Bite me, McGuinness.

It has become glaring easy to see who's in the music business for the money instead of the music.

Paul McGuinness holds the McGuinness World Record as the worlds dumbest asshole.