Metallica's fight against Napster

[SSP]

If I like more then 4 songs in a cd, I will buy it.

the last 2 cds I bought had a lot of good songs that I liked (~70-90%), but most of the main stream stuff probably have 2 songs I can listen to. No way in hell i'm gona pay 25 bucks (CDN) for something I will probably listen for 5 times and forget it.

Anyway, i dont have any metallica mp3's, and probably never will.

 

[rh71]

Originally posted by: bGIveNs33
Have you even listened to Metallica?

-Billy

Heh no kidding.. sex, drugs, and rock 'n roll ?! Give them the benefit of the doubt and listen to their music before you put them down.

 

[BigJohnKC]

Originally posted by: rh71
No no no no no. Metallica clearly stated (and I threw that in this thread for you) that they were fighting for their right for choice. Napster did it for them by allowing Metallica songs to go thru their networks.

As for my stance, I personally WOULD take it for free if I could. I download MP3s like many of you. I believe in Metallica's efforts and I pay for their CDs regardless. You said fvck Metallica. For what? Standing up for their rights? I have respect for what THEY choose to do with distribution of THEIR material. They go telling an internet operation to stop this method of distribution, I don't get all upset about it. I don't say fvck them because they are seemingly trying to kill an internet revolution. Please... everyone, get your stories straight about their battle vs. Napster and RIAA's battle vs. Napster.

Great, now you're sufficiently outlined your stance. Seems fair enough to respect them for standing up for their rights. I don't, but you go right ahead. If I was in a band whose music was being stolen in a new way (via Napster), I would probably have the knee jerk reaction of "Sue Them!" as well, but as soon as I saw that so MANY people were downloading and listening to my music, I'd be flattered and proud that so many people would want to listen to the creations that myself and my band were responsible for. I'd be happy that my music was reaching people it had never reached before due to the limits of a tangible medium for distributing albums. That perspective shows how the MUSIC is more important than the money. However, Metallica continued with their pursuit of the MONEY they were supposedly losing. They let corporate greed take over their desire to provide good music to their old fans and some new fans thanks to Napster. That's why I can't respect them.

 

[rh71]

Here it is again:

Here is the official Metallica Statement (2/12/01):
"From day one our fight has always been to protect the rights of artists who chose not to have their music exploited without consent. The court's decision validates this right and confirms that Napster was wrong in taking not only Metallica's music but other artists who do not want to be a part of the Napster system and exploiting it without their approval.

We are delighted that the Court has upheld the rights of all artists to protect and control their creative efforts. The 9th Circuit Court has confirmed that musicians, songwriters, filmmakers, authors, visual artists and other members of the creative community are entitled to the same copyright protections online that they traditionally been afforded offline.

We have never objected to the technology, the internet or the digital distribution of music. All we have ever asked is that artists be able to control how, when and in what form their creativity is distributed through these channels. This is something that Napster has continually refused to do. Now the court has made that decision for them."

Read that through and tell me how they were all about the money. Tell me why they do free concerts in parking lots. Tell me why they spend months and months in the studio perfecting their sound to their tastes. It's about their art. Their creativity. Their product. If you think it's crap, so be it. That's why there's many bands out there... but that's not the point. The point is... they want their work respected and handled the way they were given the right to. And people like you say "fvck them" and go on about how they didn't care about the music industry as a whole. They worked damn hard for it and they can do what they want, including earn my money and respect. I take time-out to defend them based on facts. Some of us don't even know the whole Napster story and that's my purpose here.

You say you'd be flattered if your music was being downloaded all over the place, that's all fine. It is your choice. Metallica wanted to keep the same choice. They asked Napster to allow them the choice. Napster disagreed, it went to court, the rest is history. Did they want Napster to cease to exist? NO. THEY WANTED IT TO BE THEIR CHOICE TO DISTRIBUTE THEIR MUSIC.

 

[weezergirl]

Just wondering but how do authors make money? Like books in a library...do authors complain that because of libraries they are getting less revenue?

 

[GSOYF]

they blow

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Stark

I must say, I continue to be amazed at the level of anger this issue incites toward Metallica and other artists who are brazen enough to object to the wholesale theft of their work product.

Yes, but when popular musicians who make careers writing songs about sex, drugs, and rock&roll start preaching against the moral corruption of those who "steal" by downloading mp3s off the internet without paying royalties... give me a break.

Huh? Sex, drugs and rock&roll? If anything there has always been a pretty strong moral thread through much of their music, and they have written several anti-drug songs over the years ("Master of Puppets" comes to mind). I guess I would not see, even if they had written a lot of songs in favor of sex, drugs, and rock&roll, how it would then be inconsistent that they are opposed to the theft of their music.

Personally I think the market has gotten greedy, and fans have grown to feel they deserve to be able to steal - the whole thing really makes me scratch my head and wonder what ever became of personal integrity . . .

 

[Stark]

Ok, go back and read the original quote again:

I must say, I continue to be amazed at the level of anger this issue incites toward Metallica and other artists who are brazen enough to object to the wholesale theft of their work product.

Then my reply:
Yes, but when popular musicians who make careers writing songs about sex, drugs, and rock&roll start preaching against the moral corruption of those who "steal" by downloading mp3s off the internet without paying royalties... give me a break.

Who was the first major artist to join up with Metallica to fight napster? Dr. Dre. There's your sex and drugs. Metallica covers the rock&roll. Sheesh.

Metallica, the RIAA, and most of the artists who spoke out against Napster have no problem with selling homogenized crap glorifying violence, gratuitous sex, drugs, hatred, and general low moral character as long as it makes money. They are in absolutely no position to claim the moral high ground. The RIAA has already shown they?re willing to spread viruses, hack into people?s computers and launch ddos attacks against its enemies in its war against p2p.

If anyone thinks any of the guys in metallica wrote that message from the website, I have a bridge to sell you. None of them are smart enough to complete a sentence without misspellings or the word "hella."
They are the now the puppets, and the RIAA is their master.

 

[rh71]

Originally posted by: Stark
Ok, go back and read the original quote again:

I must say, I continue to be amazed at the level of anger this issue incites toward Metallica and other artists who are brazen enough to object to the wholesale theft of their work product.

Then my reply:
Yes, but when popular musicians who make careers writing songs about sex, drugs, and rock&roll start preaching against the moral corruption of those who "steal" by downloading mp3s off the internet without paying royalties... give me a break.

Who was the first major artist to join up with Metallica to fight napster? Dr. Dre. There's your sex and drugs. Metallica covers the rock&roll. Sheesh.

Metallica, the RIAA, and most of the artists who spoke out against Napster have no problem with selling homogenized crap glorifying violence, gratuitous sex, drugs, hatred, and general low moral character as long as it makes money. They are in absolutely no position to claim the moral high ground. The RIAA has already shown they?re willing to spread viruses, hack into people?s computers and launch ddos attacks against its enemies in its war against p2p.

If anyone thinks any of the guys in metallica wrote that message from the website, I have a bridge to sell you. None of them are smart enough to complete a sentence without misspellings or the word "hella."
They are the now the puppets, and the RIAA is their master.

You CONTINUE to sell your proverbial bridges without even knowing MetallicA. It's obvious that you have never seen Lars speak on national TV about the issue. Did you even know that he did? Multiple times? Quit generalizing and speak on-topic based on facts.

 

[bmacd]

Originally posted by: BigJohnKC
fvck Metallica :|

but they do have a good point, nevertheless...

-=bmacd=-

 

[HendrixFan]

Metallica does NOT have the choice to distribute their music, they dont own the rights to it. The RIAA does. The RIAA asked Metallica to be their spokesmen against Napster (no evidence but Im sure Metallica was $$$ better off for choosing to argue alongside the RIAA).

I think you are starting to get to the main crux of the Napster, and really entire online music swapping issue going on today. The RIAA knows that record sales arent hurt one bit by mp3 trading, they know it helps. They'll argue the opposite, even in court (perjury anyone?) lying about mp3 trading. They know it is all about control. Since the airwaves went onsale, clear channel communications bought up stations in every semi-relevant market. Payola funds them and makes sure only RIAA sanctioned music hits the airwaves. Bands that are packaged and sold by the RIAA, under their control.

Online music trading represents a freer open music marketplace. Instead of the RIAA having control and being the only distributor of music (thereby forcing bands to sign with the RIAA and forcing them to give away all their rights), the people have control, and the internet becomes the distributor. The useless middleman from a now defunct business model disappears. Of course, the RIAA doesnt want to disappear and lose their billions in sales, so they fight progress and try and maintain an outdated business model.

 

[kt]

Someone give me a beating stick.. I think I just saw the horse twitches again. Screw the beating stick, give me the shotgun and let me end it once and for all.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Stark
Ok, go back and read the original quote again:

I must say, I continue to be amazed at the level of anger this issue incites toward Metallica and other artists who are brazen enough to object to the wholesale theft of their work product.

Then my reply:
Yes, but when popular musicians who make careers writing songs about sex, drugs, and rock&roll start preaching against the moral corruption of those who "steal" by downloading mp3s off the internet without paying royalties... give me a break.

Who was the first major artist to join up with Metallica to fight napster? Dr. Dre. There's your sex and drugs. Metallica covers the rock&roll. Sheesh.

Metallica, the RIAA, and most of the artists who spoke out against Napster have no problem with selling homogenized crap glorifying violence, gratuitous sex, drugs, hatred, and general low moral character as long as it makes money. They are in absolutely no position to claim the moral high ground. The RIAA has already shown they?re willing to spread viruses, hack into people?s computers and launch ddos attacks against its enemies in its war against p2p.

If anyone thinks any of the guys in metallica wrote that message from the website, I have a bridge to sell you. None of them are smart enough to complete a sentence without misspellings or the word "hella."
They are the now the puppets, and the RIAA is their master.

So do two wrongs make a right? As I said above, I still can't see how it is permissible, ethically or legally, to steal from someone whose artistic expression includes embracing "sex, drugs, and rock&roll".

I have never heard, even in the most rabid anti-RIAA discussions, the accusation that they had "spread viruses, hack[ed] into people's computers, [or] launch[ed] ddos attacks". Do you have a source for that? I have heard of them spoofing files on Gnutella, but to me there is nothing wrong with that - it is like adulterating contraband cocaine with baking soda or another benign agent. Again, though, even if your accusations were true, I have a hard time seeing how it would justify theft of intellectual property.

 

[Red Dawn]

I have a hard time seeing how it would justify theft of intellectual property.

I bet you were never a fan of Robin Hood If the RIAA refuses to change with the times so they can still continue to cut a fat hog in the ass with mega profits then any action, even theft of Intellectual property, is justified. It's not as if there is nothing they can do about it. Change the pricing structure and the way they distribute music. Until they do they are nothing bit a bunch of greedy rat bastards screwing the customer and the artists alike.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: HendrixFan
Metallica does NOT have the choice to distribute their music, they dont own the rights to it. The RIAA does. The RIAA asked Metallica to be their spokesmen against Napster (no evidence but Im sure Metallica was $$$ better off for choosing to argue alongside the RIAA).

do what? metallica is one of the few artists that own the rights to their songs... them and dr. dre are the biggest ones that come to mind.

 

[HendrixFan]

You are correct, but that evades my entire point of content control and an archaic business model.

 

[BigJohnKC]

Originally posted by: bmacd

Originally posted by: BigJohnKC
fvck Metallica :|

but they do have a good point, nevertheless...

-=bmacd=-

fvck 'em anyway

 

[rh71]

Originally posted by: BigJohnKC

Originally posted by: bmacd

Originally posted by: BigJohnKC
fvck Metallica :|

but they do have a good point, nevertheless...

-=bmacd=-

fvck 'em anyway

damn thread crappers are here again... didn't you try to make a point a while back ?