Leper Messiah Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 Back in the days when Napster wasnt a nice legal system and you could get anything you wanted off it for nothing, Metallica joined the battle to sue its ass off. Lars Ulrich, Metallica's drummer is without a doubt a bit of an objectionable little sod (those in doubt can watch Metallica's "Some Kind Of Monster" film) and unfortunately he was the man who spearheaded the Metallica effort to take Napster down. In addition to taking action against Napster, Ulrich took the step of producing a list of 300,000 people who had downloaded Metallica music, demanding that Napster ban them, which they duely did. Many fans in turn declared that Metallica were nothing but corporate sell outs and vowed never to listen to their music again. In other words, little kids went off in a sulk because they were caught stealing. at least IMO. I personally believe Metallica taking a part in the fight against Napster was 100% correct (Lars Ulrich even appeared at a congressional hearing on the threat to legitimate business posed by Napster and such companies). If a group makes a record, releases it and tours it all the while working their ass off if someone comes along and puts it up for nothing on the net, its undermining the group that made it. Metallica did not turn on their fans, Metallica fans who had downloaded only live performances were not targeted because Metallica have never had a problem with bootlegs or recordings of them live being thrown around, after all bootlegging was how Metallica's original demo tapes No Life Till Leather and Metal Up Your Ass got around and made Metallica made their name in LA and San Fransisco. At their live shows on the black album tour, they even provided a section for people who wanted to bring along their own stuff to record the show. However things a different when you're dealing with perfect digital copies of studio recordings as opposed to someone downloading live tracks from the show they went to. For one thing, the live shows can't exist without successful albums to tour, and the chance of an album being successful is greatly reduced if people are downloading it for free. So I firmly support Metallica's decision that they took on Napster, even if Lars Ulrich made himself look like an ass throughout, he was still right. Who was right in your opinion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astrotoy7 Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 Originally posted by Leper Messiah ....So I firmly support Metallica's decision that they took on Napster, even if Lars Ulrich made himself look like an ass throughout, he was still right. Who was right in your opinion? he he he..... F*k Lars and Metallica..... Enter Sandman...pfft !!!! Death/Black Metal are the only flavours astro likes... and what did the whole Napster debacle do apart from show Lars as the wanker he is.......nothing much at all.... *cough*Kazaa *cough*Limewire *cough*winmx *cough*eDonkey/overnet etc etc mtfbwya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
txa1265 Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 I am an optical phycisist in the semiconductor industry, and was having a discussion at a business dinner the other night about a vendor in our industry who is suing a customer over cancelling an order (for several million dollars) right before shipment in violation of terms and conditions. The cancellation isn't uncommon, nor is having terms that spell out penalties - it is just that nobody ever pays them - something always gets worked out. Why? The old maxim that it is a dangerous thing, suing your customers. Which is why, when I worked in a Department store over holidays during college years ago, we would be directed to take back anything that was remotely possible from our store - the philosphy of 'do not argue with the customer'. Which brings us to Napster. The basic premise of which was to obtain commercial music you didn't pay for. Now, I call that stealing, but that is a debate for another time Anyway - it seems clear that the music industry would head up attempts to stop illegal trading of music - stuff definitely outside of the scope of the license obtained when buying a CD or the general principals of 'fair use'. But to have the artists involved? That seems risky to say the least. Especially in the rock & pop realm, these are largely people who tend to live a little loose with the laws themselves ... and you always risk alienating your fab base, even the 'paying customers', by appearing to be 'in the corporate pocket'. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toms Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 Metallica were idiots, not only in what they did, but the way they went about it. They basically tried their hardest to punish their biggest fans... nice move... It was basically a case of the music industry being scared by microsoft (who cooincidentally wanted to license their DRM technology) and them passing that fear down to metallica, who panicked and went after their own fans. There are whole loads of stats you can bring out for these sorts of debates (napster users bought (on average) MORE CDS than non users; cd sales went down, and have now gone back up... completely independently of the download rates) but basically it was a case of a new distribution method appearing, and instead of embracing it, they ran screaming in the other direction. Once everyone has wireless ipods that allow them to peer-to-peer with guys they walk past in the street they will HAVE to embrace the fact that the old ways are changing. Have a tax on downloads/storage (like canada) or music devices that is split among record companies based on the popularity of their catalogue (like in russia). Make your money from advertising, or value added/peripheral products like the tv industry does (t-shirts, callendars, ringtones, special edition bundles, U2 branded ipods, etc.. ). Find innovative NEW ways to exploit your catalogue. Adapt. Move on. Once the music industry realises that the web gives them as many advantages as disadvantages, and stops letting DRM manufacturers scare them into suing their own fans, we will all be better off. On a final (pragmatic) note: At that time Napster had an almost 100% market share of downloaders. No one used much else. No one used peer to peer networks. If the music industy had made a deal with napster at that time they could have made it into 1000 times the success that iTunes has become. They could have had an almost captive audience. They could have introduced a "premium" membership which meant you got guaranteed file quality and added all their catalogues to it... which people would have used as they got fedup of with poor quality on the free site. they could have linked searches and songs to catalogues of related stuff (looking for a metalica song... here, while you are waiting how about buying some metalica t-shirts?) They could even have slowly introduced DRM and increased prices if they wanted. Instead they closed it down, splintered the downloading community into 100s of different sites, networks and so on... which are now either impossible or highly expensive to shut down. Think how much they must be paying their lawyers. Whatever the moral arguments, shutting down Napster was the WORST idea the music industry had since boy-bands. -------------- Personally, i downloaded the whole metalica catalogue in a fit of childish rage. Then realised 80% of it was rubbish and deleted a lot of it. The only one i kept was the black album, which i had on tape anyway. And from waht i can tell, their last album hardly sold that great... maybe they shouldn't have annoyed so many fans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
txa1265 Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 Originally posted by Astrotoy7 [stolen music] the only flavour astro likes Originally posted by Astrotoy7 *cough* other thieving sites Petty thieves will be petty thieves ... Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leper Messiah Posted October 28, 2004 Author Share Posted October 28, 2004 All of Metallica's music as well as virtually every live show they have done on their current tour is available for purchase on their website, so they have adapted to include the internet as a method of getting their stuff out (it is still not available legally on itunes or any other online source as far as i know). Metallica are not your average band in so much as THEY own their music, not a record company. If for instance you wanted to use a Metallica song for a commercial you have to negotiate with Metallica, not their label. It is, therefore their decision where their music is available. Napster was supplying their tracks without their permission which to my mind means that taking action was something Metallica were fully entitled to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogue15 Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 and to think that if napster never existed, i wouldn't have heard any of the bands or bought any of the cds i have now.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leper Messiah Posted October 28, 2004 Author Share Posted October 28, 2004 Originally posted by Rogue15 and to think that if napster never existed, i wouldn't have heard any of the bands or bought any of the cds i have now.... no band has ever acheived widespread success through the internet alone. The reasons bands become successful is because record companies give a lot of money to marketing bands and supporting tours. Napster, and other such entities do not promote or market on any major level. They do not build awareness of bands. If Napster (even now that its all nice and legal) were to become the major method of music distrubution it would hurt the chances of ever seeing anything original or worthwhile coming through into widespread success. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
--ZeeMan-- Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 i thought discussions regarding the music 'collecting' industry weren't allowed...... btw astro good points Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Writer Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 "If it's burned, it's stolen," says I. In that case, I'd say Metallica was in the right here. Maybe they didn't go about this in the best way, but they deserve the money for what they've produced. If places like Napster go around simply giving stuff out that's copywrighted, they should be shut down (or modified). My personal opinion here... a friend burned me a few CDs and I wasn't exactly happy about it. Will I get rid of them and buy the CDs? No, probably not. That's almost like saying "I don't like your way of getting music," to her face... while it's true, I don't feel she needs to know that. So now that I've rambled on about this... I think I'll stop. wildjedi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toms Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 Originally posted by Leper Messiah no band has ever acheived widespread success through the internet alone. The reasons bands become successful is because record companies give a lot of money to marketing bands and supporting tours. Napster, and other such entities do not promote or market on any major level. They do not build awareness of bands. If Napster (even now that its all nice and legal) were to become the major method of music distrubution it would hurt the chances of ever seeing anything original or worthwhile coming through into widespread success. They haven't yet reached that critical mass among the general public. But they will soon. Network speeds will increase, peer to peer sharing will increase, portable wireless will increase, mobiles will have hard drives and wireless connections, ipods will be the biggest seller this xmas. Personally, as i think 95% of the stuff that is promoted on tv and radio is trash (and only get bought cos of the promotion. When did you last see a song that worked it's way UP to no.1?) my ONLY hope is that online distribution changes the way people access music. Instead of being force fed a diet of what the music industry thinks 12 year old girls (the only ones who buy cd singles) will like, we will all be making out own playlists and podcasting our own tastes. You will download a song and get suggestions of related stuff, stuff other people also liked, stuff the band like, etc... It will open a whole new world away from music industry promotion. I hope. For independant labels and unsigned bands the internet has been a godsend. They can now get their music heard. There are websites and (legal) peer-to-peer radio that broadcasts unsigned bands based on your preferences or other users tastes. Originally posted by Leper Messiah Metallica are not your average band in so much as THEY own their music, not a record company. If for instance you wanted to use a Metallica song for a commercial you have to negotiate with Metallica, not their label. It is, therefore their decision where their music is available. Napster was supplying their tracks without their permission which to my mind means that taking action was something Metallica were fully entitled to do. Maybe, but still not smart. Good for them that they were powerful enough to get a contract that meant that they owned their own music. 99% of bands don't, and are tied into terrible record deals that mean they see almost zero profit from cd sales (their cut just about covers their fees for travel, making cds etc..). Most bands make all their profits (if any) from live tours, as it is the only time they get a decent cut. Many other bands embraced the technology and were quite happy for fans to download their music. But then i guess they weren't as fortunate as metallica... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acdcfanbill Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 i will agree that accoriding to current law, it is illegal to download music you dont own. but what angered me the most was how metallica did a 180 degree spin in their opinion of trading music. they cretided it for their rise to stardom, because of a lack of airplay, when they started, ppl trading tapes and such got metallica much deserved support. now, all of a sudden, they are rich and powerful, and trading thier stuff is not ok anymore. granted, it was the appearance of the un-finished i dissapear track that set it off, but they still went on to completely wipe out a service that might have done the same thing for other up and coming bands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pie™ Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 Originally posted by acdcfanbill i will agree that accoriding to current law, it is illegal to download music you dont own. but what angered me the most was how metallica did a 180 degree spin in their opinion of trading music. they cretided it for their rise to stardom, because of a lack of airplay, when they started, ppl trading tapes and such got metallica much deserved support. now, all of a sudden, they are rich and powerful, and trading thier stuff is not ok anymore. granted, it was the appearance of the un-finished i dissapear track that set it off, but they still went on to completely wipe out a service that might have done the same thing for other up and coming bands. This I agree with Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
txa1265 Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 Originally posted by acdcfanbill i will agree that accoriding to current law, it is illegal to download music you dont own. That is about as obvious as saying that it illegal to break into and drive away in a car you don't own or have the keys to ... ... the thing I never seem to get from the pirates is an admission that what they're doing is *wrong* ... so much self-serving justification, soft statistics, and on and on ... look - it isn't yours, you shouldn't be taking it. Don't give me that BS about the great service you're actually doing to artists ... Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 You know what I don't get, the RIAA claims to be doing this for the artists, but when they take filesharers to court, none of the awarded money goes to the artist the person "stole" from. It all goes to the RIAA to fund their hunt. I download music, I admit it. I don't condone piracy but unlike other people I actually do go out and buy albums. If I like it I buy the actual album, but if I don't like the music I delete it and don't buy the album simple as that. I see no difference between this and listening on the radio. But thats just me, I don't like it, I dont' buy it. I like it, I'll buy it. What made me dislike metallica was they were symbols of anti-coporate, suddenly here they are as "the system", when they used to be against "the system". It just aggrivates me. as a song writer I can understand not liking people taking your music, but music is about expression and art, not about making money. Once something goes from being an artform to an industry it should no longer have claim to artistic rights. It has lost it's role as a form of art, and become a commercial for a corporation to make money. Bands make about 50 cents an album (if lucky) the label gets the rest of the money sold from the album. Tours are the major source of the bands salary, as toms said. Personally I don't see any monetary loss for the bands or labels, because technically if someone didn't buy an album, they didn't make money right? well someone just downloaded the album (while technically stealing) it's the same as if they didn't purchase the album, so the money loss thing is moot to me. But I still think people should either delete the music if they don't like it, or purchase the album. Now if they only like a few songs, then only keep those few songs. My biggest complaint against music nowadays is there are 2 (at the most) good songs on an album. The rest is just there to fill up so they can sell it as an album instead of a single. Some bands actually have an entire good album, but not many. Too many of these trendy bands and groups just make 2 good songs and fill the rest of the album with crap that's barely listenable. Prices for these albums are outrageous, 20 bucks for an album with only 1 good song is insane and theivery in it's own right. Not to mention these cd's productions cost about a dollar each. I know, I've made proffesional CD's before, the process costs a dollar to do the disc and all. The music fans are being ripped off by these corporations that produce these cd's, the artists themselves are being cheated out of money too. 50 cents an album. Most of the bands I listen to are either incharge of their label, or don't have a label at all, and I buy directly from them. A lot of bands I listen to also share their music for free on their sites, because they do it for the art. What these musicians need to remember is the basics of music, it's about art, expression of ones self, not about selfish money grubbing. I remember David Bowie had free music of his up on his site for a while too, before he released his last album. Ringo Star doesn't mind people downloading his songs, he's just glad kids these days enjoy his music, and the beatles music. He said as long as they get the messages of the songs I don't care how they get the music, if they enjoy great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kain Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 Originally posted by wildjedi "If it's burned, it's stolen," says I. So, I have all these CD's over here next to me, and I have all the SAME CD's burned in my car...am I a thief? I already paid the retarted price for a CD, should I have to pay for them AGAIN so I can have a 'safe case' incase the ones in my car get stolen(which happens all to often)? Nice moral:rolleyes: Metallica used to say they were the band of the people - how quickly things change... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Windu Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 sidenote: It is legal to copy your own stuff. I forgot where I read that. I don't mind people downloading a couple songs. I have a few to test out the artist, but I do buy the albums when they are worth it. It's just like me listening to streaming music. Most of the stuff I get is deleted in one or two days after I decide whether or not to buy the album. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogue15 Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 yeah streaming music like 30 seconds of each song is a GOOD idea and i usually buy the cd if what i hear in 30 seconds is something that i like. at least if more than half the songs are like that. of course.....i buy my cds cheap and new at http://www.sound-and-spirit.com XD they take a month or 3 to get the newer cds out...but they have deals sometimes like 50% off with FREE shipping, etc. i must've bought like 10 cds from there so far. the more u buy there the more deals you get though...just don't buy unless they have that 50% off. XD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Windu Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 I use winamp... full length songs! =) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acdcfanbill Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 Originally posted by txa1265 That is about as obvious as saying that it illegal to break into and drive away in a car you don't own or have the keys to ... ... the thing I never seem to get from the pirates is an admission that what they're doing is *wrong* ... so much self-serving justification, soft statistics, and on and on ... look - it isn't yours, you shouldn't be taking it. Don't give me that BS about the great service you're actually doing to artists ... Mike you realize that the artists actually thanked us fans at one point in time for trading their music? some artists still encourage it, before Iron Maidens last album came out, they played a track off it at a live show, and Dickenson actually told the audience to get their tape recorders out and put it on the internet. the stipulation was that the fans would buy the album, but of course, 99% of the people that were there would do it anyway. I think it's a great service to trade music, it exposes artists to possible new fans. i buy alot of music, and the selection is pretty slim in my area, if u want brand new pop or rap, you are fine, but since im not into that, i have to order a lot of my cd's online. rather than testing a cd out listening to it at a store, i test stuff online before i buy it, granted, there is stuff i get and go 'glad i didnt buy that' but if i'd listened to it at a store first, i wouldnt have boughten it either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaulerZ Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 <-----That'll do....Yes....That'll do... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leper Messiah Posted October 28, 2004 Author Share Posted October 28, 2004 Originally posted by acdcfanbill but what angered me the most was how metallica did a 180 degree spin in their opinion of trading music. they cretided it for their rise to stardom, because of a lack of airplay, when they started, ppl trading tapes and such got metallica much deserved support. indeed but there is a difference when you are talking about tapes bootlegged from a show or a demo tape which could well be very poor quality, and perfect digital copies of original studio music, that being that the latter could very well eliminate somebodies willingness to buy an album whereas the former is much less likely to do so. Besides which, one of Ulrichs main arguments was that Metallica wanted the choice of what was done with their property. They didnt want it distributed for free on Napster and the law is with them on that. If Napster had just attempted to remove the Metallica content it could have solved the problem in so far as Ulrich and cos involvement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acdcfanbill Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 napster did attempt to block the transfer of metallica songs, but it failed. and yes, the quality was worse when metallica started, but there wasnt much that was better quality then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leper Messiah Posted October 28, 2004 Author Share Posted October 28, 2004 Originally posted by acdcfanbill napster did attempt to block the transfer of metallica songs, but it failed. and yes, the quality was worse when metallica started, but there wasnt much that was better quality then. there were still studio produced albums then and i dont think it would have pleased metallica back then if people had been making perfect copies of Kill Em All instead of paying for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edlib Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 As someone who actually earns a living in the music business (as does almost everybody I know...) I have mixed feelings about this whole thing. Free exposure: Good. Not getting paid for your hard work in order to gain that exposure: Bad. That's a rather drastic (and obviously contradictory) oversimplification of the situation,.. but then most of the arguments I have heard on both sides of the issue can be described that way. The issue is insanely complex, and really doesn't lend way to simple solutions that will ever make everybody happy. I actually have a lot of feelings and ideas about it, many of them contradictory (as you can see above,) and I'm sure I'm not alone in the industry that way. My feeling about the specific Metallica Vs. Napster case is this: It was only a matter of time. If it wasn't Lars & Co. going after them, it would have been somebody. There was way too much buzz in the industry at that time for somebody not to eventually do what they did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.