PDA

View Full Version : Metallica Vs Napster


Leper Messiah
10-28-2004, 03:27 AM
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?

Astrotoy7
10-28-2004, 05:41 AM
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

txa1265
10-28-2004, 06:14 AM
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

toms
10-28-2004, 06:20 AM
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.

txa1265
10-28-2004, 06:20 AM
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 ... :rolleyes:

Mike

Leper Messiah
10-28-2004, 06:45 AM
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.

Rogue15
10-28-2004, 07:04 AM
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....

Leper Messiah
10-28-2004, 07:27 AM
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.

--ZeeMan--
10-28-2004, 08:23 AM
:confused: i thought discussions regarding the music 'collecting' industry weren't allowed......


btw astro :thumbsup: good points

Writer
10-28-2004, 08:31 AM
"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.:D

wildjedi

toms
10-28-2004, 09:31 AM
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...

acdcfanbill
10-28-2004, 09:48 AM
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.

Pie™
10-28-2004, 10:34 AM
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 ;)

txa1265
10-28-2004, 11:04 AM
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

El Sitherino
10-28-2004, 11:23 AM
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.

Kain
10-28-2004, 11:33 AM
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...

Mike Windu
10-28-2004, 01:51 PM
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.

Rogue15
10-28-2004, 02:11 PM
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
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

Mike Windu
10-28-2004, 02:37 PM
I use winamp... full length songs! =)

acdcfanbill
10-28-2004, 05:21 PM
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.

MaulerZ
10-28-2004, 05:48 PM
<-----That'll do....Yes....That'll do...

Leper Messiah
10-28-2004, 06:19 PM
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.

acdcfanbill
10-28-2004, 06:27 PM
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.

Leper Messiah
10-28-2004, 06:31 PM
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.

edlib
10-28-2004, 06:38 PM
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.

CapNColostomy
10-28-2004, 07:20 PM
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.

Sabretooth
10-29-2004, 12:16 AM
Metallica.

I just like them.

And we need free, illegal music to run the soceity, dammit!

Astrotoy7
10-29-2004, 02:29 AM
Originally posted by txa1265

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Astrotoy7
[stolen music] the only flavour astro likes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Petty thieves will be petty thieves ... :rolleyes:

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.....
http://www.myimgs.com/data/astrotoy7/IMGA0228.jpg

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

toms
10-29-2004, 06:42 AM
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...:(

Leper Messiah
10-29-2004, 07:53 AM
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

txa1265
10-29-2004, 08:39 AM
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

Astrotoy7
10-29-2004, 09:28 AM
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

Leper Messiah
10-29-2004, 10:51 AM
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.

toms
11-01-2004, 06:31 AM
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.

txa1265
11-01-2004, 06:47 AM
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

•-BLaCKouT-•
11-01-2004, 10:24 AM
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. :indif:

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.

dark lord rowan
11-01-2004, 03:28 PM
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...

Leper Messiah
11-01-2004, 07:20 PM
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 :D

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

toms
11-05-2004, 03:41 AM
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? ®

Leper Messiah
11-05-2004, 03:59 AM
DAMN IT ALL!!!!

whats this thread doing back?! :D

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 :D

dont see its relevance to the Metallica/Napster affair though