U2 frontman Bono's latest column for the New York Times is a list of a resolutions for the new decade. In the piece (which can be read here), Bono tackles the topics of pollution, distribution of power and the World Cup. However, he also discusses the issues surrounding illegal file sharing.

Bono correctly notes that "The only thing protecting the movie and TV industries from the fate that has befallen music and indeed the newspaper business is the size of the files. 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. Many will expect to get it free."

However, he goes on to attribute the blame for illegal file sharing primarily to the ISP, saying that the Internet providers are profiting off the backs of musicians. He writes, "A decade’s worth of music file-sharing and swiping has made clear that the people it hurts are the creators — in this case, the young, fledgling songwriters who can’t live off ticket and T-shirt sales like the least sympathetic among us — and the people this reverse Robin Hooding benefits are rich service providers, whose swollen profits perfectly mirror the lost receipts of the music business."

U2 manager Paul McGuinness has been outspoken in the past about the issue of file sharing, and Bono seems to echo his thoughts in the column. McGuinness told CNet last year that the ISPs "bear a huge responsibility to put things right" and that "ultimately, free is the enemy of good."

CNet notes that the entertainment industry has been attempting to get Internet providers on board to help fight piracy online, by blocking illegal content. Last year the RIAA promised that had agreements in place with ISPs to crack down on illegal file sharing, but so far nothing official has been announced.

CNet wants that Bono could end up as the new Lars Ulrich if he takes a vocal stance about the topic. The Metallica drummer famously ripped into Napster and online file-sharing years ago and became the object of scorn and criticism from music fans.

Bono adds that he believes the ISPs have the ability to track content and concludes, "Note to self: Don’t get over-rewarded rock stars on this bully pulpit, or famous actors; find the next Cole Porter, if he/she hasn’t already left to write jingles."

http://www.fmqb.com/article.asp?id=1646299

Sales would go up if something profitable was obtained by buying it in disc format. 50% off of a movie ticket? Or 25% of certain clothing brand stores. Etc.

Plus the quality of albums these days lack quality, so people would rather download. I always, always go out and buy an album I end up liking/loving. It's not a question of will I, it's a must. I haven't bought Rihanna's album, for instance, yet because I haven't liked it yet really. Yet I have her past 3.

^ I would defantly buy more albums if did come with stuff like that
if iTunes would make their tv shows cheaper or the season it self that could help

^ i know right its 10£ for a movie for your ipod i mean am i the only one who thinks that a joke!.

People need to realize that downloading music is legal. File sharing is illegal. Many people don't know the difference and don't get why one is illegal and why one isn't. Downloading music from iTunes, Amazon, Wal-Mart, Rhapsody, etc. is legal because you purchased the music. They are allowed to sell music because the label or artist gave them permission. Also, shares of the money made also go to the label and artist. File sharing networks, like Kazaa, MP3 Rocket, and ******* websites are illegal because you do not purchase the music. You are copying files from someone else who was not given permission to give out the music for free. Occasionally a label or artist will give people permission to download music for free. In that case, it is 100% legal. Think about it this way: If a barber were to cut your hair, you would pay him right? It's not like you would get your hair cut, and then walk out without paying. At least, I sure hope you wouldn't since it's immoral. Think about your own job. Just about every job involves providing a service. What if you weren't payed for it? How would you feel? Artists may be in it for the music and not really care how much they're getting money wise, but if file sharing continues to rise, then the label will go broke. Then your artist may be dropped and can't find other labels to take them. Then, they will never make any new music ever again. Now, I realize downloading music legally doesn't exactly give huge payment to the artist and label, but it's a fair amount for one song. Downloading an album off the Internet legally pays better, of course, but not as well as physically purchasing the album. You can list as many pros and cons of either way: you don't have to leave your house when you download, physical albums have smaller file sizes, online albums are a bit cheaper, etc. etc., but at the end of the day we're all going to have our own opinions on that. I think just so long as you're purchasing your music, the artist and label should be happy.

^ I do get your point. But since cd singles were killed I have no reason on buying digital songs. It's awful! I would always buy physical singles (ok, over exagerating cause only Britney was worthy of money for singles) and albums (I still buy albums...), but thinking of having an ugly digital copy (just a stupid mp3 files) I'd rather having it for free than spending my money on **** I can't even touch... I'd still spend money if cd singles were still around anyway, and that's only music, I never download movies (cause I love going to the cinema and to own the DVD, hence, a physical copy).

There's no way, absolutely no way to stop illegal online file sharing, no tracking down IPs, etc, etc, people will end up finding new ways (and maybe "darker" ways) to keep on the illegal file sharing downloading routine...

That won't work. It's not the lack of quality, it's the fact that we're in the digital age and it's free. Rihanna's albums are a click away. You don't have to deal with re-releases and the rest as much as you use to. Niether do you have to deal with the space the physical copies will take up.

Of course, I don't see the harm in file-sharing and it has more pros and than cons. Album sales (artists really don't get paid much off of albums anyway) may be declining but single sales have been on the rise because of the market we're in now.

That's both incorrect and stupid. The debut cd from the Baha Men sold more in 2000 than all but two albums this year. Would you define that as a quality album?

**** Bono and **** Lars