Some people have all the nerve.

This past weekend, U2’s lead singer penned an op-ed for the New York Times covering an assortment of topics. Ten, in fact. One of them was file sharing. Which, for the record, has nothing to do with passing around the emery board at a sleepover. He said:

Caution! 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.

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.

We’re the post office, they tell us; who knows what’s in the brown-paper packages? But we know from America’s noble effort to stop child pornography, not to mention China’s ignoble effort to suppress online dissent, that it’s perfectly possible to track content. Perhaps movie moguls will succeed where musicians and their moguls have failed so far, and rally America to defend the most creative economy in the world, where music, film, TV and video games help to account for nearly 4 percent of gross domestic product. 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.

As one can imagine, the BitTorrent brigade has been howling ever since. Spoiled rich rock star. We’re not stealing. We’re standing up to The Man. Power to the people. More Ovaltine, please. (Okay, I threw that last one in to see if you’re paying attention.)

In other words, they’ve reacted without reading.

As Bono makes clear, the big boys and girls don’t notice the lost revenue all that much. It’s the Chris Ryans of this world, the ones trying to make it as artists, who get hurt the most by file sharing both directly and indirectly. Directly, every copy of their music downloaded illegally is that much less money in their pocket. A very shallow pocket. Indirectly, as the revenue stream for record companies shrink, they become less interested in taking a chance on any new artist that doesn’t come across as immediate pop fan fodder. Thus, anything outside the ultra-commercial norm gets put to the side. Anything… and anyone.

Believe me, I’m no music industry lover. Exact opposite. However, like any other business it deserves what it earns. Taking content without compensation is inexcusable. It hurts all parties involved, not just the soulless corporation. It’s asking people to work for free, people who spend a lot of money, time and effort on their work in hope of earning a living from their art. If you see no problem with that, make sure you volunteer your services at work whenever someone wishes for it to be that way. Assuming you have a job or are actively trying to get one, that is.

So yeah, rail against Bono all you want. He’s telling the truth. Don’t like it? Too bad.

P.S. Before anyone jumps on the “who are you to talk — you’re using copyrighted material in this post” bandwagon, yes I am. The differences between this and file sharing? One, I give credit, including a link back, to the source. Two, the content is available for free from the originator, therefore no revenue is lost when you click over to read the entire article, thus seeing the ads on the Times’ site. So save the faux outrage.

P.S. Here’s some Chris Ryan for you: