Let’s say that you are in the market for a new desk, and while discussing this with a friend, he replies, “I have the perfect desk for you-and you can have it for free!”
This would be, by all accounts, great news. You get a new desk and not a dime has been spent. Sure, the desk may not be perfect. It might be a little bigger than you wanted, or not as sleek or fashionable as the Ikea piece you had your eye on, but hey, free is free.
Now imagine that this friend, while you were out running errands, or at work or school, came by your apartment, broke in, and left the desk in your living room, only to sneak off into the night without so much as a word or note left behind to offer an explanation.
Depending on how much you like or know this friend, this turn of events can be taken as either the most remarkably generous act that you have experienced or as a sign that the locks must be changed immediately.
Such was the conundrum that many an ITunes subscriber faced on Sept 9th, upon finding the new U2 album, Songs of Innocence, already purchased in their account.
The reaction was mixed, at best.
To some, finding U2’s new album sitting in their purchased folder on ITunes was a gross violation of their privacy, to others it was a welcome surprise.
Certainly, U2 front man Bono did not have inkling that the backlash to their release would be so swift and brutal. On the band website, U2.com, Bono posted a blog stating, “ Part of the DNA of this band has been always been the desire to get our music out to as many people as possible. “ This may be true, but what about the desire of the consumer?
The problem, is that, as the American political landscape remains frustratingly stagnant and the cultural landscapes overseas grows ever more volatile, the one place where people feel they have any true agency is through their power as consumers. In many ways, we have reached the apotheosis of the Capitalist ideal in America, as well as in much of the developed world (Corporations have reached the level of personhood in the eyes of the law, for goodness sakes!). Inherent in that Capitalist ideal is the promise that consumers are able to make choices on what they purchase and what to do with those purchases. When that choice is taken away, even if the motives are seemingly benign, it leaves us feeling powerless and violated.
Furthermore, we become queasy when artists get in bed with corporations. It doesn’t set well with us when a company celebrates the tenth anniversary of a commercial (Apple famously released a U2 themed IPod that came preloaded with their discography to promote their nascent technology and the commercial was played approximately a trillion times a day)—the reason why Apple decided to pay U2 over $100 million dollars for their new album, and force the product on us without our consent.
This has been a huge blunder that threatens to violate the already tarnished reputation of both Apple and U2. Unfortunately, the two entities are held to different standards. People expect large corporations to do creepy things that are potential violations of our privacy (Facebook is going stronger than ever, despite several questions that have been raised about its privacy policy), but the face of the violation will now be U2, whose reputation has been on shaky ground since the dismal sales of their 2009 album, No Line on the Horizon, which is a shame, really, because the album is perhaps their strongest effort in over a decade and while it does not suggest the return of their Joshua Tree zenith, it does intimate that there is still some vitality left in the decades old band.
Everyone has the album, but is anyone willing to listen?
-Justin Gray
The Junction Journal 