Metallica's fight against Napster

[rh71]

I don't want to hear about their talent and how some of you think they jumped ship... comment about their stand on Napster... after seeing this:

Jason Newsted (former Metallica bassist) on Metallica's fight against Napster:

"I don't mind sharing my music. I gave
away the first 2,000 Echobrain CDs. But with Metallica, that was their
art. Would anybody, a painter, a photographer, would they give you a
painting free and let you copy it and sell the lithographs for $2,000
apiece?'

"We were in a position, unlike almost every other contemporary artist,
where we had an exclusive contract since 1990. We didn't need to use
the record company as a bank and Metallica has funded everything it's
done, every album, every video. That's why we were so vigilant. No one
else has their own music to protect.

"Most kids are just stealing from a record company, which gets 85%
of the dollar. Not many people make money on music to the point where
you can eat. Not even the people you see on MTV who look like they
are doing so well

"You may think we have too much money for your taste, but we worked
really hard to get to where we are, harder than 97 percent of the
bands that ever existed," Newsted said. "Do you think it's special
enough to pay for? Then it's only fair to pay for it."

Source: AllMetallica.com / Blabbermouth

 

[BigJohnKC]

fvck Metallica :|

 

[Bulk Beef]

What's Napster?

 

[rh71]

fvck Metallica :|

Have you had a real education? Or are you really 14 years old?

 

[vi edit]

My question is - what cost them more? The millions in lawyer, court, and researching fees, as well as the negative publicity - or the actual loss of album sales?

 

[rh71]

They were OBVIOUSLY fighting for the principle of the matter. It's the same feeling YOU get when a cashier stiffs you on the 15 cents in change. Do you think they really needed the money after so many multi-platinum records?

 

[bGIveNs33]

So if the solution isn't very cost effective... then the problem is justified?

-Billy

 

[rh71]

Originally posted by: bGIveNs33
So if the solution isn't very cost effective... then the problem is justified?

-Billy

Given the logic of your question, I assume you were talking to vi_edit.

 

[syzygy]

Would anybody, a painter, a photographer, would they give you a

resell ? what does unlicensed reselling, which is a crime, have to with mp3 file sharing ? they must understand how weak their
anti-file sharing stance is if they're going to confuse the issue.

"We were in a position, unlike almost every other contemporary artist, where we had an exclusive contract since 1990. We didn't need to use the record company as a bank and Metallica has funded everything it's done, every album, every video. That's why we were so vigilant. No one else has their own music to protect.

bull doo doo. what is the difference between the music studio's vigilance and metallica's ? they're both on the same side. the riaa
has done more against mp3 file sharing than metallica ever will.

acting the part of lonewolf is more difficult. how has metallica been harmed economically ? have they benefitted ? can they prove their decline in album sales (assuming a decline exists - i dunno) is a direct result of the mp3 proliferation and not a decline in the quality of their music ?

there are some studies that show a positive correlation between file sharing and a rise in album sales.

 

[bGIveNs33]

So everyone who is against Metallica... do you think they are wrong? Do you think you aren't stealing when you dload mp3's?

-Billy

 

[BigJohnKC]

Originally posted by: rh71

fvck Metallica :|

Have you had a real education? Or are you really 14 years old?

It's real easy to insult someone on the internet isn't it? :|

Look, Napster was a proof of concept. Music sales increased according to many publications during the so-called "reign" of Napster as the king of the file-sharing programs. It opened the door for other programs to take over when it was inevitably shut down by the government. Just about every artist out there supported it, saying they were happy that their songs were being heard by people that wouldn't have heard them otherwise. Did you ever read all the testimonials on the Napster website while it was in its prime? There were so many artists who supported it - and Metallica sued them. That's why I say fvck Metallica. Not out of some pre-pubescent longing for the hey-days of filesharing (which is now better than it ever was in the days of Napster), but out of a desire to see the P2P file transfer protocol continue to exist. It is good for technology, and good for musicians. So if you want to insult me, come on over and do it to my face, motherfvcker. Don't assume I'm some moronic teenager because I make a seemingly flippant comment in your serious thread.

 

[bulldawg]

Originally posted by: BigJohnKC
fvck Metallica :|

 

[rh71]

Metallica was the FIRST to stand up against it... and it actually held water because of their reputation in the industry as a powerhouse. We only heard of the RIAA after we knew of the fight against Napster.

Some studies? What about the other studies? PERSONALLY, if I can get it for free, I would. Take that out of the music/mp3/software context and you'd probably take it for free if you could also.

Having said that... I also own almost every one of Metallica's albums, but not because I heard it on mp3 first... because I PERSONALLY like their music and think they deserve my money. Besides how many times have you heard of people complaining how they would not spend $15 on a CD that contains a couple good songs? They go and download the 1 or 2 songs they like for free instead.

 

[bGIveNs33]

How many other artists pay for their own recordings? Dr. Dre was strongly against Napster, he also does all his own recordings. Now whether napster increased sales is debatable because the economy was much better 2 years ago than it is now. The bottom line is, it is stealing. Metallica has stated many times that they encourage the distribution of recordings of their concerts. Metallica isn't a bunch of greedy b@stards but I think the people who want music without paying for it might fall into that category though.

-Billy

 

[SinnerWolf]

They wouldn't even be a band if it weren't for bootlegging. When they first started, no record company would give them the time of day because they were a metal band, and not a hair band. They devloped a strong fan base who passed on the word using recorded live concerts and dupes of cassettes. Metallica encouraged this of course at that point, because they were gaining popularity. They eventually got a record deal due PURELY to the word of mouth and bootlegging, but they were royally ripped off by the company they signed with. fast forward a couple of years...they've gained national success, fame, and riches. 2 of their albums were leaked months in advance of their intended release date on the internet. They grow spiteful at their own lack of security, and decrease in sales as a result of the overall crap music garage inc/load and everything since has represented. Pissed off that they plateaued with the black album, they go after the number one music swapping service napster, citing them as directly responsible for profit loss.

They are hypocrites. They became famous from fans, fans who distributed their music by hand. And once a success, all bootlegging became considered a gross injustice. Knee jerk reaction to something they don't comprehend, and it rightly so severed the band and ruined their name. You may be famous, you may rich, but you are not powerful and you will not stop progress, or revolution for that matter.

 

[Red Dawn]

Do you think you aren't stealing when you dload mp3's?

It depends. If they are songs that I own on Vinyl, tapes or CD's then no, I don't consider it stealing (even though those tapes, CD's and LP's are long gone) .

Do you feel like you've been ripped off when you buy a CD based on 2 songs you have heard only to discover the rest of the Album is complete crap?
I do. In fact I feel that the RIAA (or the Artists) have ripped me off numerous times because of lousy so called art sold to me on over priced CD's. Because of that I have no qualms "stealing" songs by downloading MP3's. Now if they were to offer me just the songs I want and like and charge me on a per song basis that would be fairly priced I would gladly pay for them. Downloading MP3's is much like stealing from a thief from my perspective.

 

[rh71]

Originally posted by: BigJohnKC

Originally posted by: rh71

fvck Metallica :|

Have you had a real education? Or are you really 14 years old?

It's real easy to insult someone on the internet isn't it? :|

Look, Napster was a proof of concept. Music sales increased according to many publications during the so-called "reign" of Napster as the king of the file-sharing programs. It opened the door for other programs to take over when it was inevitably shut down by the government. Just about every artist out there supported it, saying they were happy that their songs were being heard by people that wouldn't have heard them otherwise. Did you ever read all the testimonials on the Napster website while it was in its prime? There were so many artists who supported it - and Metallica sued them. That's why I say fvck Metallica. Not out of some pre-pubescent longing for the hey-days of filesharing (which is now better than it ever was in the days of Napster), but out of a desire to see the P2P file transfer protocol continue to exist. It is good for technology, and good for musicians. So if you want to insult me, come on over and do it to my face, motherfvcker. Don't assume I'm some moronic teenager because I make a seemingly flippant comment in your serious thread.

You're absolutely right. I assumed you were a moronic teenager because you spewed 2 words that meant nothing after I tried to post about a serious issue. Motherfvcker? You're just as good with the name-calling. What... you assume you can beat the $#!t out of me because you're BIGJohn? Heh. The internet had nothing to do with it buddy.

What you said about Napster being good for technology and good for musicians... of course it was. I agree with you on that point. But if it hurts a group of people, you'd overlook that and say fvck them, wouldn't you? Now put that in the context of taxing the rich because they earn more money. Fvck them? Why? Because they were smarter about investing and/or because they spent years in building skills for work? Sure, give me some of their money, they can afford it being ripped from their hands. What-the-fvck ever.

 

[cherrytwist]

Alert the horses that they are in for further beatings...

 

[rh71]

Originally posted by: SinnerWolf
They wouldn't even be a band if it weren't for bootlegging. When they first started, no record company would give them the time of day because they were a metal band, and not a hair band. They devloped a strong fan base who passed on the word using recorded live concerts and dupes of cassettes. Metallica encouraged this of course at that point, because they were gaining popularity. They eventually got a record deal due PURELY to the word of mouth and bootlegging, but they were royally ripped off by the company they signed with. fast forward a couple of years...they've gained national success, fame, and riches. 2 of their albums were leaked months in advance of their intended release date on the internet. They grow spiteful at their own lack of security, and decrease in sales as a result of the overall crap music garage inc/load and everything since has represented. Pissed off that they plateaued with the black album, they go after the number one music swapping service napster, citing them as directly responsible for profit loss.

They are hypocrites. They became famous from fans, fans who distributed their music by hand. And once a success, all bootlegging became considered a gross injustice. Knee jerk reaction to something they don't comprehend, and it rightly so severed the band and ruined their name. You may be famous, you may rich, but you are not powerful and you will not stop progress, or revolution for that matter.

You're absolutely right about them sharing tapes before they got big. Everyone really should know this about them. You're misinformed about the whole Napster issue though. They sued Napster for allowing their music to be distributed freely. Their music, and nobody elses. Who went ahead and banned all those Napster users for sharing Metallica songs? It was Napster - Metallica NEVER asked for this to happen. There was an open letter from Lars stating this. All they wanted from Napster was to stop the sharing of Metallica songs - nobody else (ever hear of a filter?). Did Metallica attack the fans for sharing? No. They attacked Napster because it was a mechanism by which it was possible. They WANTED to distribute back in the early 80's. They NO LONGER want it to happen. For their OWN music. They could care less if Napster continued with sharing of other bands' music. WHAT'S WRONG WITH THAT? Many of you think they shutdown Napster, when in fact it was the RIAA doing so.

Think of freeware turning into shareware... turning into a real product on the market. Fvck that too?

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: BigJohnKC
fvck Metallica :|

I own their black album, but that is all I will ever purchase of theirs

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Metallica is a great band. Napster was a great service.

I like both and I couldn't care less what Metallica is doing to them. I'm in it for the Music --unless they start singing about anti-napster and pro-RIAA, I will always be a Metallica fan.

nik

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Do you think you aren't stealing when you dload mp3's?

It depends. If they are songs that I own on Vinyl, tapes or CD's then no, I don't consider it stealing (even though those tapes, CD's and LP's are long gone) .

Do you feel like you've been ripped off when you buy a CD based on 2 songs you have heard only to discover the rest of the Album is complete crap?
I do. In fact I feel that the RIAA (or the Artists) have ripped me off numerous times because of lousy so called art sold to me on over priced CD's. Because of that I have no qualms "stealing" songs by downloading MP3's. Now if they were to offer me just the songs I want and like and charge me on a per song basis that would be fairly priced I would gladly pay for them. Downloading MP3's is much like stealing from a thief from my perspective.

Preach on brother!!

 

[Red Dawn]

I like both and I couldn't care less what Metallica is doing to them. I'm in it for the Music --unless they start singing about anti-napster and pro-RIAA, I will always be a Metallica fan.

On top of that all they accomplished was to get Napster shutdown, not prevent their songs from being downloaded for free. If those shysters at the RIAA are successful in getting the other file sharing services shutdown all that will happen is that those who download MP3's will find another avenue like ICQ to get their MP3's. Or even worse, buy them at prices much lower than the price of CD's. There is nothing they can do to successfully stop the sharing of MP3's without stepping all over our freedoms.

 

[rh71]

Right.... just like there's no way to prevent cable hackers and satellite card hashers from doing their thing. It's just a method of deterrent... otherwise all hell breaks loose. Look at China with warez in the past.

 

So he is basically saying it's ok to pirate other bands but Metallica is special so you can't pirate them?