CapNColostomy Posted October 28, 2004 Share Posted October 28, 2004 Isn't this thread about four years late? Anyhow, to my knowledge Napster itself never offered any Metallica songs in the first place. Napster offered a means for peers to more easily get them from each other. It's not like that Sean Flanigan (I think that was his name) guy was putting up billboards saying "Please, come to Napster and download the entire crapulant McTallica catalog from me, personally." So if McTallica wanted to be pissed at someone, and take people to court, it should've been their fans. They were the ones swapping music, and should all be jailed immediately if for no other reason but liking McTallica. *Takes tongue out of cheek* Just kidding Metallica fans. Calm down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabretooth Posted October 29, 2004 Share Posted October 29, 2004 Metallica. I just like them. And we need free, illegal music to run the soceity, dammit! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astrotoy7 Posted October 29, 2004 Share Posted October 29, 2004 Originally posted by txa1265 quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Astrotoy7 [stolen music] the only flavour astro likes -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Petty thieves will be petty thieves ... Mike Mike, I usually highly respect your contributions to such discussions. Its good to have an older, perhaps wiser viewpoint, but this time Im afraid you're really being an obnoxious bastard... watch what you accuse people of being.... with regards to the "stolen music" to which you refer, if there is a band I like, and I appreciate their catalogue of albums, then I will buy their album... if they ever make it to our shores, I will pay to see them in concert. This is what supporting a band is about.... take my fave two (death) metal bands - Deicide and Morbid Angel - I have most of their catalogue(1 album short of their full catalogue for both bands, those cds I left at my parents place so prolly will never see again...) see pic..... so are they stolen Mike ?? would you like the receipts sent to you in .pdf format ??? I really dont want this to get into an argument but watch what the hell you say..... * * * McTallica - ha ! I like that CapN !! mtfbwya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toms Posted October 29, 2004 Share Posted October 29, 2004 Many, many bands (including metalica, iron maiden, grateful dead, etc..) owe their popularity to their rabid fans distributing their music and spreading the word. That is why many of them support it. Metallica didn't just sue napster, it got them to ban their fans from it's service. And i'd take issue with the quality point too, around that time everything was poorley encoded 128bit mp3 that was often badly done by whoever encoded it. I guess they are entitled to change their mind and want to protect their music, but they went about it in a bad way, and started off a panic in the music industry. sidenote: It is legal to copy your own stuff. I forgot where I read that. Not anymore. as an (almost) direct consequence of the metallica suit (and the panic that it, and the DRM sellers inspired in the music industry) there is now the DCMA and "fair-use" has been pretty much wiped from the lawbooks. YOu now don't buy software, just the license to use it. YOu now aren't allowed to make backup copies. CDs now have copy protection that crashes your pc when you try to rip them to your mp3 player. Cds now wont play in car radios or pcs. iTunes has highly restrictive DRM meaning that just cos you bought a song doesn't mean you can listen to it on whatever you want. and metallica started it all... nice one guys... way to empower microsoft and sony and remove rights of your fans... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leper Messiah Posted October 29, 2004 Author Share Posted October 29, 2004 Originally posted by toms Many, many bands (including metalica, iron maiden, grateful dead, etc..) owe their popularity to their rabid fans distributing their music and spreading the word. That is why many of them support it. Metallica didn't just sue napster, it got them to ban their fans from it's service. And i'd take issue with the quality point too, around that time everything was poorley encoded 128bit mp3 that was often badly done by whoever encoded it. I guess they are entitled to change their mind and want to protect their music, but they went about it in a bad way, and started off a panic in the music industry. Not anymore. as an (almost) direct consequence of the metallica suit (and the panic that it, and the DRM sellers inspired in the music industry) there is now the DCMA and "fair-use" has been pretty much wiped from the lawbooks. YOu now don't buy software, just the license to use it. YOu now aren't allowed to make backup copies. CDs now have copy protection that crashes your pc when you try to rip them to your mp3 player. Cds now wont play in car radios or pcs. iTunes has highly restrictive DRM meaning that just cos you bought a song doesn't mean you can listen to it on whatever you want. and metallica started it all... nice one guys... way to empower microsoft and sony and remove rights of your fans... Metallica certainly wernt aiming for that though, all they wanted to do was to reassert their right to have their music distrubuted by methods that they chose. The music industry would have introduced these measures with or without the Metallica case. Saint Anger has no technology that crashes PCs etc despite the fact such technology was available at the time of its release, so putting things like that down to Metallica doesnt add up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
txa1265 Posted October 29, 2004 Share Posted October 29, 2004 Originally posted by Astrotoy7 Mike, I usually highly respect your contributions to such discussions. Its good to have an older, perhaps wiser viewpoint, but this time Im afraid you're really being an obnoxious bastard... I was trying to be 'funny' ... I apologize for targeting your post - it wasn't directly intended. Originally posted by Astrotoy7 with regards to the "stolen music" to which you refer, if there is a band I like, and I appreciate their catalogue of albums, then I will buy their album... So is there a criteria? What you buy vs. what you steal? Not just for you - I'm trying to 'get it' ... stealing music is so 'cool' and 'fashionable' ... when I stole gum from the downtown store as a kid, it was theft. I felt bad and 'fessed up to the store owner before I was 5 feet from the store ... I know there is the whole 'material' vs. 'virtual' thing, but ... wrong is wrong, and unlike what seems to be fashionable, I believe there can be objective standards of right and wrong. Originally posted by Astrotoy7 so are they stolen Mike ?? would you like the receipts sent to you in .pdf format ??? I really dont want this to get into an argument but watch what the hell you say..... My feelings on piracy are pretty clear, I think: - I support buying music. - I support 'fair use' as it applies to copying your own stuff. - I support 'fair use' as it applies to sharing stuff with your friends - in terms of loaning them the disc to copy. - I *do not* support putting someone else's work out there for any one of billions around the world to obtain without paying. Or obtaining it the same way. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astrotoy7 Posted October 29, 2004 Share Posted October 29, 2004 Originally posted by txa1265 .... So is there a criteria? What you buy vs. what you steal? ....I believe there can be objective standards of right and wrong. Mike no there isnt a criteria. this comes down to parental education(for kids)and individual responsibility. Not unlike what acdcfanbill has mentioned above, many of the things I listen can only really ge obtained at specialty shops or import/online purchase. if for some *insane* reason I ever want to download the latest Britney Spears song (OMFG !!!) the lure of a quick and easy download will be ever present.....and available as far as the industry and applicable legislation is concerned, there is going to *have* to be objective standards of what is right and wrong.... mtfbwya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leper Messiah Posted October 29, 2004 Author Share Posted October 29, 2004 Originally posted by acdcfanbill 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. During the Black Album tour Metallica provided a section for fans who wanted to bring along stuff to record the show. They dont have a problem with fans with live recordings, they provide a service on their website where fans can purchase any live gig from their tour for about $10 (about £5.50) which covers the cost of recording and making the music available. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toms Posted November 1, 2004 Share Posted November 1, 2004 i think it is entirely possible that they were hijacked by a music industry that was scared and trying to prove a point... but they still set the precendent of legal proceedings and scare tactics that has continued to today... whether they wanted to or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
txa1265 Posted November 1, 2004 Share Posted November 1, 2004 Originally posted by acdcfanbill 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. There is a big difference between trading 2nd rate tapes of live shows and posting full CD-quality studio albums that make it as easy for millions around the world to obtain the latest U2 album as to check the football scores (either type ) on ESPN.com. I am a big supporter of the 'old skool' version of sharing - I still loan out my CD's, and shared a tape of a Newport Jazz Festival performance from ages ago (when they allowed tape recorders in...) with the friends who went with me. I think that the economics of potentiality are very tricky - the supporters of file-sharing say that so long as sales don't plummet there is no impact ... but I don't think it is that simple. Supporters also claim that file-sharers buy more CD's legally per capita than non-sharers. Where the heck does *that* logic come from? I have another parent-friend of my older son who, when I asked if he buy's music from iTunes, told me - Why? I don't buy *anything* anymore - not CD's not DVD's ... why should I?!? Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
•-BLaCKouT-• Posted November 1, 2004 Share Posted November 1, 2004 Originally posted by Leper Messiah During the Black Album tour Metallica provided a section for fans who wanted to bring along stuff to record the show. They dont have a problem with fans with live recordings, they provide a service on their website where fans can purchase any live gig from their tour for about $10 (about £5.50) which covers the cost of recording and making the music available. I remember when the tickets went on sale for the Whitley Bay gig, the Tapers section tickets went first, and were snapped up mainly by... local bootleggers. Who then sold the recordings on their market stalls as usual. And the quality was still crap. The second idea actually sounds like a good one though - wish they'd been doing it in 1992. Other bands should do this, I'd love a mixing-desk recording of the BFS gigs I've seen. B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dark lord rowan Posted November 1, 2004 Share Posted November 1, 2004 don't forget that metallica weren't the only ones who sued napster. there were other guys, i dink dre was one. i can't understand you you say they let down their biggest fans either, it doesn't make sense. maybe they let down their biggest downloading fans... not real ones. i have bought every metallica cd and i have dvd's, videos, records, shirts, statues, glasses and i'm in the club. i didn't care what they did with napster- in the end it opened up the market and made more and more p2p programs available. i became such a huge fan because of downloading some of their songs anyway, well that and learning guitar. oh, and leper, you are obviously a fan. u in the club? btw, st anger is so bad i'm ashamed i'm a fan when i hear it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leper Messiah Posted November 2, 2004 Author Share Posted November 2, 2004 Originally posted by dark lord rowan don't forget that metallica weren't the only ones who sued napster. there were other guys, i dink dre was one. i can't understand you you say they let down their biggest fans either, it doesn't make sense. maybe they let down their biggest downloading fans... not real ones. i have bought every metallica cd and i have dvd's, videos, records, shirts, statues, glasses and i'm in the club. i didn't care what they did with napster- in the end it opened up the market and made more and more p2p programs available. i became such a huge fan because of downloading some of their songs anyway, well that and learning guitar. oh, and leper, you are obviously a fan. u in the club? btw, st anger is so bad i'm ashamed i'm a fan when i hear it... nah im not, id like to be if only to get the So What magazine but i can never be bothered to sort it out (im in the UK theyre in the US and i dont own a credit card) i will one day though i like Saint Anger myself, or at least bits of it. live the songs sound much better cos theres no horrible snare drum effect. I went to see the Some Kind Of Monster movie a couple of weeks ago which did give me a little better appreciation of the album (poor Kurt tryed his best to get a solo in ) I hope if they do another album itll be better than Saint Anger though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toms Posted November 5, 2004 Share Posted November 5, 2004 interesting (mildyly related) article on the subject of bands rights from music ompanies for downloads: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/11/04/fripp_dowloads_bustup/ "the reason for the foundering of our re-licensing negotiation with EMI, last year, was on the subject of accounting for digital downloads. we were told - face to face - that digital downloads "were not important" and therefore should not concern ourselves with a royalty of 6 cents when EMI received c. 69 cents per download (the artist royalty subject to packing deduction, of course). we proposed a third party licensing arrangement, to receive 75% of receipts. and if downloading was not important, then why not? the reply, to support the investment in downloading technology EMI need a high royalty, is spurious. the investment in that technology came from IT, not record companies. But hang on, what kind of process is going on where a company shares digital music it doesn't own with other companies? Good lord, it's not illegal filesharing, is it? Not unauthorised distribution, is it? Will EMI have to sue itself? ® Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leper Messiah Posted November 5, 2004 Author Share Posted November 5, 2004 DAMN IT ALL!!!! whats this thread doing back?! But hang on, what kind of process is going on where a company shares digital music it doesn't own with other companies? Good lord, it's not illegal filesharing, is it? Not unauthorised distribution, is it? Will EMI have to sue itself? ® hahahahaha i like that dont see its relevance to the Metallica/Napster affair though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.