U2 manager has the audacity to criticizes Irish law and defense on UPC descision.

Run_to_da_hills

I think U2 have the audacity to criticize UPC's defense, the high court or Irish Law its decision on blocking "illegal downloading" from UPC particularly if they can move a large portion of its business to the Netherlands to lavoid contributing to the Irish exchequer.

It is the same as someone who dose not vote in a general election and at the same time knocks the government that gets in. They have no right to criticize Irish Law until they contribute fully to the Irish Exchequer.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/1014/breaking52.html

bonerm

If it makes him feel any better I can confirm I haven't downloaded any U2 tunes and don't plan on ever changing that

Saadyst

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

I think U2 have the audacity to criticize UPC's defense, the high court or Irish Law its decision on blocking "illegal downloading" from UPC particularly if they can move a large portion of its business to the Netherlands to lavoid contributing to the Irish exchequer.

It is the same as someone who dose not vote in a general election and at the same time knocks the government that gets in. They have no right to criticize Irish Law until they contribute fully to the Irish Exchequer.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/1014/breaking52.html

What the hell are you talking about.

godscop

Well in fairness they are short a few bob ! :rolleyes:

MrStuffins

In before "Ah sure that Bono fella doesn't even pay tax in Ireland" or the usual ballocks............ oh, look at that, too late!

Earthhorse

I'm strongly against illegal downloading (though I agree with the judgement in the case) but fuckin' lol at this:

"Not to sound over-dramatic, but frankly it has got to do with the future of civilisation and a culture within our society. If we allow it to become accepted that writers and artists and musicians are not entitled to get paid for their work and they are, in some kind of daft way, pursuing hobbies where we will be in the future? We will get news from Google search and the telcos (telecommunications companies) and the ISPs will dominate the horrible new world".

Yeah, that doesn't sound over-dramatic at all.

Cookie_Monster

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

They have no right to criticize Irish Law until they contribute fully to the Irish Exchequer.

you appear to be mixing up legal and and financial there...

easyeason3

Does anyone else think that Paul McGuinness looks like the head is burnt off him from drink in that photo?

smokedeels

In an interview with The Irish Times , Mr McGuinness said the defence of "mere conduit" was "not an excuse when there are questions of national security, child pornography or terrorism".

Telephone, Snail-Mail and Passenger Pigeons are conduits for information to be sent and received, he is suggesting that all communications should be monitored incase somebody is breaking the law?

It's always the internet that's targeted, every crime that occurs on the internet, happens offline too.

"All the emphasis on crime and drugs and pornography used to justify the suppression of the Internet is really aimed at suppressing knowledge of the radical political alternatives that are now available" - Tony Benn

I feel, in this instance, it's the suppression of the radical alternatives to the music industry, as it currently exists.

_feedback_

His comparison to child pornography is a bit ridiculous.

In fairness, he does explicitly state that he is not making these points from a U2 point of view, and says they are unaffected by it.

wrote:

The cliché that live music and merchandising have taken over as a source of income for artists is simply not true," he said. "In U2's case, of course it is true, we're big boys. We are comparatively unaffected by this because the majority of our business is live. It is sometime annoys me that when I make this case everybody says it is just McGuinness looking for more money for U2. I'm entitled to make this case independent of U2 because I believe in it.

MrStuffins

This thread has been done a million times in different guises!

The Sun: Bono criticises Irish Banks

"Sure he doesn't pay tax in ireland"

The Daily Fail: The Edge drinks a pint of Guinness

"Cheeky f*ck doesn't even pay tax here, how dare he drink Guinness".

it was boring then, it's boring now! Get over it!

Awful_Bliss

Why wasn't he wingeing in the 80's when people were recording their songs off the radio or duplicating their albums on cassettes for mates. Everyone did that. They probably lost a few million sales right there.

aDeener

MrStuffins wrote: »

This thread has been done a million times in different guises!

The Sun: Bono criticises Irish Banks

"Sure he doesn't pay tax in ireland"

The Daily Fail: The Edge drinks a pint of Guinness

"Cheeky f*ck doesn't even pay tax here, how dare he drink Guinness".

it was boring then, it's boring now! Get over it!

why comment once let alone twice on the thread then? :rolleyes:

General Zod

MrStuffins wrote: »

This thread has been done a million times in different guises!

The Sun: Bono criticises Irish Banks

"Sure he doesn't pay tax in ireland"

The Daily Fail: The Edge drinks a pint of Guinness

"Cheeky f*ck doesn't even pay tax here, how dare he drink Guinness".

it was boring then, it's boring now! Get over it!

Get your head our of bono's hole for 2 minutes and reread the thread.

U2 Publishing are depriving the Irish exchequer of a large amount of money by moving to Holland to benefit from tax breaks. That was the only tax post that was mentioned before you charged in. And it's 100% relevant.

The amount of money they make means any of them have some fecking cheek complaining about "lost revenues" which he says doesn't affect him all that much.

Paul McGuinness doesn't give two fups about anyone else's revenues but his own.

General Zod

edit:
Also, lol

The cliché that live music and merchandising have taken over as a source of income for artists is simply not true," he said. "In U2's case, of course it is true

The majority of alot of artists business is live, as it has been for many many years.

Dravokivich

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

I think U2 have the audacity to criticize UPC's defense, the high court or Irish Law its decision on blocking "illegal downloading" from UPC particularly if they can move a large portion of its business to the Netherlands to lavoid contributing to the Irish exchequer.

It is the same as someone who dose not vote in a general election and at the same time knocks the government that gets in. They have no right to criticize Irish Law until they contribute fully to the Irish Exchequer.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/1014/breaking52.html

I don't get ya...

What does complaining about the lack of legislation about online piracy have to do with the way they've structured their business intrests?

Notorious97

it shouldnt come as a surprise to know that U2 especially Bono = Cúnts.

As much as people give out about him not paying taxes, i trhink he deserves all the grief he gets. Complete tosser.

I dont recommend people go out and download anything they can and share it, but music prices are way too high, if people download it and like it then they should buy it if its an artist they want to support. As for U2 i dont like shi*e music so i wont be illegally or legally downloading the rubbish they put out

That is all

orourkeda

MrStuffins wrote: »

This thread has been done a million times in different guises!

The Sun: Bono criticises Irish Banks

"Sure he doesn't pay tax in ireland"

The Daily Fail: The Edge drinks a pint of Guinness

"Cheeky f*ck doesn't even pay tax here, how dare he drink Guinness".

it was boring then, it's boring now! Get over it!

The thing is he doesnt pay tax in ireland.

PCPhoto

the problem is the music industry has evolved and the people whinging are those that are redundant.

why don't the musicians set up a system where the music is downloaded for X amount directly from official website - if someone is found to be distributing/selling music from an unofficial source then it is copyright theft.

cut the costs to the ordinary person and people will buy it - but when everyone involved adds their little amount to the price then its ridiculous...use a tactic that petrol stations often use - drop the price and sell more !!

MrStuffins

General Zod wrote: »

Get your head our of bono's hole for 2 minutes and reread the thread.

U2 Publishing are depriving the Irish exchequer of a large amount of money by moving to Holland to benefit from tax breaks. That was the only tax post that was mentioned before you charged in. And it's 100% relevant.

The amount of money they make means any of them have some fecking cheek complaining about "lost revenues" which he says doesn't affect him all that much.

Paul McGuinness doesn't give two fups about anyone else's revenues but his own.

And you do yeah?

Have you ever gone to your employer and said "hey, i'd like to give more money to the Exchequer, could you make sure i'm paying more tax than i currently am?

Don't talk ballocks!

You know as well as i do that if you had a chance to hire an accountant who could ensure that you can do the same amount of work but for more money, via paying less tax, that you would do it!

Anyone who says otherwise is either lying or is an idiot!

LOL at your assertion that i disagree with you just because my head is up "Bono's hole". i don't even like U2! But the fact is people need to change the record here. They are not doing something that you would not do!

dolphin city

ah they should offer it up for the starving children in africa - isn't that bono's favourite shout about.

failing that maybe their lickar*e friend fanning will make up the shortfall :D

if anyone finds a spine lurking about in the muck, can they post it back to fanning - he seems to be missing his.

MrStuffins

aDeener wrote: »

why comment once let alone twice on the thread then? :rolleyes:

To put both points across, try to keep up won't ya?

General Zod

MrStuffins wrote: »

They are not doing something that you would not do!

Speak for yourself. If I was in U2's position I'd keep as much business as I could over here, keep as many people living in Ireland employed and let it be known that my taxes were supporting the public finances as much as I possibly could.

I'd sell twice the amount of goods through the goodwill that would generate.

Don't presume everyone else is of the same mind as you.

Dravokivich

PCPhoto wrote: »

the problem is the music industry has evolved and the people whinging are those that are redundant.

No they're not... They have seen most of the growth and progress of the industry and how it evolved. If anything, for the most part they are the one's to listen too...

PCPhoto wrote: »

why don't the musicians set up a system where the music is downloaded for X amount directly from official website - if someone is found to be distributing/selling music from an unofficial source then it is copyright theft.

Er... that's what the label are for... they are the distributors...

Be it CD's or Downloads...

The problem here is that they are making the sites offering piracy public knowledge instead of promoting various other sites they endorse where the services are availible...

Their negative press is boosting piracy...

MrStuffins

PCPhoto wrote: »

the problem is the music industry has evolved and the people whinging are those that are redundant.

Exactly.

the music industry is changing but the Record Companies want to keep it constant, they want to be able to effectively have us overpay for music they way we have been until the advent of the internet.

People saying musicians can't make a living from their music anymore is bullsh*t! They certainly can. And as soon as the Record Companies realise that the world has changed and react accordingly, there won't be such a difference.

Remember VHS? And the movie industry was going to fall around the executive's feet? it didnt happen, surprisingly!

mikerowsopht

what a load of horse $ht1
has anyone seen the episode of South Park where the record for the largest ever taken poo
Bono was the record as in he is poo

I hope he fails but money talks. It will be a sad day when I have to pay for musix and films.

Failing that I will just buy an Internet Connection in Switzerland and do my downloading there

MrStuffins

General Zod wrote: »

Speak for yourself. If I was in U2's position I'd keep as much business as I could over here, keep as many people living in Ireland employed and let it be known that my taxes were supporting the public finances as much as I possibly could.

I'd sell twice the amount of goods through the goodwill that would generate.

Don't presume everyone else is of the same mind as you.

So you'd only do it if you were in someone else's position?

but not your own?

That's rather convenient don't you think?

Answer this question please. if you had the opportunity to do the same job you do now but bring home more money by paying less taxes, would you take the opportunity?

th3 s1aught3r

That Ad they used to have about illegal downloads "you wouldnt steal a handbag, so why steal a movie?"
Like stealing someones handbag is the same as downloading a movie ?
Is your view of morality that simplistic, do you really think they are the same crime ?

MrStuffins

th3 s1aught3r wrote: »

That Ad they used to have about illegal downloads "you wouldnt steal a handbag, so why steal a movie?"
Like stealing someones handbag is the same as downloading a movie ?
Is your view of morality that simplistic, do you really think they are the same crime ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wRxfz_6E7o

lazyQuestions

MrStuffins wrote: »

And you do yeah?

Have you ever gone to your employer and said "hey, i'd like to give more money to the Exchequer, could you make sure i'm paying more tax than i currently am?

Don't talk ballocks!

You know as well as i do that if you had a chance to hire an accountant who could ensure that you can do the same amount of work but for more money, via paying less tax, that you would do it!

Anyone who says otherwise is either lying or is an idiot!

LOL at your assertion that i disagree with you just because my head is up "Bono's hole". i don't even like U2! But the fact is people need to change the record here. They are not doing something that you would not do!

Yes they are, I wouldnt be a smug prick about it.

Notorious97

th3 s1aught3r wrote: »

That Ad they used to have about illegal downloads "you wouldnt steal a handbag, so why steal a movie?"
Like stealing someones handbag is the same as downloading a movie ?
Is your view of morality that simplistic, do you really think they are the same crime ?

You wouldnt download a car......would if i could mate :pac:

th3 s1aught3r

MrStuffins wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wRxfz_6E7o

Thats class

MrStuffins

lazyQuestions wrote: »

Yes they are, I wouldnt be a smug prick about it.

Ah, but nobody is complaining about their smugness 9yet)

so how about you? if you could do the same job as you do right now but get paid more money for it due to an accounting trick.... would you do it?

General Zod

MrStuffins wrote: »

So you'd only do it if you were in someone else's position?

but not your own?

That's rather convenient don't you think?

Answer this question please. if you had the opportunity to do the same job you do now but bring home more money by paying less taxes, would you take the opportunity?

No.

At the moment the country needs all the income it can get.

MrStuffins

General Zod wrote: »

No.

At the moment the country needs all the income it can get.

Ah, so have you gone to your boss and donated more tax? or requested to be put onto a higher tax bracket?

Or sent money to The Exchuquer saying "You need as much as you can get, here's some more".

And if not, why not?

I find it very hard to believe that you would rather give more money to the government than out more food on your childrens plates!

General Zod

MrStuffins wrote: »

Ah, so have you gone to your boss and donated more tax? or requested to be put onto a higher tax bracket?

Or sent money to The Exchuquer saying "You need as much as you can get, here's some more".

And if not, why not?

I've not taken certain tax breaks that are available to me, for what little that helps.

MrStuffins

General Zod wrote: »

I've not taken certain tax breaks that are available to me, for what little that helps.

Have you done any of the things listed above?

After all, you say The Exchequer needs all they can get. You haven't donated more?

Run_to_da_hills

Saadyst wrote: »

What the hell are you talking about.

The fcuking pot shouldn't be calling the kettle black.

ghostdancer

well if he has his way:

- i'll stop downloading albums by bands i've only heard in passing.
- then look at their cd in HMV and decide that i'm not spending 15quid on a cd of a band that i don't know
- not go to loads gigs by the bands i've only ever heard of by downloading their albums
- generally spend a lot less money on music/gigs than i currently am

General Zod

MrStuffins wrote: »

Have you done any of the things listed above?

After all, you say The Exchequer needs all they can get. You haven't donated more?

No, I haven't because I cannot afford to.

MrStuffins

General Zod wrote: »

No, I haven't because I cannot afford to.

So you haven't then?

Strange that eh?

General Zod

MrStuffins wrote: »

So you haven't then?

Strange that eh?

It's like trying to poke butter up a hedgehog's hole with a hot needle arguing with you.


I've done what I can, what little I can. I can't do more than that. Can U2 say the same?

MrStuffins

ghostdancer wrote: »

well if he has his way:

- i'll stop downloading albums by bands i've only heard in passing.
- then look at their cd in HMV and decide that i'm not spending 15quid on a cd of a band that i don't know
- not go to loads gigs by the bands i've only ever heard of by downloading their albums
- generally spend a lot less money on music/gigs than i currently am

I've been in bands since i was younger (im still young.... compared to time itself) and you realise when you're starting out that the more people hear your music, the more people turn up to your shows and the more money goes into your Sky Rocket!

It is essentially the same here, although more complicated.

I can't count the amount of times i have gone to see a band on the strength of something i have acquired for free. There are particular bands who i have gone to see multiple times who i would have NEVER heard of nor bothered with had i not received their music for free one way or another.

Now i'm not saying bands and artists shouldn't be paid for their music, but at least there are some companies who are trying to move witht he times and have people pay subscriptions or use advertising or whatever.

Not just to say "AHHH, THE WORLD IS CHANGING!!! WE MUST STOP IT!"

MrStuffins

General Zod wrote: »

It's like trying to poke butter up a hedgehog's hole with a hot needle arguing with you.

What?

I've done what I can, what little I can. I can't do more than that.Can U2 say the same?

Why can't you do more?

General Zod

MrStuffins wrote: »

What?



Why can't you do more?

Because I can't afford to. U2 can very easily do more, but have done whatever they could to make even more money.

MrStuffins

General Zod wrote: »

Because I can't afford to. U2 can very easily do more, but have done whatever they could to make even more money.

Why would you not want more money?

humanji

OP, is there a certain amount you have to give to the Exchequer before you're allowed to criticise anything? Because U2 have given more than most people on Boards ever will.

General Zod

I give up, you're going round in circles, I'll leave you to it.

MrStuffins

General Zod wrote: »

I give up, you're going round in circles, I'll leave you to it.

Not really GZ, it's pretty basic.

Everyone would love to work the same amount of hours and do the same job for more money. Then they criticise U2 for doing just that.

:rolleyes:

prinz

humanji wrote: »

OP, is there a certain amount you have to give to the Exchequer before you're allowed to criticise anything? Because U2 have given more than most people on Boards ever will.

They've also earned more than most people on Boards ever will. It's called paying your share, not paying an equal share.

No different to Phil Green in the UK, bitching about his tax bill of a few hundred million and going off-shore to avoid... when he can pay his own family over a billion sterling.

stimpson