Bono on Theft
Thursday, March 12th, 2009 by Patrick Ross
Print This Post
U2’s Bono is unlikely to be the most sympathetic spokesman for online music theft, because in our society it seems we have anointed ourselves with the right to determine the “appropriate” level of a creator’s compensation. Bono admits in USA Today that he is in fact not the right spokesman
“because people think people like me are overpaid and overnourished, and they’re not wrong,” the U2 singer says. “What they’re missing is, how does a songwriter get paid? There’s no space for a Cole Porter in the modern age.
“It’s not the place for rich rock stars to ask for more money, but somebody should fight for fellow artists, because this is madness. Music has become tap water, a utility, where for me it’s a sacred thing, so I’m a little offended.”
He should be offended. All creators should be. Anyone can download without authorization a song written and performed by Bono. Only Bono can write and perform that song exactly that way. He has a gift but he also has a skill that has come from decades of hard work (read Malcolm Gladwell’s Outliers to see how much repeated performing and composing as young musicians helped The Beatles reach the creative heights they did).
Would-be economist bloggers love to treat creative works as a utility, an odd argument. Yes, when digitized “Put Your Boots On” becomes a bunch of ones and zeroes, not unlike the pair of hydrogen atoms attached to single oxygen atoms running through plumbing pipes. But turn on the faucet and the molecules remain indistinguishable. Play the latest U2 track “Put Your Boots On” through your PC or iPod and it becomes something unique.*
It is the notion of treating a unique creative work as a utility that leads to the intellectually vacant argument that creative works should be priced at the marginal cost of distribution, i.e., near zero. See that balloon punctured in my Canard #5.
Bono’s instincts are dead-on here, but he reveals the fact that he has been spending more time trying to bring prosperity to the developing world (kudos to him, by the way) than tracking the state of infringement online today beyond his own industry:
The Internet has emasculated rather than liberated artists, he says, noting that the record industry has lost billions in value.
“From punk rock to hip-hop, from heavy metal to country, musicians walk along with a smile and jump like lemmings into the abyss,” he says. “The music business has been thrown to the dogs legislatively.”
That indifference will vanish once “file-sharing of TV shows and movies becomes as easy as songs,” Bono says. “Somebody is going to call the cops.”
I wish it were that simple. TV shows and movies have been as easy as songs to infringe for years, thanks to torrent services and fast broadband. And “the cops” can’t really solve this problem. Law enforcement is absolutely appropriate in enforcing IP laws (see Canard #9) but I’m enough of a realist to know that the answer to massive home infringement lies more with technological solutions paired with enticing legal alternatives and education.
Last year in Cannes I heard U2’s manager, Paul McGuinness, express himself passionately against copyright infringement. He made some excellent points, but his language was such that he made it easy for some to dismiss him:
For McGuinness, it’s clearly “hippies” in Silicon Valley, who love music but don’t understand it. “They have a disregard for the real value of music,” he says. They also, he feels erroneously, “don’t think of themselves as makers of burglary kits.”
All of those Silicon Valley geeks looking for the killer ap? “The real killer ap is our clients’ recorded music,” he told the audience of band managers, who burst into applause.
He also noted that online infringement is eroding the mechanical royalties of songwriters. Note Bono cited songwriters as well. They are the forgotten victims of infringement, the ones who can’t make money on touring or T-shirts. (See Canard #4 on the fallacy of earning income only on rivalrous goods and services.)
Bono and McGuinness know a wee bit more about the music industry and the compensation of musicians, songwriters and music publishers than does, say, a tech blogger who likes to harp on marginal cost. It is very helpful they are speaking out, but Bono is right, we need more voices.
* “Put Your Boots On” also isn’t U2’s best work, but that is of course a matter of opinion. I know “New Year’s Day,” “One,” and “Sunday Bloody Sunday” probably make most lists, and I appreciate all of those (especially the a capella version of “New Year’s Day”), but as an owner of all of U2’s albums I love “Bullet the Blue Sky,” the title track from The Unforgettable Fire, and the gospel version of “I Still Haven’t Found What I’m Looking For.” I’d love to know your favorites, or ones where you think they fell short (many put “The Unforgettable Fire” in that category, I’d put just about anything from Zooropa.)
March 16th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
Thanks for this post, Patrick. I agree that copyright infringement is a difficult concept to grasp, since it really depends on where one is situated in the process. It’s an exercise in relativity. For an artist like Bono, who has been paid millions (tens, even hundreds of millions) of dollars for his creative output and the ancillary marketing of it, he probably doesn’t feel the pinch of, say, a misappropriated ten or fifteen thousand dollars worth of illegal downloads. But if this was Bono in 1980, and (assuming there was an Internet then, with loads of infringement possibilities,) ten thousand downloads of “Stories For Boys” went uncompensated, it becomes a much different set of circumstances indeed.
That’s really the issue when it comes to discussing copyright infringement, or world hunger, or extreme poverty. Nobody quite knows “what it’s like on the other side” of the contextual plane, and very often, bridges go unbuilt as a result.
As far as your question about U2’s songs and where they have “peaked,” I believe you have to look at this band in “periods.” Their “early period,” which consisted of Boy, October and War was clearly a pop-punk band finding its musical and intellectual way…those songs cannot even compare with the sonic brilliance or maturity of the band’s new millennium material, NOR SHOULD IT. So early period highlights would be (for me) Into the Heart, Electric Co, Fire, Is That All, Seconds, Drowning Man, Two Hearts Beat as One, Surrender.
Their “middle period” was an area of more orchestrated discovery: now, U2 were given the opportunity to explore their music, using America as the stage set. This was also perhaps the most prolific period for the band, as their collaboration with Eno & Lanois led to much more experimentation, much of which didn’t make the commercial releases. The albums in this period include Unforgettable Fire, Joshua Tree & Rattle & Hum, along with many b-sides and import releases. Top songs that evidence this period are: The Unforgettable Fire, Wire, Bad, MLK, The Three Sunrises, Love Comes Tumbling, Running to Stand Still, One Tree Hill, Heartland and All I Want is you.
Their “Berlin period” was a period that essentially encapsulated the 90’s. By now, U2 were international superstars and could do virtually anything musically…and they did. The albums in this period include Achtung Baby, Zooropa and Pop. At this time, they continue their fruitful collaboration with Eno & Lanois, but now bring back original producer Steve Lillywhite and studio engineer Flood for some “Euro” roots. I call this the “Berlin period” because Achtung was recorded there, and the industrial pulse of European progress is felt throughout all three of these records. Best songs include: Zoo Station, The Fly, Ultraviolet, Lemon, Stay, Daddy’s Gonna Pay for Your Crashed Car, Do You Feel Loved, Mofo, If You Wear That Velvet Dress.
U2 is, in my opinion, just completing their fourth period, which I call the “new period.” In this time, since about 2000, U2 is a fully realized artistic offering, basically an amalgam of themselves. They may be at their very best right now: unafraid to explore, eager to innovate and ready to realize their full expression. The three albums in the “new period” are All That You Can’t Leave Behind, How To Dismantle an Atomic Bomb and No Line on the Horizon. Top moments in this period are Elevation, Walk On, When I Look at the World, Miracle Drug, A Man and A Woman, Crumbs From Your Table, Original of the Species, Magnificent, I’ll Go Crazy If I Don’t Go Crazy Tonight.
Thanks for the great post, and the chance to blog away with you!
March 16th, 2009 at 5:12 pm
I totally agree with Bono et al., about compensating songwriters. I am a songwriter myself and it would be great to get more than a cup of coffee for my songs and my performance, however, its very difficult to be heard above the din of the internet and self-publishing these days. In any event, even though I am a songwriter, I am also a music lawyer. I have defended poor people who have been sued for extortionist amounts of money based on ridiculously scanty evidence created by less than ethical internet investigators. If the industry representing the songwriters is more ethical than that of the record labels, perhaps they will devise a fair system for payment and collection.
March 16th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
Will Bono speaking out backfire? When a Bono or Lars Ulrich speaks out on these issues many of the people I talk to seem to become even more prone to stealing music. Back when Lars & Metallica took their stance one person told me he was “tired of the filthy rich rock stars & their greed” and was not going to ever buy music again. I asked if that meant he was going to stop listening to music & he said “No, I’m just going to stop BUYING music.” I pointed out that my bills are paid from the sales of my music, & unlike Lars & company, I am not rich. He gave me a look of disbelief & walked away. Most people apparently think that if you have a recording out, you must be rich. I don’t know why this seems to be the case.
Anyway, Patrick, as always, well said. If more people could grasp the concept of creativity then artists & audience would both benefit. As you explained so well, both here & in your “part 3″ post, music by any given artist will not necessarily satisfy all audiences, therefore each artist is unique in what they are “worth” in the marketplace. If this were not true, why would shows such as “American Idol” & “America’s Got Talent” even exist? Would even the most tone-deaf listener be just as happy listening to William Hung as David Cook? Or would they be ok with a steady diet of Alissa Hoover (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MoEsz42fnw) instead of Carrie Underwood? I think not! (Just for the record, I listen to none of these artists. I spend my music money on artists that might be considered “underground” or “niche” or “non-mainstream.” They REALLY need the income, & generally I like the music more.)
And when someone tells me there is no cost in reproducing music, I like to point out that when you buy my CD or one of my tracks form iTunes etc, I am NOT being paid for RE-producing the composition, I am be paid for PRODUCING the music. And let’s see you do that without cost. Sure, you could get away with a crappy software studio on a $300 PC, but it still cost you $300. And without the years of lessons & practicing, good instruments, and all the high-end gear bands like U2 use, it will sound like it was produced on a crappy $300 rig, and then -well, you’re back to William Hung. Who do YOU want to hear? Bono? Or William Hung?
I wish I could get every music buyer out there to read your posts, Patrick. Especially your 5 part series. Of course, getting them to read it is one thing; grasping & internalizing is another. Anyway, thanks for standing up for guys like me. I will undoubtedly never be a “filthy rich rock star” but it would sure be nice to pay my bills & do so though entertaining my fans with new music on an ongoing basis.
Best wishes,
Clark
March 17th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
What great comments, everyone!
Nader, you are so right about the difficulties some have in perceiving this issue the way a creator does. For those of us who have earned a living (in my case meager) off of producing creative works, we obviously have a different perspective than someone who just likes listening to music. And can I just say that your breakdown of U2’s periods is incredible. I would just add that I didn’t really care for their Berlin period too much (although I fall in with popular culture in loving “One” on Achtung Baby) and I think I differ somewhat on your take of the current period as best. As someone whose songwriting has been, at best, pedestrian, I can only criticize so much, but I find some of their stuff now is a bit derivative. For raw energy I like their Boy/War period, but I think they hit their peak with Rattle and Hum, at least that’s my personal fave.
Kathleen, you and Nader speak to the struggling but optimistic songwriter, and those with an understanding of what copyright means to them (very high relative to other creative fields) often join our one voi(c)e campaign, which you can now do for no charge. As a music lawyer, you have seen that no legal system is without its flaws. That’s why I focus on creators’ rights and leave litigation to others!
Clark, thank you so much for your kind post. I can tell you that the Canards posts, both in blog form and in our combined paper, have been read and downloaded online thousands of times, and many people have told me how they have forwarded them to friends and colleagues. They prove very popular as handouts at the creators’ shows we attend, and they’ve also circulated through dozens of congressional offices. It’s all a little surprising, really, since the series stemmed from a list of frustrations I was working through in my head one morning while getting ready for work, but in reality it was just a way of grouping together arguments I make over and over that don’t seem to register! Thanks for your support, and I hope you do become a filthy rich rock star someday.
March 17th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
This issue is not complicated. Just because you CAN steal my music doesn’t mean you should. I can break into your house and take your stuff. Should I do it?
March 27th, 2009 at 5:48 pm
As an aspiring musician, I am planning to give all of my music away for free. I want to encourage people to share my music because that’s how people want to consume music today.
Despite Bono’s views having valid points (hey, I’d like to be paid too), it smacks slightly of arrogance - “Music has become tap water, a utility, where for me it’s a sacred thing, so I’m a little offended.” Maybe to Bono his music is a sacred thing but that doesn’t mean that his music is sacred for everyone. Remember, no one ever asked you to become a musician. Writing and playing for people is a privilege, and if they want to reward you for it, great, but that shouldn’t be why you do it.
It saddens me that musicians are still looking to resort to legal avenues - basically attacking their audience - in order to defend outdated methods of music distribution and consumption. Digital musical tracks are worthless. Simple laws of supply and demand and scarcity are at work here, and crying about how you spent years crafting your song doesn’t necessarily make it any more valuable. Why should the public care, especially if you are a new musician and an unknown quantity? They have their own problems.
You create the music, the consumer decides what value it has in their life and how much they want to pay for it. If it’s too expensive - and obviously for some people 99 cents is too expensive - then they won’t buy it.
However, if you encourage people to share your music - if you get on board with the ways that people want to consume and listen to music - then eventually they are going to want to make an economic connection with you. This could be through merchandise, buying physical albums, live shows, personal appearances, whatever.
There are many independent artists out there tapping into this idea already and making a pretty decent living out of it. Not Bono-sized rich, by any means, but a proper living wage.
We are about to enter an age where the quantity and variety of music out there is greater than it ever has been, and this is amazing ESPECIALLY for independent musicians. The wealth is going to be shared out more reasonably and more evenly than it is at the moment (hundreds of struggling artists with nothing and a few millionaire rock stars) which is going to make it a less appealing career for those in it for the money and fame and more appealing for those who want to create new and exciting music.
It also means that the choice and access to music is greater than it ever has been. What this means is that if you bitch and moan whilst suing your audience, then they’re going to go elsewhere.
Things are changing and you can either change with it or get stuck in the past, like Bono and Lars Ulrich. And if you’re in music to get rich, then there’s the door. See you later.
I’d recommend checking out http://www.newmusicstrategies.com to see how amazing an opportunity this is for new music this revolution is.
April 16th, 2009 at 3:04 am
[...] artists hold near-and-dear to their hearts. Last month I read an article about U2’s Bono, and his thoughts on music piracy. I thought he did a great job of putting it into perspective: “because people think people like [...]
January 8th, 2010 at 3:31 pm
[...] not pursuing their craft, at which point we all suffer. He has pointed this out repeatedly. I blogged on a previous statement he made in this regard last year, noting he was “offended” some viewed a piece of music as no [...]