Spending other people's money

I've always thought Bono was largely full of it. Today I am, irrevocably and forever, completely convinced of the fact. Bono has made a second career out of, in effect, telling other people (governments) how they should spend money which was acquired under coercion (taxation) from third parties (taxpayers). He calls it "aid", but it means the same thing.

Yet, today, U2's manager proves that globalised celebrity socialism only goes so far. Apparently, the line in the sand at which the transfer of capital from one group to another is firmly drawn is just before U2's intellectual capital is transferred to people who download their music without paying.

U2's manager proposed that ISPs be made to monitor and disconnect people who share files.

Is downloading U2's music wrong because the people doing it are not dirt poor? One of the soft-celeb-left arguments in favour of aid is that "we have so much and they have nothing, so we should give them some money". I don't necessarily decry that, but why won't the members of U2 - who undoubtedly have a very, very, very large pile of cash each - give those of us who have (relatively speaking) nothing, a slice of the action?

I don't particularly condone piracy. However, given that Bono has made a second career out of advocating the involuntary transfer of capital from one group to another, it's more than a bit rich to hear his manager whining about these ultra-rich rock stars not making enough money.