In an article written for the New York Times, U2 frontman Bono said that internet service providers were essentially “reverse Robin-Hooding” by benefitting from the music industry’s lost revenue over music pirating.
"A decade's worth of music file-sharing and swiping has made clear that the people it hurts are the creators...the people this reverse Robin Hooding benefits are rich service providers, whose swollen profits perfectly mirror the lost receipts of the music business."
The article was originally intended as a call-to-arms for Hollywood to heed the warning from the music industry and not fall to the same pirating measures that have plagued physical music sales in the last decade. "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."
Shockingly enough, Bono went on to suggest that China’s efforts to curb and monitor internet content and social networking were a positive move in the name of “fairness to creators and artists”. In a particularly controversial statement, the Irishman went on to discuss how the US’ “noble efforts to stop child pornography” and China’s “ignoble efforts to curb online dissent” as being proof that music and movie pirates could easily be brought to justice.
Needless to say, the article raised a great deal of debate online, including the crosshairs of Cory Doctorow, a noted journalist who has exhaustively studied file-sharing policy. In a string of recent tweets, Doctorow noted, "Bono has missed that even a totalitarian government...can't effectively control net-content. "If only greed and ignorance could sequester carbon, Bono could FINALLY save the planet.”
What’s funny is that Bono, the lead singer of a band whose acts topped the “highest grossing acts of 2009” is complaining that the internet is taking from his profits and ultimately demeaning his artwork. A recent comment on Gizmodo stated, “Heck what you spend on sunglasses yearly could probably pay my childcare bill”.
While music, in its physical form, IS a physical creation of the artist, is it really the product to be sold? CD’s and vinyl are essentially collectibles and marketing fodder, to be written off as overhead/deadweight losses to promote a live act. The labels now give away music in an effort to produce hype for their artists and upcoming festivals and shows. U2 is a perfect example of this . . . giving away songs and doing commercials that are free for download for Apple iPods and Blackberry. Bono is simply placing the blame on the internet providers instead of on the failure of the music industry to adapt to modern trends. Finally, is Bono suggesting that the same type of effort put forth to save children from child pornography be put into action to stop torrents, magnets and other P2P file sharing? What will we have next? "Dateline: To Catch a File-Sharer?" A child's safety takes precedent over a 100,000 people downloading How To Dismantle an Atomic Bomb in my eyes. While this is an issue that will never be settled due to different definitions of ethics and value, Bono's suggestion that China's monitoring tactics are a good example of cultural monitoring are disgusting.
At the same time, the hypocrisy that Bono exudes is much deeper than just the file-sharing debacle that he’s created. If we’re really talking about being Robin Hoods and not sharing wealth, perhaps he should answer questions regarding his tax evasion practices in which Bono is harboring the proceeds from non-profit causes devoted to overseas aid in a personal, tax haven.
What do you think about the issue? Is Bono crusading in the right direction, or just making himself into a hypocrite, not aware of how file-sharing could benefit him? Good or bad, leave your comments below.
Comments