Metallica's fight against Napster

[Red Dawn]

Look at China with warez in the past.

And look at them now with their freedom crushing censorship regarding the internet.

 

[ATLien247]

Originally posted by: cherrytwist
Alert the horses that they are in for further beatings...

How can you alert them? They're dead...

 

[rh71]

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

I stand corrected on what I said about Metallica standing up for ONLY THEIR OWN music. In fact, this clarifies a bit:

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."

 

[rh71]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Look at China with warez in the past.

And look at them now with their freedom crushing censorship regarding the internet.

The only thing I meant by it was that warez in China was much much worse in the past.

 

[Kadarin]

Per Websters (via dictionary.com):

\Theft\, n. [OE. thefte, AS. [thorn]i['e]f[eth]e, [thorn][=y]f[eth]e, [thorn]e['o]f[eth]e. See Thief.] 1. (Law) The act of stealing; specifically, the felonious taking and removing of personal property, with an intent to deprive the rightful owner of the same; larceny.

Note: To constitute theft there must be a taking without the owner's consent, and it must be unlawful or felonious; every part of the property stolen must be removed, however slightly, from its former position; and it must be, at least momentarily, in the complete possession of the thief. See Larceny, and the Note under Robbery.

--

If I am sharing my mp3 collection so that others may browse and download from it, am I committing an act of theft? Not by that definition. If I download an mp3 from someone who is himself or herself sharing it, am I committing theft also? Once again, not by that definition. To paraphrase and provide example: If I steal your car, I now have your car and you no longer have it. You can then no longer use your car to do the things you needed your car for.

If I have a collection of 1s and 0s on my harddrive, and I allow you to copy those 1s and 0s, what, exactly, has been stolen? Who has been deprived of what? Should the act of doing something that has the possibility of denying someone an unguaranteed future profit be illegal? Is it theft? (Again, not according to Webster's.)

Quote attributed to Robert Heinlein (from his short story "Life-Line"):

"There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or a corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute nor common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back, for their private benefit."

 

[Red Dawn]

Now if Metallica really had balls they'd go after the RIAA regarding the way they disatribute music. Of course that would mean they wouldn't be able to sell their crappy songs along with their good songs for an inflated price on CD's but that's the price you pay for actually being righteous.

 

[rh71]

If it's not held up by law, so be it. Metallica fought for their right to CHOOSE what to do with their music. The chose to distribute back in the 80's and now they choose not to do so via Napster. The court upheld it... and court decisions can change law.

 

[Red Dawn]

The only thing I meant by it was that warez in China was much much worse in the past.

Understood. It did give me an opportunity to support my argument that the only way file sharing could be successfully stopped is by stepping all over our freedoms like the Chicoms have done regarding the Internet in their oppressive society.

 

[rh71]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Now if Metallica really had balls they'd go after the RIAA regarding the way they disatribute music. Of course that would mean they wouldn't be able to sell their crappy songs along with their good songs for an inflated price on CD's but that's the price you pay for actually being righteous.

Hold up now... lost in your feelings of natural hatred for them, you are forgetting that an artist thinks all their stuff is good. Why would they choose to spend any more of their own money if they thought nobody would continue to buy it? A decline in sales (compared to the past) doesn't mean a decline in revenue for the artist.

 

[Red Dawn]

lost in your feelings of natural hatred for them, you are forgetting that an artist thinks all their stuff is good.

Hahaha.. actually I don't hate them and I understand that they think all their music is good I also understand that they have no need (or obligation) to be righteous. If I were them I'd take the money and run too.

 

[rh71]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

lost in your feelings of natural hatred for them, you are forgetting that an artist thinks all their stuff is good.

Hahaha.. actually I don't hate them and I understand that they think all their music is good I also understand that they have no need (or obligation) to be righteous. If I were them I'd take the money and run too.

Unless you already had millions and didn't care about the money... again, it's a matter of principle.

 

[Stark]

I stopped downloading mp3s months ago. Not because I didn't like the concept, but because the songs out there don't sound as good as CDs (128kb), or they were incomplete, and because I don't listen to music on my computer. However I do like to make high-quality MP3s of the CDs I have onto my computer to make mixed cds for driving in the car.

I'd much rather buy or rent a DVD than waste money on a CD.

All Metallica did in its fight against Napster is lose any reputation of coolness they ever had. I loved them in high school and college... i went to three or four of their concerts, wore their t-shirts, and thought they were rebellious and cool. In their debate against napster the band made it clear how greedy, self-obsessed, sold-out and stupid they really are. They are still the dumb stoners hanging out under the bleachers who hate the smart kids. They just don't get it... concepts like technology, freedom, and sharing. Instead they help launch a monster known as the RIAA into the world. Because of that, now will never, ever listen to or buy anything metallica related again.

 

[Stark]

Unless you already had millions and didn't care about the money... again, it's a matter of principle.

Bwahahahaa.... metallica = principles?

how about "we don't make music videos," then "we'll only make one," then "we want to be the #1 band in the world, so let's get on MTV and start playing awards shows!" They sold their souls long ago. It's all about money, fame, and power with them.

Jethro Tull is cooler than Metallica

 

[rh71]

- Why does a band have to be underground to be considered "cool"? Honest question.

- Check my quote from metallica.com about them having no clue about technology/internet. You think they wanted it to fail.

 

Good thing I don't like Metallica enough to even pirate them.

 

[weezergirl]

Originally posted by: rh71<br"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

[/quote]

You mean MTV Cribs is just a sham?????? hehe.

Anyways, i dl mp3s. and I have no problems with it. And yes, I definitely do not buy as many cds as I used to. but in reality, of the cds i bought only 25% are actually GOOD and worth the money I paid for them.

And as he quoted, if i think of the band as "special" i have NO problems paying for it. I own every single cd of all of my favorite bands. Don't most bands make their money off of shows and merch anyways? and lastly, metallica's sales arent going down cuz of mp3s, its' jsut cuz their music sucks nowadays. and yes, i own a metallica cd but i will never buy another one from them again.

 

[Moonbeam]

Well isn't this a tough issue. I vowed long ago never to buy any music. If I happened to hear some, fine, but buy it oh no. So along comes mp3s and filesharing and now I can listen to what I want when I want and I'm not steeling because, of course, I have a vow never to buy music so without mp3s they still wouldn't get a dime from me. So there you have it. My conscience is clean. I'm indifferent to the issue.

But it's nice to look at things and turn them this way and that to see what they might mean. I am an economic unit. I and other similar economic units make up the economy and the culture that keeps metalica alive. I want to be paid for that. How about some vibrations that go in my ear and affect my brain causing me to experience certain sensations. Wow! But I have to pay first right. OK so now I have my CD. What if a friend listens? Is that ok? Is it ok to listen twice? What about if the neighbor can hear through an open window, what if my speaker wire runs out in the street while I wash my car and the whole neighborhood can hear? What if my speaker wire runs through the internet? Aren't intellectual property rights are just an invention, a device to reward and stimulate creativity and innovation via a need and a lust for money? We can just change the system. No more copy protection for music. Let's see if music and musicians disappear. Some how I get the feeling this could be as much about protecting the buggy whip industry, I mean the current music business model than it is about intellectual property rights.

 

[weezergirl]

Originally posted by: rh71

"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?'

I think it's funny that at first he talks about how he doesn't mind sharing his music but then slams people who DOES.

And really, we're not copying it and selling it. we're just copying it. hehe.

 

[BigJohnKC]

Originally posted by: 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.

I posted a negative comment about one of your favorite bands, and without any provocation against you PERSONALLY, you insult my intelligence, age, and level of education. I took it personally, that's why I called you a motherfvcker. Childish, yes, but like I said, it's easy to insult someone virtually anonymously over the internet.

As for your argument, I'm not really sure what you're saying, so let me see if I can straighten it out. It's not okay to steal Metallica's music because they "were smarter about investing and/or because they spent years in building skills for work" and most importantly "(I) think they deserve my money." But you also say "PERSONALLY, if I can get it for free, I would." So are you for music sharing, or against it? WTH is your argument about? You think it's okay for them to sue Napster because "They sued Napster for allowing their music to be distributed freely", but you'd take the music if you could get it for free.....I'm just a bit confused. Seriously, what is your stance? Why start this thread?

I personally have never sold any music that I have downloaded from Napster or any other public source. I am not in it for the profit, only for the music and the broadening of my own musical horizons. Metallica wanted to shut down Napster because they mistakenly thought that because of file-sharing no one would ever buy their albums anymore, when they should have realized that since it's inception a revolution in the means of distributing music is ocurring. The RIAA is intent on stopping the revolution, but it is bigger than them. They need to get on board and harness it instead of trying to put it down. But they still don't realize that. So I stand by my principles. Fvck them.

Cheers!

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

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.

Metallica, for many years, not only permitted bootlegging but maintained bootlegger-specific sections at their concerts. The difference between that and Napster is that now we can freely upload, download, and trade digital copies of their recorded studio work, which they paid to make and intended to make a profit on.

I think we all like getting something for nothing, but I am amazed that people seem to feel they have a God-given right to steal.

 

[Bluga]

First paragraph is allright, but after that it's just child's play.

 

[Miramonti]

So Metalllica's cd's have been alot cheaper than normal industry prices???

Thats what I'd assume if the industry is gouging 85%, and they are exclusive. Sounds like their justifying themselves gouging the public instead.

Aside from that tho, they have much more integrity than people give them credit for, and probably more than most who don't given them any credit as well.

 

[rh71]

BigJohnKC: I posted a negative comment about one of your favorite bands, and without any provocation against you PERSONALLY, you insult my intelligence, age, and level of education. I took it personally, that's why I called you a motherfvcker. Childish, yes, but like I said, it's easy to insult someone virtually anonymously over the internet.

As for your argument, I'm not really sure what you're saying, so let me see if I can straighten it out. It's not okay to steal Metallica's music because they "were smarter about investing and/or because they spent years in building skills for work" and most importantly "(I) think they deserve my money." But you also say "PERSONALLY, if I can get it for free, I would." So are you for music sharing, or against it? WTH is your argument about? You think it's okay for them to sue Napster because "They sued Napster for allowing their music to be distributed freely", but you'd take the music if you could get it for free.....I'm just a bit confused. Seriously, what is your stance? Why start this thread?

I personally have never sold any music that I have downloaded from Napster or any other public source. I am not in it for the profit, only for the music and the broadening of my own musical horizons. Metallica wanted to shut down Napster because they mistakenly thought that because of file-sharing no one would ever buy their albums anymore, when they should have realized that since it's inception a revolution in the means of distributing music is ocurring. The RIAA is intent on stopping the revolution, but it is bigger than them. They need to get on board and harness it instead of trying to put it down. But they still don't realize that. So I stand by my principles. Fvck them.

Cheers!

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.

 

[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.

 

[bGIveNs33]

Have you even listened to Metallica?

-Billy