Follow up on your research concerning the content during the conversation with CNET when TR uttered the infamous phrase ISP tax. It was more a bout throwing ideas out, not what he would want the government to impose.
You might report the truth.

I have no problem with allowing a ISP tax that is marginal and fair per ISP user, that allows me the consumer to download and sample product without worry from that point forward.

As long as said tax is just and marginal I should say. I'm paying what $80 a month now. so a max of 10% the subscription would be just IMHO. but that is a MAX...

Even that alone in my region would result in $32 million a month going to the industry from internet royalties.. Thats just one very small region folks. Now tip that to national or continental numbers and were talking HUGE HUGE numbers for the RIAA/MPAA. Problem is, its still getting filtered through the industry first, which means the artist will still not see hardly a dime of it in the end. Sorry this is fact. Stop using those studios and produce independently artists. then and only then will you see any money.

Oh and the 10% drop in cd sales in 2007. lol Common... Did you even see 1 cd worth buying in 2007? I sure didnt... I think I got a grand total of 3 songs in 2007 total. I didnt even need to use p2p system. there was just nothing worth having at all IMHO. So start rethinking that stratagem of producing crap, and MAYBE someday you will get sales going up again...

Uhm... yea. Old becomes obsolete, welcome to the 21st century.

bla bla bla... whine bi*tch moan... next...

I'm critical of "the China" as well..but unless the ISP itself is selling the ringtones, I call BS.

Artists don't make money from cds, they make money from concerts -.-
No one is losing other than RIAA

Yep. thats a fact jack!!

One thing has also occurred to me: Perhaps we are finally coming to a point of balance, in which some of these artists will no longer be so ridiculously overpaid. You go to university, work your behind off to get degrees after degrees and you still don't get paid in a year even one hundredth of what U2 makes a month. Piracy issue aside, perhaps they are making less money because: a) We are no longer forced to buy a whole album to get one song we like - wanna sell an album, then make one that is worth it - b) A lot more competition these days - Internet makes it easier for aspiring, unknown musicians to compete for space. Could it be that this is one of the main issues?

I usually don't download any music from the Internet. Am I going to have to pay a monthly fee for a service I don't use?

**** U2, if only the idiot had any clue what he was talking about. Artists that support RIAA/MPAA in any way, shape or form are idiots because they are not going to see any of that money anyway. I hate the band, and now I'll download their s*** just so there is more seeds for other people.

Well thats just great. Tax everyone who uses the internet. What if someone can't hear.. My father isn't intrested in any sounds or any tax on sound.

Honestly this guy should just shut up and go away.
U2 have made way more money than a band who ripped off somebody else's, (Simple Minds) sound, and then did a bad reproduction of it, should ever be entitled to.
Nothing any of these losers have to say is worthy of any attention. After putting up with years of that Boneheaded singer and his politically corrected hobnobbing and poncing about like some kind of latter day turd-saint, exhorting us all to throw money at his stupid and worthless ideas, U2 should just F off and die!

I just queued the entire U2 discography and DVD collection on IsoHunt. I can't stand people like this. I have paid for three U2 concerts and a lot of CD's over the years.

No more. The music industry and it's brute force tactics have made it so I will never buy a CD again, as long as I live.

Thanks for the free music, jagoffs.

The funny thing here is that if everyone were to pay a "tax" on our internet bill for the riaa, how would they determine where the money goes? Does everyone even unknown artist get some of that? Or would it just be split among u2 and others who are well known? Or would it simply go to the board's hands as million dollar bonuses?

I am sure the postal industry is hurting too, even the telecom industry is hurting thanks to isp's email and voip.

It really is just ridiculous.
As far as im concerned this is no different then using a car to rob a bank. Should everyone who buys a car now have to pay taxes to bank owners for that ability?

The internet is a tool designed for every aspect of life, work, games, banking, and yes even p2p. Does that mean everyone should get a tax too? I mean WTF?

HMMmmmmm....The U2 band manager just wants to squeze more money out of the turnip to justify his job !

Is that the same U2 who had their own special U2 iPod edition, a device created to store all those downloaded MP3s?

Out off all the sarcastic senseless posts from people on this site who feel entitled to pirating software (rather than cheeky), I'm thrilled that someone posted something of truthful comedic value.

Yup, they sure did release their own iPod didn't they ... =)

There's nothing sarcastic or senseless about them, people are tired of paying for 14 bad songs out of 16, the RIAA is insane with it's $1000 per track lawsuits.

It's very simple. You push the people that generate your revenue to the breaking point and they will revolt.

Thet are hurting big time and I think it's hilarious. If they would have embraced downloading and MP3's instead of telling you it's a crime to rip a CD to your computer, they would be much better off by now.

Too late, the genie is out of the bottle and everyone hates the RIAA with a passion. People would rather be considered "pirates" than fools.

I immediately thought of the U2 edition iPod when I read this, these two faced bas****s.

The other point is:

Who the hell does U2 think they are? They haven't produced anything worth listening to, let alone paying for, in 10 years or more.

I mean really. Any singer who starts calling himself Bono Vox (means "good voice" in Latin) doesn't think too much of himself does he?

U2's ability to capitalize on the music they've released in the last ten years would invalidate your point (or at least make it seem like an opinion).

The whole 'Bono Vox' business was a joke. They coined that name for him when he had a bad voice in the early days of the band.

Because U2 are so poor aren't they. What you mean is that the record industry is finding it harder and harder to rip off the general public without having to raise a sweat. And even then you just don't have the brains to pull it off because you can't compete witht the technology. Essentially when it was easy to rip us off and we could do nothing about it you were sitting pretty and life was sweet. But now it's hard and you either have to work much harder to rip us off with the alternative being that you might actually have to play fair with us (God forbid!) - well that's a different ball game isn't it. You big cry baby tosser.

U2 is a business as is any major major recording artist. The band hires a staff and have a label. The label and staff protect the band's interests. The wealth of the band does not invalidate the point.

Personally, I think that they are right. ISPs have done little to battle piracy and it's likely that governments may end out mandating that ISPs block certain sites or institute other technologies to protect copyright.

The moment that one becomes foolish enough to feel entitled to everything on the Internet is when they become "a big cry baby tosser."

"The moment that one becomes foolish enough to feel entitled to everything on the Internet is when they become "a big cry baby tosser."

Yeah, read my post again - isn't that what I just said? [tsk]

Haven't we caved into the record industry enough? Are readers of this website even aware that $1 per blank CDR or CDR/W sold in the USA, by federal law, is paid to the RIAA in a settlement with that organization 10 years ago when they attempted to stop the sale of blank CDR's and CDR/W's in America. Additionally, as we have seen in countless articles on this very website, the RIAA has engaged in illegal practices to learn the identification of those it accuses of piracy.

Hmmm, last time I bought a 100pk spindle CDRs, it cost me about $15. Those CDR manufacturers must be losing a fortune!

--->Are readers of this website even aware that $1 per blank CDR or CDR/W sold in the USA, by federal law, is paid to the RIAA

When ever you buy legal music online it has to go through your ISPs network to reach your computer.

So how about ISPs charging the RIAA for distributing LEGAL music over their networks like from iTunes and Amazon.com?

I'm sure the music labels have to pay for manufacturing, shipping, and shelf space in stores for physical CD media, so why shouldn’t they pay AT&T, Verizon, or whatever ISP to “ship” legal music over their networks?

Great point!

Right on sister!

Not a great point. How about Best Buy charges the RIAA for floorspace? That's not valid.

"making millions per year from ringtone sales, with "a minuscule fraction" being paid to music artists"

Yeah, if anyone's gonna do that, it should be the RIAA.

this guy needs to shut his mouth. the ISPs are not directly profiting. It's like saying the CD delivery trucks are profiting from sales of CDs & DVDs.

It's the labels that are suffering, from an old formula that no longer works in todays world. Artists have slowly been realizing what they can do on their own. If this manager reflects U2's perspective of things then they are as blind as Metallica was in the late 90's.

No, ISPs are not like CD delivery trucks. They are like the roads trucks travel on. Roads can be used to get to a store and legally purchase a CD, just like roads can be used to get to a store to steal a CD. It is not the responsibility of roads to stop someone from traveling if the intent is illegal.

I'm not defending piracy. McGuinness is a dumba**.

You make an excellent point g3028. They aren't going to the source of the problem. If artists are getting a "miniscule fraction" of music/ringtone/what have you sales, the one at fault is the RIAA. There is no possible way that ISPs themselves are profiting from file sharing of any kind.

"Network operators, in particular, have for too long had a free ride on music -- on our clients' content".

It seems to me like that is exactly what the manager is doing - getting a free ride on U2's content.

Good point. However, I think it's safe to say that roads require maintaining and the more traffic, the more maintenance. ISPs are boosting cable speeds and it might be a fair guess that piracy does increase the desire for consumers to get faster speeds... at the same time, legit downloads do the same... [shrugs]

Thing is - roads in the US are government owned and things such as border patrol and the highway patrol and truck weighing stations exist to keep law and order. Heck, traffic lights exist too.

Haven't bought a CD in ages, due to the simple fact I have yet to find any bands producing disks with a full complement of songs I actually like... that said, I can easily buy the singles I want to own, provided they are actually on a DRM-less service that lets me use them with my current players.

That impacts CD sales - yet the content producers still make money from the purchase - how does that then become any ISPs responsibility? It's not like the ISPs are profiting from anything more on that purchase than the network link which I already pay a monthly premium for, and they certainly don't deserve addition revenue from already paying customers in that case.