Bono is a fraud. They moved their company headquarters to another country just to avoid paying so much in taxes.

I'm not surprised. As they age, it gets more expensive to feed that enormous ego... Heck, the tickets for the 'oldie groups' are HUGE! Van Halen, Jimmy Buffett, Rolling Stones, U2, Genesis...

I remember I saw the Kinks from the 10 row for $15.00 face value!

'Money for nothing, and your chicks for free'.

Tech companies are no more responsible for music piracy than the internet is responsible for music piracy. People are responsible for music piracy.

One certainly has to admire the Chutzpah of man if nothing else. To demand payment for what in many cases is unadulterated sewage certainly takes a lot of nerve. How many millions is enough for these people?

I heard this guy interviewed on RTE Radio 1 (the Irish national broadcaster) this morning and he seems to fit the mold of a conspiracy theorist.

In the course of the interview, he claimed that ISPs know what is in every single packet of data and that it would be "no problem" for them to filter all illegal content. He also claimed that companies like Apple and Microsoft make so much money because of the free content from the music industry. Finally he then made all sorts of claims about the amount of pirated material (70% of Internet data is pirated data) that had no attribution to sources or really any basis in reality.

It was one of those situations where it is hard to know where to start. Obviously, he is glossing over extremely complex technical issues and really has no clue how the technologies work. He also has no idea of how the business models for large software companies work or even a little bit of what they are based on.

On the subject of tracking content, there are ISPs out there who have tried to block peer-to-peer data transfers by generating counterfit packets that cancel the transfer, but they have no idea what the actual data is being transferred. All they know is that it is likely that they are from a peer-to-peer transfer. The arguments that follow about forcing ISPs to pay music companies up front for the content their users access or to block pirated content are largely based on the flawed argument about ISPs ability to track what is being transferred.

Another big issue with requiring ISPs to monitor and block pirated (or other inappropriate conent) has to do with liability. If ISPs are responsible for blocking illegal content, they will also take at least some responsibility for the times that the illegal content does manage to be transferred.

The other point he makes about Microsoft, Apple and other tech firms making money from content that is not their own is equally flawed. No one expects to hold the city or state responsible for building the roads that bank robbers use to make their get-away. Also, no one blames the phone company when someone calls their drug dealer to arrange a meeting. Why should we blame the technology firms that provide what is essentially infrastructure that can be used for any number of uses.

All in all, this guy does not have a clue what he is talking about.

It seems that the majority of those who have responded to this article have completely missed the point. Farhad was not arguing in regards to the moral or legal issues surrounding music sharing over the internet; rather, he was illustrating the idiocy of McGuinness' position regarding the culpability of ISPs in regards to such file sharing.

Others might feel differently, but I really don't see how a rational person can disagree that McGuinness is wildly misguided. Is the internet a tool that can be used to violate current copyright law? Yes. Has it been designed to specifically do so, and is that the goal of current ISPs? No. Why not hold the manufactures of crowbars liable when their products are used in various crimes, such as vandalism or breaking & entering? It seems to be fundamentally the same idea, even if the situation posited in my example is ludicrous. Of course, corporations can and should be held liable in situations involving gross negligence or blatant deception regarding the nature of their product, but I can't seriously see how either situation applies in this case.

This seems like a pretty simple concept, people. If you can pay for something, but instead circumvent that route and take it without paying for it, ethically, that is stealing. I can see how some of you might believe that there's a gray area of copyright infringement versus fair usage, or feel justified in taking something you haven't paid for because you're poor or not as wealthy as a mythical rock star. That doesn't magically change the definition of theft.

With obvious exceptions, musicians are not well compensated. Period. Success is fleeting for the vast majority, regardless of how talented or deserving of success they may be. And most of the money in the music biz goes into the pockets of labels owners and concert promoters - the suits. The statement about how most musicians make more from t-shirt sales than any other source is true. And while stealing (or whatever else you'd like to call it) will eventually contribute to the collapse of a corrupt system (which is a good thing), IT'S STILL STEALING.

Any other conclusion is denial. If you can live with it, OK.

Actually, I've never been a big U2 fan. I think Bono and company are pretty whiny and pretentious when you get down to it and it comes as no surprise that their manager is too. However, although he probably doesn't know it, his claim of countercultural origins for the Internet bears a good deal of truth. In the mid-sixties to mid-seventies there was a whole group of bright people who dropped acid, smoked dope and stayed in school getting their doctorates in physics and computer science and along the way inventing/developing the protocols and early hardware for much of what underlies the Internet. Thomas Bass wrote "The Eudamonic Pie", chronicling one very entertaining aspect of this stealth counterculture.

Also, it is quite arguable, as in an earlier letter, that Google can be regarded as an extension and evolution growing out of the fabled/mythical counterculture.

Still don't like U2. Bono will prance all over the world and still never find what it is he's looking for, as he has no idea in the first place.