Slashdot Mirror
Metallica Wants To Ban 335,435 Napster Users
charper writes: "News.com is reporting that a firm hired by Metallica has fingered more than 335,000 Napster users (who were allegedly) trading their music. They're seeking to have them banned from Napster. " Check out our original piece, and remember - you can always PayLars!
When did Metallica get old and inflexible? the most annoying thing about this is that they're one of the few bands that could tell their record company what do do with itself, walk away, and then exploit the hell out of this new medium.
Somebody needs to track them down on tour and just have a long conversation with 'em. And take a cluestick, just in case.
Please. As if it wasn't bad enough that Slashdot & co pandered to Kevin Mitnick's every need, now we have to hear about some poor little 31337 Napster users who broke the law and now have to pay for it.
Since, we all "represent the Open Source movement", let me represent by saying that not all of us are die-hard anarchists, and some of us are actually in favor of law and order! Crazy, but true.
What it comes down to is that these people ripped of Metallica, and now it's time to pay the piper. I have no sympathy for the subhuman zealots who think that they have a right to everything for free because they once installed a copy of Red Hat. That the Open Source Movement seemingly supports these hardened criminals is ludicrous. No wonder no one takes you seriously, you seem like a bunch of children screaming "Mine! Mine! All mine!". Most Open Source Advocates have never produced any art or IP contributions (and pro-Linux zealotry on Slashdot doesn't count), so how can you be expected to understand the issues? You commonly accuse the media of being biased, but consider yourselves free from prejudice. Get over yourselves.
Free Software does not mean Free Music. Criminals go to jail. Plain and simple.
Despite what RMS and his followers might like us all to think, information does not want to be free - information doesn't really say a lot at all. The case of tools like Napster, Gnutella and son on is not anything like the case of software, and /.ers who blindly apply the same rules should sit down and think about the issue before spouting psuedo-socialist dogma.
Music artists put a lot of time and effort into producing a work of art which they then allow the general public to enjoy. That is the important point here - they allow the public to listen to. As it is their work, they decide how they want people to obtain and use said work, and anyone that believes otherwise is just condoning theft in one of its many forms.
Record companies are there to represent artists and to provide them with a range of services which they'd find difficult to get on their own - marketing, production, distribution and often nowadays, legal representation. Sure, they make money from doing this, but we live in a capitalist society where making money is how our economy functions.
If an artist doesn't like how their music is being distributed then they have the right to stop this distribution, and in this case Metallica have chosen to exercise this right. And given that the creators of Napster have technically broken the law, they are being generous by merely asking them to block the users which have committed theft against Metallica. If anything, this action is a lot more soft than it could have been considering the sums of money which have been lost to the hordes of Napster pirates.
So before everybody gets up in arms about this, remember, it's you that are in the wrong if you engage in theft at the cost of hard-working artists trying to make a living.
Fair warning to all, anything coming from my name during that chat is NOT me.
Gotta go come up with a new account name..
--
--
Just lurking, thanks!
Check out the napigator server list...
WWJD? JWRTFM!!!
"It only takes 20 years for a Liberal to become a Conservative without changing one idea."
ttyl
Farerll
CAN-CON 2019 - Ottawa's only book oriented Science Fiction Convention! October 18-20, Sheraton Hotel, Ottawa, Canada h
Does the agreement say WHEN? Read the 'contract'. Napster might be perfectly safe saying "OK! Our banning-person works 8 hour days, so give us a couple years for your 335 thousand." It's got to take some time to enter all that in. See in the usage agreement if it says anything about how quickly the bans are to be implemented. This is a lovely example of how the deranged, shrinkwrap, click-wrap UCITA usage agreement madness might actually work in our favor. That agreement is going to be pretty literally interpreted- don't think Metallica are going to be able to get interpreted as what it SHOULD mean, only what it literally means.
Oh, man, what _is_ this world coming to when the above isn't a joke? To think that "I promise not to sue my own fans" is a SELLING point O_O *rofl!*
Yes! I promise not to sue you, and for an additional low low price of $5.99 I'll still not sue you, plus you can have a CD, plus I won't drive over and set fire to your house! (I don't have a car anyway :) ) oh my oh my :)
- Easy: point and click
- High quality- 128K but NO skips or incompletes
- Legal
- Fast- you get the music immediately.
What's the fifth? You paying a few bucks a song for a download. Sorry man- I sympathise, tho- if you _want_ to be compelled to pay a few bucks per download when my entire albums are only $6, how about going and impulsively buying all my albums? I am afraid I am not willing to coerce you into it, thoughThis once again exposes the real problem with Napster, which is that it's a big central target which can be blocked, can be sued, and can be coerced into blocking users or groups of users.
There are ways around some of that, of course, and it's terribly unlikely that all 335,435 IP addresses these guys supposedly identified will be trackable -- on the other hand, given the legal climate that exists around this stuff identifying the users isn't the RIAA's mission, just banning as many IP addresses as possible. Still, this is a big problem.
All of which leads to the real solution, a distributed system like Gnutella. With no central server and no real way to track what any specific user is searching for, it's a much more private solution. Granted it takes more bandwidth, but it's impossible to shut down in this way.
Could never prove it. They'll just claim that an album is a single work of art. Then you'll have to prove that it isn't. You'd have to get access to internal communications and whatnot in order to show that the album contents are usually decided by business concerns rather than the artist having free reign to create a work independently of business concerns. Even then it might not be enough to convince a court that an album isn't a single work of art regardless of how or why it was created.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
You're right. There are people on the RIAA's side that firmly believe that they are right. They will also do everything in their power to see to it that their view of what is right is enforced on everyone.(as they've done for years and succeeded for the most part)
Given that, I think my opinion is just as valid as their opinion. I firmly believe I'm right. I must also do everything in my power to make sure that my view is enforced. Otherwise I'm allowing the RIAA to decide what is right and wrong.
You see the dilemma? If we're both convinced we're right, we end up with a fight. That's where we're at right now. The fight has been joined in the courts. Maybe it will be decided there, maybe not. I don't think the courts are where it will ultimately be decided. I think the fans are sick of getting screwed. They want to support the artists they like. They just don't like the current system where they have to get screwed over in order to support them.
If the RIAA was so concerned about the artists, they wouldn't be making them sign their work over for 35-40 years, or now even forever. If the RIAA was so concerned about the artists, they would have been devising new methods of distributing music that wouldn't require as much overhead cost so that the fans pay less and the artists get more. But, it all makes sense when you realize that the RIAA doesn't give a rat's ass about the artists as long as they can exploit them and keep raking in the cash.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
And maybe they just paid for this music? Or maybe they wanted to hear the music *before* they buy it - not after? Or maybe they don't have this record in their local store? Seems that you just accused about 335000 people in a crime without any evidence, just because some greedy pop-idols want to pick on them (obviously, they got bored of other dull things like writing songs and performing - suing seems sooo much more fun for them!)
-- Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes.
Most Open Source Advocates have never produced any art or IP contributions This alone is more than enough to identify the poster as a plain old flame-generator. No point in discussion with people ignoring facts and just sticking labels.
-- Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes.
and never mind that noise you heard,
It's just the lawyers beneath your bed,
You use napster so you'll soon be DEAD!!!!!
Exit your rights!
Enter armed knights!
Taaaaake the cops hand.....
off to your arraignment ladd!
(Muhahahaha!)
This idea is how these MP3 pirates are currently justifying their actions (of course, being pirates, they're doing it without actually sending any money!). But it doesn't work.
... oh wait... all that infrastructure - might as well have a record label!
One of the reasons these artists have record companies behind them is to shield them from all the money involved - so that they just get a paycheck going into their bank at the end of the year/quarter/month/whatever. I can't honestly see a major act thinking it's really cool that they get 10,000 snail mails a month with $5 in the envelope. That would just drive you insane. You'd need a secretary, and an accountant, and people to open all the mail, and
Then you could potentially streamline it: build a web site that accepts payments... but wait, someone has to build the web site, pay for a Verisign certificate, market the site, pay for advertising, maintain the site, oh wait... all that infrastructure - might as well have some other company do all that, and they can take a percentage of the profits...
You see, the infrastructure thats in place is there for a reason. It appeared for a reason. It may not be perfect, but stealing copyrighted materials isn't going to change that infrastructure.
Matt. Want XML + Apache + Stylesheets? Get AxKit.
All they have proof of is that people have files on their computers with the same names as Metallica songs. I don't think that the name alone is copy protected. Unless they download an MP3 from each of the defendants or snoop it in transit, I think they have nothing but scare tactics.
Then again I'd be happy if commercial artists crack down on digital copying as long as it doesn't affect the ability of independent bands to release their own MP3s under a more lenient distribution agreement. Perhaps it's time for a GPL for music, by which artists who care more about art than money can share their work with eachother and with their fans.
--
"L'IT c'est moi!"
It's not hard to get a list of people who trade Metallica mp3s? OK then, just how would you suggest doing that? Just off the top of my head, the closest I could come up with is doing a search for 'metallica' and writing down everyone who had it available for trade. Unfortunately, according to my experience with Napster, it is just as likely for metallica_unforgiven.mp3 to be command.com renamed as it is for it to be an actual mp3. This means that one would have to download all the Metallica mp3s available to test them to see if they actually are Metallica mp3s -- quite a boring task when you're testing over 300000 people.
On a low quality CD-ROM drive (in other words, 99% of the drives out on the market), there is no way to control precisely from what point an audio packet is read. One consequence is that two different attempts at audio extraction will almost certainly start from different offsets, resulting in two audio extractions that differ by a shift of bits. If this shift is accounted for, the two extractions should be exactly the same.
Note that positioning inaccuracies in the middle of reading a track can be corrected, simply by comparing the result with the previous read and scanning for any overlap of data. This process is known as "jitter correction." However, there is no way to correct inaccuracies at the start of a read, since there is no previous data to compare against.
Different drives have different statistical distributions of offsets, which explains the differences that you report when comparing copies extracted with different drives. Again, up to shifting, the two copies should be the same. If they aren't, at least one of the drives is defective.
It's very true that two wildly different copies can sound exactly the same to human ears, but on any half-decent CD-ROM hardware every extracted copy of a track should be identical except for the offsets mentioned above.
1) What's the substantial difference between Napster and old-media cassette tape copying?
Scale. Giving a tape to a friend is one thing; you typically know the recipient, and it costs you time and money to prepare the tape, so you can only do it in small quantities. Putting MP3s on Napster is another; then anyone in the world can search for them and download them. That and a cable modem can allow you to distribute your favourite CDs to thousands of strangers automatically. I'd say there's a big difference between that and making a tape for a friend.
4) Does Metallica or Electra Records have any plans in the works to offer music online? Do they have any ideas to offer the Internet Generation other than a Luddite-like prohibitionist stance?
They're working on SDMI and such. (And wasn't it Universal Music, not Elektra (a Warner label)? I believe Universal actually have their own encrypted downloadable format.)
Metallica aren't goth; they're more hessian/bogan with a touch of 90s grunge for the marketability. You must have gotten them confused with Guns'n'Roses or someone.
Owning a CD is no defense; well, it wasn't in the mp3.com case anyway. Fair use does not apply under the DMCA, because it's a law bought by the copyright cartels.
Maybe that's the reason for the delay in introducing DVD-Audio; they're trying to work out how to include UCITA-compliant click-wrap licenses with audio DVDs.
Maybe Metallica is just disappointed. They monitor napster for a period of time, and find out that the total number of people who wanted to listen to their songs (for FREE, no less) was about 300K - and that includes people who get songs they don't really care about listening to just so they have them (think people who collect warez).
So they're lashing out at Napster to ease their own pain at being a band that nobody really listens to anymore. Oh the torment of growing old!
-- Rick
Just asking.
--
you should read everything on the internet as if it had "but I'm probably talking out of my ass" appended to it.
Multiply that number again when/if other bands join, and soon there will be significant load and administrative hassles for Napster.
Metallica's little trip is not aimed at the users IMHO, it is aimed at harassing Napster. The more work and trouble they can cause Napster the better.
If I have legitamately bought Win2k and create a backup of it (in case my CD is damaged) and I place this backup on Napster (where it is publiclly accessible), i am pretty certain no law court is going to hesitate to determine that you are infringing copyright.
I'm no lawyer, but I think the crux of the matter is that you are allowing material to be traded in a public manner and that is where you would get in trouble.
Yes I will agree with you on that point.
Metallica needs to get with the Internet age, as do the rest of the millionaires whining about their intellectual property being pirated."
This kind of attitude worries me - since when is it a crime to be rich?!? Just because someone has something that you don't, doesn't mean that you can help yourself to what they have either directly or indirectly.
I suspect a lot of people who are arguing that this is not copyright infringement are simply into self-denial. Basically, they like their free music and want to keep it.
I've heard the argument that they didn't get it free, they wouldn't have bought it in the first place and I will conceede that this argument has some merit.
However, I would argue that there is a significant amount of music which is traded which will never be bought as a result of entire albumns being available for downloads.
Truth is, a lot of those people already probably spend a bunch of their hard earned money on Metallica music already, not to mention t-shirts, concerts, and jimmy hats.
And I would say that there is a lot more that don't.
I have lived in a Uni hall of residence where MP3 trading was widespread and epidemic and I can assure you that people where downloading entire albums rather than buying. In fact the common overheard comment was, 'Who needs to buy CDs now when you can get them free off the Internet'.
I don't know what the solution is and I'm not offering one. Nor am I saying that what Metallica has done is right.
BUT, to defend the trafficing of MP3s using your arguments simply doesn't hold any water IMHO.
Basically, they have 'attacked' Napster using Napsters own policy, that is, they will eject any user who infringes copyright.
By submitting 335,000 names, Metallica has accomplised two things:
- potentially scared users who thought they were anonymous
- created an administrative hassle for Napster
No doubt Metallica can afford to keep the NetPD firm indefinitely fingering each Napster user and submitting their name to Napster. If this is the case, Napster is going to be bogged down removing accountsAnd on a secondary note, if Metallica wanted to directly sue copyright infringers, can the NetPD firm supply enough info to confirm the computer from which it came and hence could Metallica sue an individual based on monitored Napster use? If so, this would be incredibly damaging to the user base of Napster as I am pretty certain that many users would shy away if they thought there was the remotest possibility that they could be sued.
Just my 2c worth at midnight :)
This is from Steve Albini, the recording engineer (don't ever call him a producer) for The Pixies, The Wedding Present, and Bush, who paid his bills for years. Steve has a sliding pay scale, he will record good poor bands for no more than joe schmoe studio (in his own state of the art studio) and charge major labels bank to record crap like Bush.
He isn't a fan of the record industry, but he shows insight as to how much things really cost. Also the artists aren't makeing any money.
Some of Your Friends are Already This Fucked
by Steve Albini
from The Baffler issue #5
Whenever I talk to a band who are about to sign with a major label, I always
end up thinking of them in a particular context. I imagine a trench, about
four feet wide and five feet deep, maybe sixty yards long, filled with
runny, decaying shit. I imagine these people, some of them good friends,
some of them barely acquaintances, at one end of this trench. I also imagine
a faceless industry lackey at the other end, holding a fountain pen and a
contract waiting to be signed.
Nobody can see what's printed on the contract. It's too far away, and
besides, the shit stench is making everybody's eyes water. The lackey shouts
to everybody that the first one to swim the trench gets to sign the
contract. Everybody dives in the trench and they struggle furiously to get
to the other end. Two people arrive simultaneously and begin wrestling
furiously, clawing each other and dunking each other under the shit.
Eventually, one of them capitulates, and there's only one contestant left.
He reaches for the pen, but the Lackey says, "Actually, I think you need
a little more development. Swim it again, please. Backstroke."
And he does, of course.
A&R Scouts
Every major label involved in the hunt for new bands now has on staff a
high-profile point man, an "A&R" rep who can present a comfortable face to
any prospective band. The initials stand for "Artist and Repertoire,"
because historically, the A&R staff would select artists to record music
that they had also selected, out of an available pool of each. This is
still the case, though not openly.
These guys are universally young [about the same age as the bands being
wooed], and nowadays they always have some obvious underground rock
credibility flag they can wave. Lyle Preslar, former guitarist for Minor
Threat, is one of them. Terry Tolkin, former NY independent booking agent
and assistant manager at Touch and Go is one of them. Al Smith, former
soundman at CBGB is one of them. Mike Gitter, former editor of XXX fanzine
and contributor to Rip, Kerrang and other lowbrow rags is one of them. Many
of the annoying turds who used to staff college radio stations are in their
ranks as well.
There are several reasons A&R scouts are always young. The explanation
usually copped-to is that the scout will be "hip" to the current musical
"scene." A more important reason is that the bands will intuitively trust
someone they think is a peer, and who speaks fondly of the same formative
rock and roll experiences.
The A&R person is the first person to make contact with the band, and as
such is the first person to promise them the moon. Who better to promise
them the moon than an idealistic young Turk who expects to be calling the
shots in a few years, and who has had no previous experience with a big
record company. Hell, he's as naive as the band he's duping. When he tells
them no one will interfere in their creative process, he probably even
believes it.
When he sits down with the band for the first time, over a plate of angel
hair pasta, he can tell them with all sincerity that when they sign with
company X, they're really signing with him and he's on their side. Remember
that great, gig I saw you at in '85? Didn't we have a blast.
By now all rock bands are wise enough to be suspicious of music industry
scum. There is a pervasive caricature in popular culture of a portly, middle
aged ex-hipster talking a mile-a-minute, using outdated jargon and calling
everybody "baby." After meeting "their" A&R guy, the band will say to
themselves and everyone else, "He's not like a record company guy at all!
He's like one of us." And they will be right. That's one of the reasons he
was hired.
These A&R guys are not allowed to write contracts. What they do is present
the band with a letter of intent, or "deal memo," which loosely states some
terms, and affirms that the band will sign with the label once a contract
has been agreed on.
The spookiest thing about this harmless sounding little "memo," is that it
is, for all legal purposes, a binding document. That is, once the band sign
it, they are under obligation to conclude a deal with the label. If the
label presents them with a contract that the band don't want to sign, all
the label has to do is wait. There are a hundred other bands willing to
sign the exact same contract, so the label is in a position of strength.
These letters never have any term of expiration, so the band remain bound
by the deal memo until a contract is signed, no matter how long that takes.
The band cannot sign to another label or even put out its own material
unless they are released from their agreement, which never happens. Make
no mistake about it: once a band has signed a letter of intent, they will
either eventually sign a contract that suits the label or they will be
destroyed.
One of my favorite bands was held hostage for the better part of two years
by a slick young "He's not like a label guy at all,' A&R rep, on the basis
of such a deal memo. He had failed to come through on any of his promises
(something he did with similar effect to another well-known band), and so
the band wanted out. Another label expressed interest, but when the A&R
man was asked to release the band, he said he would need money or points,
or possibly both, before he would consider it.
The new label was afraid the price would be too dear, and they said no
thanks. On the cusp of making their signature album, an excellent band,
humiliated, broke up from the stress and the many months of inactivity.
There's This Band
There's this band. They're pretty ordinary, but they're also pretty good,
so they've attracted some attention. They're signed to a moderate-sized
"independent" label owned by a distribution company, and they have another
two albums owed to the label.
They're a little ambitious. They'd like to get signed by a major label so
they can have some security-you know, get some good equipment, tour in a
proper tour bus-nothing fancy, just a little reward for all the hard work.
To that end, they got a manager. He knows some of the label guys, and he
can shop their next project to all the right people. He takes his cut,
sure, but it's only 15%, and if he can get them signed then it's money well
spent. Anyway, it doesn't cost them any thing if it doesn't work. 15% of
nothing isn't much!
One day an A&R scout calls them, says he's "been following them for a while
now," and when their manager mentioned them to him, it just "clicked."
Would they like to meet with him about the possibility of working out a
deal with his label? Wow. Big Break time.
They meet the guy, and y'know what-he's not what they expected from a label
guy. He's young and dresses pretty much like the band does. He knows all
their favorite bands. He's like one of them. He tells them he wants to go
to bat for them, to try to get them everything they want. He says anything
is possible with the right attitude. They conclude the evening by taking
home a copy of a deal memo they wrote out and signed on the spot.
The A&R guy was full of great ideas, even talked about using a name
producer. Butch Vig is out of the question-he wants 100 g's and three
points, but they can get Don Fleming for $30,000 plus three points. Even
that's a little steep, so maybe they'll go with that guy who used to be in
David Letterman's band. He only wants three points. Or they can have just
anybody record it [like Warton Tiers, maybe-cost you 5 or 10 grand] and
have Andy Wallace remix it for 4 grand a track plus 2 points. It was a lot
to think about.
Well, they like this guy and they trust him. Besides, they already signed
the deal memo. He must have been serious about wanting them to sign. They
break the news to their current label, and the label manager says he wants
them to succeed, so they have his blessing. He will need to be compensated,
of course, for the remaining albums left on their contract, but he'll work
it out with the label himself. Sub Pop made millions from selling off
Nirvana, and Twin Tone hasn't done bad either: 50 grand for the Babes and
60 grand for the Poster Children-without having to sell a single additional
record. It'll be something modest. The new label doesn't mind, so long as
it's recoupable out of royalties.
Well, they get the final contract, and it's not quite what they expected.
They figure it's better to be safe than sorry and they turn it over to a
lawyer-one who says he's experienced in entertainment law-and he hammers
out a few bugs. They're still not sure about it, but the lawyer says he's
seen a lot of contracts, and theirs is pretty good. They'll be getting a
great royalty: 13% [less a 10% packaging deduction]. Wasn't it Buffalo Tom
that were only getting 12% less 10? Whatever.
The old label only wants 50 grand, and no points. Hell, Sub Pop got 3 points
when they let Nirvana go. They're signed for four years, with options on
each year, for a total of over a million dollars! That's a lot of money in
any man's English. The first year's advance alone is $250,000. Just think
about it, a quarter-million, just for being in a rock band!
Their manager thinks it's a great deal, especially the large advance.
Besides, he knows a publishing company that will take the band on if they
get signed, and even give them an advance of 20 grand, so they'll be making
that money too. The manager says publishing is pretty mysterious, and nobody
really knows where all the money comes from, but the lawyer can look that
contract over too. Hell, it's free money.
Their booking agent is excited about the band signing to a major. He says
they can maybe average $1,000 or $2,000 a night from now on. That's enough
to justify a five week tour, and with tour support, they can use a proper
crew, buy some good equipment and even get a tour bus! Buses are pretty
expensive, but if you figure in the price of a hotel room for everybody in
the band and crew, they're actually about the same cost. Some bands (like
Therapy? and Sloan and Stereolab) use buses on their tours even when they're
getting paid only a couple hundred bucks a night, and this tour should earn
at least a grand or two every night. It'll be worth it. The band will be
more comfortable and will play better.
The agent says a band on a major label can get a merchandising company to
pay them an advance on T-shirt sales! Ridiculous! There's a gold mine here!
The lawyer should look over the merchandising contract, just to be safe.
They get drunk at the signing party. Polaroids are taken and everybody
looks thrilled. The label picked them up in a limo.
They decided to go with the producer who used to be in Letterman's band.
He had these technicians come in and tune the drums for them and tweak
their amps and guitars. He had a guy bring in a slew of expensive old
vintage microphones. Boy, were they "warm." He even had a guy come in and
check the phase of all the equipment in the control room! Boy, was he
professional. He used a bunch of equipment on them and by the end of it,
they all agreed that it sounded very "punchy," yet "warm."
All that hard work paid off. With the help of a video, the album went like
hotcakes! They sold a quarter million copies!
Here is the math that will explain just how fucked they are:
These figures are representative of amounts that appear in record contracts
daily. There's no need to skew the figures to make the scenario look bad,
since real-life examples more than abound. Income is underlined, expenses
are not.
Advance: $250,000
Manager's cut: $37,500
Legal fees: $10,000
Recording Budget: $150,000
Producer's advance: $50,000
Studio fee: $52,500
Drum, Amp, Mic and Phase "Doctors": $3,000
Recording tape: $8,000
Equipment rental: $5,000
Cartage and Transportation: $5,000
Lodgings while in studio: $10,000
Catering: $3,000
Mastering: $10,000
Tape copies, reference CDs, shipping tapes, misc. expenses: $2,000
Video budget: $30,000
Cameras: $8,000
Crew: $5,000
Processing and transfers: $3,000
Offline: $2,000
Online editing: $3,000
Catering: $1,000
Stage and construction: $3,000
Copies, couriers, transportation: $2,000
Director's fee: $3,000
Album Artwork: $5,000
Promotional photo shoot and duplication: $2,000
Band fund: $15,000
New fancy professional drum kit: $5,000
New fancy professional guitars (2): $3,000
New fancy professional guitar amp rigs (2): $4,000
New fancy potato-shaped bass guitar: $1,000
New fancy rack of lights bass amp: $1,000
Rehearsal space rental: $500
Big blowout party for their friends: $500
Tour expense (5 weeks): $50,875
Bus: $25,000
Crew (3): $7,500
Food and per diems: $7,875
Fuel: $3,000
Consumable supplies: $3,500
Wardrobe: $1,000
Promotion: $3,000
Tour gross income: $50,000
Agent s cut: $7,500
Manager's cut: $7,500
Merchandising advance: $20,000
Manager's cut: $3,000
Lawyer's fee: $1,000
Publishing advance: $20,000
Manager's cut: $3,000
Lawyer's fee: $1,000
Record sales: 250,000 @ $12 = $3,000,000 gross retail revenue Royalty (13%
of 90% of retail): $351,000
Less advance: $250,000
Producer's points: (3% less $50,000 advance) $40,000
Promotional budget: $25,000
Recoupable buyout from previous label: $50,000
Net royalty: (-$14,000)
Record company income:
Record wholesale price $6.50 x 250,000 = $1,625,000 gross income
Artist Royalties: $351,000
Deficit from royalties: $14,000
Manufacturing, packaging and distribution @ $2.20 per record: $550,000
Gross profit: $710,000
The Balance Sheet: This is how much each player got paid at the end of the
game.
Record company: $710,000
Producer: $90,000
Manager: $51,000
Studio: $52,500
Previous label: $50,000
Agent: $7,500
Lawyer: $12,000
Band member net income each: $4,031.25
The band is now 1/4 of the way through its contract, has made the music
industry more than 3 million dollars richer, but is in the hole $14,000 on
royalties. The band members have each earned about 1/3 as much as they
would working at a 7-11, but they got to ride in a tour bus for a month.
The next album will be about the same, except that the record company will
insist they spend more time and money on it. Since the previous one never
"recouped," the band will have no leverage, and will oblige.
The next tour will be about the same, except the merchandising advance will
have already been paid, and the band, strangely enough, won't have earned
any royalties from their t-shirts yet. Maybe the T-shirt guys have figured
out how to count money like record company guys.
Some of your friends are probably already this fucked.
(c) 1999 [indiecentre]
Lessee -- I record a free-form monologue about how I first encountered Metallica (a bootleg tape of a concert that had "Hit The Lights" on it), how even over the much abused and much played crappy tape, that had made its way all the way from the West Coast to backwoods Mississippi, I could still make out the music and how much it affected me.
I tell about how I enjoyed the tape (that I made a copy of but unfortunately don't have anymore), and since then have bought every Metallica albumn up to S&M -- some of them TWICE, once on tape, once on CD. I tell about how Metallica's music helped me through some tough times in high school (tough to be a nerd in redneck land). I'll complain about how Jason got screwed in the "...And Justice For All" mix. I'll relate a quote from Lars who said, once, that "..more than any other band, we're like Rush".
I'll talk about the first time I heard about James's accident. I'll talk about how Metallica came back to Canada to finish the concert that James got hurt in, after Guns & Roses' Axl pitched a hissy-fit and walked off after 30 minutes.
I'll mention that Metallica's strength has always been their connection with their fans: how Jason tirelessly signs autographs, how the band once let people record their concerts, how hard-working the band has always been.
I'll say all this, and mention that Metallica, in their unique position of NOT being a slave to the record industry, who in fact seem to have always been in the position of leaders, have turned into followers (slaves, if you will), of a corporate mentality that denegrates their past efforts. I'll talk about how Metallica could be remembered, years after the band is no more, as the group that led the way, changing how musicians interact with their fans forever. I'll sadly mention that now, Metallica will most likely be remembered not for how much they cared and respected their fans, but how they attacked them.
I'll record this monologue and rip it to an MP3. I'll save multiple copies of it with the band's song titles, and put them up on Napster. With any luck, one of the band members will hear it, and know how disappointed I am with them, and how sad I will be because I will not listen to them anymore. And, since it's not their music, they can't ask me to take it down -- they can only ask that I change the titles. But that would be fine. I'd do that, and distribute the MP3 far and wide - hopefully, any potential fan would hear it first and then decide that Metallica isn't the band for them.
Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
Second, please remember that Metallica and Dr. Dre are only misguided artists. They have been brainwashed by the suits to think that all these evil hackers (media definition) are stealing their hard-earned money. These particular artists were picked to cover the most bases, because they seem to have (had) a lot of fans. I don't like either one much (and not because of this), but I know that a lot of people do like at least one of them.
--
Two words: Forbidden Apple.
Note: This post free of Metallica puns.
Although its probably been asked before, exactly HOW do you prove its pirated music? Lets assume they sniff my activity and see that I am downloading a file thats "pirated". So they come to my house and try to bust me. As soon as I see the cops coming up, I grab my roommate's copy of the record.
Them: "We're here to bust you. You downloaded illegal music." (looks at HD)
Me: Nope, just ripped it myself, bought the CD with cash so there's no record.
OK, so maybe they have irrefutable proof I downloaded it from someone. I can't claim I ripped it. Maybe *he* ripped it, and sent me a copy - after all, we're both legitimate owners of the CD and there's no law against that (is there?). Don't you, at some point, have to find EVERY SINGLE PERSON who uses Napster, look at their CD collection, and then figure out who's actually stealing, and who (like me, often) is downloading because I'm too lazy to waste CPU ripping CD's?
ZOMG I WOULD LOVE TO KNOW ABOUT YOUR FEELINGS ON MACINTOSH VERSUS WINDOWS, VI VERSUS EMACS, AND HOW YOU'RE NOT A DORK
... if they can afford to alienate 335,435 fans.
Seriously, I doubt it. Not being a Metallica fan (I don't think I'd recognize a single one of the releases), I could care less if their music is banned from Napster. I just wonder how the heck they think they're going to benefit from this.
The only person who stands to really gain from this is the lawyer (also representing Dr. Dre, another musical has-been).
--
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
I have an idea, how about everyone who uses napster renaming ONE MP3 file to include the phrase "Not by Metallica" or "Sans Metallica" or some other such phrase. Let their investigators try to week through all of the additional hits that they'd encounter by searching through results that include every Napster user.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
I'd be happy to see more artists and record companies follow the traditional bounds of the law and go after those who are actually committing copyright infringement. Why? Because then they won't be using their $$$ to sue common carriers, whom I feel should be protected under the law. As far as I can tell, Napster has acted within the law thus far by removing users who have acted illegally. So if this latest action takes the heat off of Napster and puts it onto those who are really illegally copying mp3s, so much the better.
Sure it's a pain for Napster to check their logs 335000 times and boot that many users (only if they really were trading Metallica, of course), but on the other hand it's a pain for record companies to come up with the lists in the first time. I'd much rather the record companies have to do the normal amount of work to track down copyright violations (just like they would have to do for copied movies, cassette tapes, etc.) as opposed to them just suing the heck out of mp3.com, napster, Diamond, and so forth.
Note that I'm ignoring the issue of whether the current copyright law is right or not (I think it is, mostly) - that's not the issue. The issue is that I'd much rather the RIAA & co. act within our current legal framework, because when they are tempted to extend the law instead (the DMCA, for example) we tend to lose rights in order to make their jobs easier. And our overall rights to fair use and reverse engineering are more important than the rights of 335000 people to (allegedly) trade unauthorized Metallica.
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
Its nice to see that metallica really appreciates their fans. Point: Yeah, what wonderful fans. Ripping Metallica CDs and making them available to anyone for free download. Gee, I'm sure they'll really miss fans like that. Counterpoint: F**k you, you and Metallica are working for the man! Back when Metallica was cool, before they sold out, they used to send thank you letters to people who got caught shoplifting their CDs! I'll never pay for their music again now that they're making me jump through more hoops to steal it. Point: Now that's an ... interesting policy. No, really. Counterpoint: Yeah, dude! Fight the man! Cheers,ZicoKnows@hotmail.com Cheers,ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
You assume they have the foresight required to see the music revolution. They do not, otherwise they would probably be pursuing different means of dealing with the mp3 phenomenon.
I'm not so sure about that. Back in the 80s when they still played heavy metal and attracted fans by the virtue of their music, this would have indeed worked.
But now that they've given up on metal and shifted to the cheeze market, I think they need the old media to keep them in the public eye in order to get sales. Very few people are serendipitously "discovering" Metallica these days and saying "Whoa, this is so cool!" and most of their old fans from the 80s have turned away in disgust. Metallica's sales are now almost entirely push-driven, and I think that makes the new media useless to them.
So I'm not so sure their strategy of suppressing MP3s is a bad thing. Metallica's name can confuse people because of their glorious past, so wipe away the confusion by asking yourself this: What would Brittney Spears do?
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Ah, but I suspect that Napster will get tired of shuting down 300,000 accounts/week much faser than 300,000 users will get tired of setting them up again.
Even if it takes 5 times as long to set up an account as it does to find one and shut it down, Napster will be putting in 60,000 times as much effort as any of the users it is acting against. I know which side I'd bet on...
Cheers,
Tim
It's official. Most of you are morons.
This is a chnace to really talk to Metallica and not though some pr, media induced, marketing and legal BS.
You haven't been to any celebrity chats yet, have you?
You won't get to talk to Metallica. Metallica probably won't even be typing on a keyboard. Your questions will be filtered (in advance this time!) through moderators, and Metallica will give their answers, which someone else will type.
It's like a press release.
Additionally Napster should put in place filters that block files based on artist/title strings at the request of the copyright holders.
That would not be good. What if the band The The told Napster to ban every song with the word The in its filename?
One thing you should probably be aware of is that owning a CD almost certainly allows you to make personal-use MP3's of it, but:
1. It probably doesn't allow you to download other MP3's without "buying" them.
2. It certainly doesn't allow you to offer those MP3's to others, in the general case.
Distribution is magic in copyright law. It is *NOT*, in the eyes of the law, the same thing to do something yourself as it is to have someone do it for you in cases of infringement.
If you want the law changed, great, I certainly won't be the one to try to stop you.
But, under the current law, the people trading MP3's are wrong, and the bands are right. Make your own MP3's from your own CD's.
It's always amazing how quickly slashdot can polarize on an issue. Gosh, sure is easy to hate those people who have something I want and aren't giving it to me cheap enough.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
How do you know they broke the law? Did you go check to make sure they didn't own a copy of the album that they were dl'ing clips of? IMO, if you own the album, you should be allowed to dl/rip the tracks. Of course, Napster has no way of determining ownership status of a track.
My.MP3.com tries to do this, but it can easily be spoofed (Hey buddy, let me borrow a copy of 'foo' for a minute or two...). Of course, they lost in court when they tried to enforce a verification procedure.
Of course, I agree with the sentiment that people who break the law should pay, but I seriously doubt that there is a precedent where someone was sent to jail for copyright infringement. I mean, come on!!! Let's reserve jails for those who are a menace to society at large (killers, rapists, etc.) Besides, do you really want ~$35k of tax money to go to supporting each person who is jailed for such (relatively) minor offense? I don't.
joke_mode(on);
flame(on);
Does anyone have a pirated MP3 of Lars Ulrich's press conference they'd like to share?
Explanation of above joke: All a millionaire like Lars Ulrich accomplishes by bitching and whining about people sharing his music, is that more people are likely to rip him off more than ever before. He'd be smart to shut his mouth instead of trying to protect the record industry.
joke_mode(off);
I'll stop using Napster when the music industry stops charging me $18 for a 35 minutes of music just so they can make another $14,000,000.00 fish-eye-lens / helicopter / humvee / shiny space suit Puffy Combs video.
flame(off);
Bowie J. Poag
Bowie J. Poag
It may be true that they are alienating their fans; it may be true that they are not seeing the "brave new world", powered by the Internet where information "wants to be free". For all those who call upon this so-called revolution, let me ask you: Do you really think that this music-swapping, without anyone paying for it, could go on like this ? Do you really believe that there wasn't going to be an artist who would pick up the sword and - rightly so - proclaim: You are thieves. ?
The impact of MP3s on CD sales (whether the sales will decrease or increase) is, in this case, also irrelevant. The distribution channels of music may be different in the future and the copyrights may be more lenient; changes may be in air. Nevertheless, we would be creating a double economy and fully accepting piracy if we allowed Napster to go on like this under the current jurisdiction.
I'm all for Metallica crushing Napster. The fact is that people who are trading MP3s illegally should expect to get their heads bashed.
Regardless of whether or not you think music is overpriced, your only right as a consumer is "don't buy the damn thing". Not "steal it if it feels right".
> They are just going to tell Napster to get rid of these people.
If they know the actual names of people who are pirating their music, and fail to take those people to court, couldn't a case be made that they are not exercising "due diligence" in protecting their copyrights?
I have been wondering about this since last month, when we had the report that the RIAA had given Napster the names of 50 transgressors.
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
> That's a lot of work, and if Metallica/RIAA certifies the list without actually doing that work, they may open themselves to lawsuits from users whose accounts were closed under false certification.
.sig, a notable "Make Money Fast!!!" scheme has just occured to me.
Inspired by my own
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Remember.. it doesn't say 'sue' 335000 napster users, it says 'ban' them, and if you all remember napster's usage policy.. they say they will ban people if they are made aware of copyright infringement. Metallica is doing just that. Napster hides behind a usage agreement that says that napster is only to be used for legal purposes, and if it is being used for illegal purposes, that they should be informed and the users will be banned. Metallica is simply doing EXACTLY THAT.
They are probably trying to demonstrate that napster had no intention of obeying it's own usage agreement, and that they can't deal with the complaints.
Common sense goes a long way. That, plus the DMCA makes napster OBLIGATED to do their part. Remember, they are in the middle of a court case. Part of their defense will be that they offer to remove people who are using napster for illegal purposes. In other words.. they don't need to be sued.. they just need to be made aware of the problem, and they'll fix it.
Metallica is making them aware of the problem. Now.. will they fix it right away? Who knows.. it's not relevant at this point. Metallica doesn't care.. they are just making a point to help the RIAA in their case, I would bet.
Dear Napster user!
You may have already won! All you need to do is to be in the first 1,000 of 335,000 to turn off your Napster, and you will be qualified for the semifinals in a raffle to win a signed Metallica CD, together with a trip to the capital of the United States where you will appear in front of a government commitee on the issues of copyrighted music piracy.
But hurry! You must respond promptly in order to qualify, or your entry will be viewed as inadmissible evidence in the criminal case of music copyrightrights infringement.
Sincerely,
RIAA Legal Team
representing the interests of Metallica.
I was thinking of how to intentionally fail my drug test... It would make a good memoir story someday.
I don't mean to start a flame war, but...
:(
:)
:)
I'm not into thrash metal and therefore wouldn't ever have bought or downloaded any Metallica. The saddest part of this is that my boycott of this particular band won't have significant effect.
Actually, a friend of mine told me just Saturday about their latest album which he said was backed up by some symphony orchestra. I'm not necessarily a classical music fan either, but, based on the moderating influence of a lot of pieces in the symphony I was thinking of giving it a listen... oh well.
For those of us to whom it applies, vote with your feet. Boycott those who don't recognize that the earth is round , mp3s are here to stay, and a new distribution model is fait accompli. They can only hurt their regular channel sales with their current mindset and lawsuits. I only wish I was going to be near a machine tonight at 5 pm for the chat to tell them what I think... Of course, there will probably be plenty of people there to express my opinion for me.
I particularly liked another post that suggested sending the $15 check directly to the band based on mp3 downloads of the album. Enough of those would get their attention.
Even if it's a band I like, my future purchase of their material will end if they pull a stunt like this.
Good thing I don't like rap either.
Russ
War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength. - George Orwell or George Bush?
Have you ever been in a internet chat room, with a guest, and tried to ask a well thought out lucid question. Well let me tell you, its rather impossible. With the slashdot interviews, each person is allowed to spend thier time writting out their questions, and then the best questions get moderated up (theoretically). The end result, is a set of fairly good questions, directed towards the guest rather than a stream of nonsense. In no way am I implying that the slashdot audience is better, but the method for interviewing is in my opinion better.
Let's say that each of the Napster "copyright violators" had only 1 Metallica song they were distributing - the minimum for being a violator. My best guess is that the average Metallica song is probably around 4 minutes long. In order to determine that the files named "Metallica-AndJusticeForAll.mp3" really were Metallica bootlegs (and not just Backstreet Boys jams mislabeled) they would have had listened to 22333.33 hours of music ((335,000 songs * 4 minutes) / 60 minutes). At constant rate with no breaks and no sleep for 1 person that would be 930.55 days (22333.33 hours / 24 hours) worth of some serious headbanging. That was probably divided up into a team of people, let's say 4. So that would be 5583.33 hours each (22333.33 hours / 4 people) coming to 232.64 days concurrently (930.55 days / 4 people).
I'm sure all this wasn't free. NetPD probably isn't *that* dumb and since their customers are lawyers they probably billed out at over $100/hour. For the sake of the argument, let's say it was $100/hour. That means it cost the lawyers (4 headbangers banging away for 5583.33 hours each at $100/hour) a grand total of $2,233,333.33!
P.S. Please check my math. Too much Metallica has rotted my brain - just like mom said it would!
-the spoony fork
Speak truth to power.
If I recall correctly, Napster said that they would ban users if the violated artists would attest under pains of perjury that certain people were trading in the copyrighted material.
.02
My question is, is having a song called "Metallica - One.mp3" on my machine proof enough? I mean, a name is an arbitrary thing. I can legally name every file on my computer microsoft.txt without violating any laws!
So when they (Metallica, et al) submit these names, did they just list whoever had something with the word "Metallica" in their index or do they have to prove (again, under pains of perjury) that this was an actual Metallica song?
My
Quux26
My
Quux26
www.crashspace.net
The correct term is "copyright infringement", and yes, it's actually a crime. You're taking an original creation someone else made and redistribute it without permission. The sad thing is that most people assume an attitude like yours, and think that copyright infringement is "no big deal". Quite obvious that you haven't produced much valuable Intellectual Property of your own - otherwise you might respect other's copyright a bit more.
But considering that CD sales are up, it's hard to even argue that potential profits were lost
So if I'm now making a thousand dollars per month, instead of ten thousand dollars per month, I shouldn't be whining?
Whatever, forget it - I'm starting to accept the reality that a lot of posters here make nonsensical comments for the benefit of OPEN SOURCE, INFORMATION WANTS TO BE FREE, and the like. I think I'm going to go now to rat on a few IRC mp3 leeches to the RIAA just to piss you zealots off.
Go get your free Palm V (25 referrals needed only!)
1) anarchist trite.
2) no. If you have intellectual property, you should have the right to do whatever you want with it. Just because some /. zealot doesn't agree with it doesn't mean he can trample all over your IP.
3) but certainly some shouting moron in all caps is definitely one.
4) typical swearing dumbass.
5) stop shouting, it's rude. And you're insulting Mr. Slippery to consider your post even remotely similar to his. At least his showed that it wasn't written by a moron.
Moderate at will,
Go get your free Palm V (25 referrals needed only!)
They said, "We stopped kicking ass a long time ago, but we're still taking names."
--
wcb
over at Salon
.5b
...
/.
The crew have rejected it twice, so I'll burn more karma.
--
To Hilary Rosen. A Retort.
This is a quick dissection of your recent interview with Salon.com. Please respond if you have a moment.
Your quotes are in italics, questions are in bold, my comments are in plain text.
While ultimately I don't think litigation is the right business strategy over the long term,
Would that be 20 years long term? It will take at least that long for a generation to forget.
I do think that Napster is guilty of copyright infringement, and we will have both a favorable court decision and some precedents set for companies that try and commercialize file sharing.
Why is sharing so bad? And I am shocked that you didn't say "commercialize file pirating." Some would call that a Fruedian slip.
There is certainly a lot of intrigue in the notion of file sharing -- for community reasons and for marketing reasons and for putting like people with like-minded interests together.
Nice, it even sounds good coming from you.
Clearly I understand all that.
For some reason I don't believe you.
But those issues really should be divorced from the very unique and specific issue, Does a company have a right to create a system that is so deliberately designed to take other people's work?
Why do we need another divorce? This country needs healing. It needs the power of community. I lost you after "does a company have a right..."
It's interesting in court -- the Napster lawyer tried to make the argument that file-sharing services like Napster actually bring the Internet back to its original purpose and history, which was when university researchers would share their research with their colleagues around the world.
Perish the thought. Please tell me, again, why this is a bad thing for anyone?
That was a very valuable and exciting thing that happened, but there's a principal difference between that activity and what businesses like Napster are engaged in -- it was those professors' works that they themselves were sharing!
Again with the sharing? This is the word we're talking about right? "a : to partake of, use, experience, occupy, or enjoy with others b : to have in common" That's the bad word?
As a practical matter going forward, lawsuits get a lot of headlines and they raise a lot of passion -- I understand that.
Not yet you don't. I still have three friends that haven't heard about you yet.
But ultimately the future of music on the Internet is not going to be about legalities and litigation, it's going to be about how are we bringing music to fans -- new music,
Yes, it is. But I don't think you know what "we" means yet.
established artists -- what are the new business models that people are adopting and how do you make all the new opportunities win-win.
BY SHARING THE MUSIC. YOU HAVE A FREE RESOURCE. USE IT! I can explain this philosophy in great detail if you like. Click that "user info" button and look for a conversation (still ongoing) with Eric the
I don't think anybody has illusions about controlling all transmissions online.
I do (think some have illusions, not have them myself).
The question is, How do you compete if services available to give it away without regard to the creators are allowed to flourish with such customer-service-friendly tools?
If you ask the wrong question, the answer doesn't matter. Remove the words "without regard to the creators" and you are on the right track. The Net is like that, it doesn't really make sense in most traditional terms.
Gnutella is a little harder to use than Napster, but there also ways to enforce against Gnutella users that you don't have with Napster.
Hehe, that would be funny to watch. I don't think you want to try and fight that battle.
Are Napster and online distribution of music causing the record industry to rethink or change its business models?
It doesn't necessarily change -- it expands. I personally believe people will want to buy CDs for a long time to come, [agreed] but I also believe they want to have subscriptions, kiosks in stores and airports, digital downloads
I don't, but then again I'm one of your core customers. At least I used to be.
I believe the expansion is where the conflict and the opportunity arrives. It behooves technology innovators to help develop those concepts in partnership with the music community. It's not accurate to say that the record industry says no.
What is it accurate to say? The record industry says "go for it, we have good lawyers and lots of money?"
There's no question that the industry has been slow to the marketplace, but it's too simplistic to say that the slowness or speed is out of some fear.
Simplicity sells technology. Just something I've noticed. I see fear in all your actions. Most creatures that are panicing don't notice it themselves, but again, those are just my observations.
It's more accurate to say that these are very complex transitions with a lot of interests and players involved -- artists and publishers and distributors and retailers and technology partners. There are a whole host of changes, and new structures that have to be created to move into these worlds.
That's the big problems. There are so many players involved. We need two players. Artists and Fans. Which one are you? We don't need new structures either. We have the Net. It's a new structure, how much of it have you guys built? How much have you tried to destroy? Can you see why we (I) don't like you (plural)?
It's not necessarily what people always want to hear, but I do believe that it is complex.
You just keep on digging into the unnecessy complexities of the business models you have created. I'll be listening to some music.
It's not whether or not somebody is killing CD sales this week -- it's whether music has value, and is perceived to have value in and of itself by fans, and by technology companies and venture capitalists who are investing in new businesses and have to pay for everything from their server space to their telephone lines to their lunchboxes.
Simplify, simplify. How many venture capitalists do you know that would give money to a company that starts out with the idea "First, we sue everyone with a different business model..." (step three: Profit!)
Paying for the content they are using is not an unreasonable request. I think it's a value quotient, not necessarily a piracy fear, that is also important to consider.
You should search this site. I'm sure somebody will give you a clue as to the nature of supply, demand, and value quotients on the Internet. "Not necessarily a piracy fear", I thought you guys weren't scared?
It goes back to the earlier issue that whether or not the record companies and artists are making money selling CDs is irrelevant to Napster; they are building a business on the backs of artists.
And your business would be built where?
Just because [artists] are making money elsewhere doesn't mean Napster has the right to do this. It's a self-serving argument for Napster.
*COUGH*
No one is arguing Chicken Little here;
Sometimes you should listen to a little pen^H^H^Hchicken. The sky has indeed fallen.
what we are saying is that if that geometric [try exponential] progression is such that music has less and less value, ultimately you do get to a scenario where it's hard for the legitimate businesses to compete. No one says we're there, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see where we're going.
No it doesn't. Have you ever seen a fifty-year-old rocket crash into the ground? Be patient. Shouldn't be too long now.
It's an artists issue. Cynics say the record industry doesn't like that model because it takes them out of the equation. But it's not true -- artists like it when they have a record that's so successful that they get to stay home for a few months rather than go on tour.
Do artists also like works for hire? Here's a link from your page. And here's a link about where you paid to get the law changed. And here's one to a quick rundown on how artists fare with your current business model.
You are limiting the artists' choices. And secondly, a significant part of the meaning of the music is creating the demand for the work.
i.e. Marketing. Yea we've heard of it. I don't remember that in my music appreciation class in college though. Must'a skipped that day after a ragin' Rage show.
And creating that demand for the music and the artist is very much a marketing and promotional function the record company does. The costs associated with that have to be absorbed somewhere.
Yes, they do. And we, the fans, would be more than happy to do it. Just let us copy, digitally, our music files (that we bought and paid for) and allow us to take care of that marketing part for you. We'll tell our friends what sucks. And what kicks ass. MP3 is about as good as quality as radio, if you haven't noticed. CD's sound better. They still travel better. They look good on coffee tables. We're not going to stop buying CD (unless you quit fretting and bring us DVD-AUDIO, and yes, it will get broken)
Things will evolve and the industry has always given away music for free, but it's really inappropriate that the only ways that artists should be able to make money off their craft is touring, if in fact people are enjoying their music anyway.
Remember we are paying for that promotion and distrubution so you don't have to. You can take all that money you save and give it straight to the artists. And why don't you give their copyrights back after you stop promoting them? That doesn't seem fair to me, but then again I didn't lobby to have copyright extended for an additional 20 years after death.
Not to mention the whole crop of artists that don't have the ability to tour.
I'm sure studio musicians will still have skills that are useful to somebody. Perhaps they can teach in schools after the sudden revival in the public's taste for live music? I mean, MP3 is great, CDs are better, but you can't beat the real thing. Don't forget that.
What was your reaction when you heard that Napster was sponsoring the Limp Bizkit tour?
I thought Napster must be desperate to have to pay $2 million to get someone to support them.
I think you might have wanted to think about this one for a second or two. Exactly how much did you guys spend last year on Congress? What's the annual promotion budget for New York?
I didn't think it was a thoughtful statement about the long-term economics of the record industry -- it was an anti-establishment, rock 'n' roll publicity thing for them to do.
Yes, and...? You 'member Elvis shaking them hips don'cha? What an anti-establishment, rock n' rock thing for him to do.
There's no question that the multitude of artists who have spoken out against Napster far outweigh this kind of publicity stunt, but I hope that their fans realize that these artists actually care about their work, and care about their art, and care about their ability to keep making it.
No question, eh? No question? Now would that be artists as in "signed, sealed, and delivered on the dotted line" or artists as in "a person skilled in one of the fine arts." I don't remeber seeing that national statistics poll, I must've been asleep at the wheel.
I think if Napster has ideas for alternative business models, they haven't said them yet.
Since when did "put music in the hands of fans" become an alternative business model. What is radio supposed to be? What's MTV for again?
I don't think it's my place to do that. If people are creating businesses that use other people's work like that, it behooves them to come up with some other scenario at the outset that does the right thing. Where they go from here is the subject of obviously complicated scenarios.
Obviously complicated scenaries, i.e. lawsuits. You've got that part of the business plan down pat. Keep the course.
There are mutual responsibilities, but obviously as this case is in litigation, suffice it to say that Napster has never come up with a scenario. And I don't think anybody in the record industry has any indication that that is a viable option.
The record industry? What's a record? Oh, you mean those big plastic CD's? I remember seeing one of those when I was five (and music never sounded so good, analog is a good way to preserve quality, hint, hint) Of course you don't see it as a viable option, that's the problem.
The business models that MP3.com have put forward are interesting business models. The issue with MP3.com is simply of them not seeking licenses prior to the launching of their system.
So you mean in addition to buying your CD, I have to get some ethereal "license" to listen to it? We are talking about my.mp3.com, right? Try and stay on-topic, that's what the lawsuit is about. That, and bankruptcy.
I do get a particular laugh out of technology entrepreneurs who try and say that the record industry has screwed artists over the years. But what is it, now it's their turn?
Oh, we're doing the screwing all right. But the artists have had enough, if you catch my drift. I get a particular laugh too, haw-hah!
We have gone through an interesting shift here. The RIAA is a trade organization that was never a public entity or necessarily had any public profile. So it's quite a different role for us to all of a sudden respond not just to the music community but to the public itself.
The Internet exposes dark organizations. Have you heard about Echelon? Area51? There's some pictures around here somewhere... Unfortunately the power has shifted. You no longer are dealing with someone coming to you for a resource only you control. Now you have to deal with us, and we control the resources.
But I've learned a lot: A lot of people don't know what record companies do and what they bring to the equation -- helping to develop the talent and create the demand. That's been interesting.
Oh, just wait. This party is just getting started. Most of the players aren't even here yet. We live in interesting times, indeed.
When you go to buy a Chevy, you generally know something about General Motors being a decent company.
Define decent for me. I do not think it means what you think it means. (Not a knock on GM, just a question about your example)
When you want to buy a Bruce Springsteen record, you don't think much about Sony Music; that's been deliberate by these companies over the years. As a result, a lot of other people have painted on that blank canvas. If we could do that over, maybe we'd do that differently. But maybe not.
A painting on a black canvas. What an apt metaphor. No wonder it's taken so long to see it clearly.
I cheerfully await a response. I fervently hope that this crosses your desk at some time in the future. I've been harsh, perhaps unnecessarily so, but I hope you can get around my sarcasm and cynicism and see what I have for you here. Don't be afraid to by cynical in response. A little laugh might do us all good at this point. Let's get a conversation going and maybe we can save you some litigation costs.
Thanks,
Roy M. Taylor
a.k.a Wah on
--
+&x
This is kind of like Microsoft's Open License program, just for music.
MS's Open License is a marketing ploy to confuse end users about the term "Open"
Product use rights
There are two use rights that are common to all Microsoft Open License customers in addition to rights granted under specific product end-user license agreements (EULAs).
that is to say, "In addition to the rights taken away by EULA.."
Oh, and those new "rights"
Open License grants the right to use different product language versions. Customers must have an initial language version that is the same price or higher than the desired language version.
Wow, I feel so empowered.
Open License grants downgrade rights for all Microsoft products. Downgrade rights allow users to run any prior version of a product for which they have received license confirmations, instead of running the version they acquired.
Woohoo! I am allowed to use old unsupported software at the new price. yaaah!
Did you see this?
Oh, and it's about control of money, IMHO.
--
+&x
Someone suggested it on here in a previos napster discussion, and it just made so much sense to me...send the money directly to the band. Cut and paste freely.
Dear Metallica,
I heard a great song of yours because of Napster. I loved it. I loved another song you wrote that I heard off of Napster. So, since I loved it so much, I decided to download the entire CD. I thought to myself, "Gee, this is great music, it's worth the $15". So I sent you the money. Since I did not buy it from a record store and I did not have the address for your Record Label handy, I thought I would send it to you. Your music is a commodity, regardless of whether I get it from Napster or from a record store, but I wanted to show my appreciation for the people who actually make the music, not the people who throw up advertisements everywhere.
Again, thank you for the music, and here is the money I might have spent on a CD.
Sincerely,
An anonymous Napster-using Fan
-- Who is the bigger fool? The fool or the fool who follows him? --
Hmm... And I thought I had filtering problems.
I guess the guys of metallica aren't smart enough to realize that users can simply re-register with a new username?
sigh...
The next site to slashdot will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and start slashdotting it early!
Rights are no less social constructs than laws and have no more or less fundamental of a basis than the general consensus of a body of people that "Hey! No one should be able to stop someone from doing that." Perspectives on "rights" differ from culture to culture as much as morality and is purely subjective. I could always claim that it's my right to kill people that annoy me.
So, while we're talking about rights, what about copyrights? You know, the right to control what happens with the fruit of your own labor. Your contention that his conflict with those laws is a "morally positive action", but what about his contention with the right of the makers of that music to demand compensation for listening to it? Your "morally positive action" may be another person heinous crushing of their rights.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
...I prefer downloading the MP3's I wanna play on my computer, iso ripping them myself. So what,
that's my right... sue me.
Actually, no it's not your "right."
U.S. law only allows you to make your own copies of your own albums for your own personal use and archival purposes. It is not your right to redistribute those copies to other people or take someone else's copies just because you also own an original. The law's pretty specific in that respect. The good old "delete these files after 24 hrs. if you don't own the original" argument for game ROMs was always an urban myth. Even if you do own it, you can't download it because it's not a copy of the item you own, even though, bit-for-bit, they are identical.
Of course, the RIAA is trying to take that away too with the AHRA, which prohibits making perfect digital copies of music. This piece of legislation got pushed through over DAT recorders and is still being challenged in courts, AFAIK. Personally, I hope it dies hard. It makes no sense to allow us to copy things for "archival purposes" only in degradeable formats.
If I name my "FreeSong" by "Free Cool band"
Unforgiven_Metallica.mp3. How will they know?
Now you're just guilty of a different kind of copyright infringement.
If you do it the other way around, then nobody will download them because they don't know they're actually Metallica, and you've become unimportant to the RIAA compared to the more blatant traders. This is only good for trading between friends who know what you actually have, but Napster is an inefficient model for that compared to just setting up an FTP server with user logins. Seems pointless to me unless you're playing a malicious joke on Napster users.
"This isn't Barry Manilow? What is this crap??"
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
IIRC you can be under 18 years of age and still use napster. What about all those people who are 18 that like to download public domain music? There is a lot of great stuff that I wouldn't have been able to get if a CC# was needed, since I caved in 4 months ago and got a Visa (just for EverQuest).
I went there, being the naive internet luser I apparently am, thinking some good was going to come out of it, boy was I wrong.
Let me tell you what I experienced:
1. All the questions the moderator asked were strangely written by PEOPLE WHO WERN'T THERE.
2. All the questions, except the second one, I think, were truely weak, as if written entirely by lawyers to solicit the kind of answers they wanted to be heard.
3. The band never saw any of the public chat going on.
4. My very thought out question about me buying S&M because I heard an mp3 off of it, and that the RIAA posted a 12.3% 90 billion dollar sales increase last year, was not asked.
5. The thing didn't even last a full hour.
6. Metallica thinks that Napster is apparently providing the content and not the users. Lars said a few times they wanted "napster to take us off their lists".
7. Metallica apparently has a gripe about napster sponsoring Limp Bizkit (they said it was wrong that this large company was paying Limp Bizkit to perform, and not the kids). Even though I don't like Limp Bizkit, isn't this what all record labels do? And don't other bands take on sponsors?
8. Lars says "it isn't about the money" on one line, but says "napster is a middle man cutting us out" on another. Which is it?
9. Metallica wants the government to police the internet, they want congress to bring out new laws against this, and they think what they're doing is for the good of all artists, they clearly stated their goal, to put Napster out of business.
In conclusion, I belive this "live chat" was one hell of a fabrication, kudos to Yahoo for duping alot of people into showing up and wasting their time so we can hear uninformed idiots (Metallica) rant.
-- iCEBaLM
It's easy for Metallica to prove a case by case basis. (i.e. This is no scare tactic) Metallica would simply show the Napster people a screenshot showing people with Metallica Mp3's and then say that they have not given permission for their music to be in mp3 format. Then Napster is required to block everyone who uses the Metallica Mp3's or at least everyone who came up when Metallica did a search and their name came up.
Duh - it's easy to prove a case by case basis. Yes, usage of Napster does not demonstrate copyright infringment, but if used IMPROPERLY (piracy) it might be illegal (at least in the courts - i.e. it's okay to own a gun, most of the time however it's not okay to use the gun to kill a person. - While the gun company is not responsible - the police still take the gun away. So look at it this way - Napster is not responsible for the illegal trading of mp3's, but the Fed's can still confiscate the program if it is being used in that way.)
Understand? - Honestly though, Napster probably will lose in the courts. If the tabacco industry loses for not doing enough to prevent people from smoking - even when they made the choice to smoke (recent florida court case) Napster will lose also - eventually.
Hotline and like programs have not gotten sued by the industry because they actually have a group that goes and looks for pirated software (for Hotline it's known as the infamous Sadwyw Bot and Room 22). Because they take SOME preventave action they are left alone. Correct me if I'm wrong - but Napster takes NONE. That is why they will lose...
This post is not troll, flamebait or like - it is simply my opinion. Also if you're responding to this post please don't pick it apart when you reply - because combined Ideas make sense, split up anyone can criticize them.
Thanx.
Is it progress if a cannibal uses a fork?
You say that killing trees will do almost nothing. This makes you rather ignorant. If you want to live life wearing an oxygen mask, go ahead, lumber those trees. Not only will Carbon Monoxide (a gas which humans don't take too well to) increase, but oxygen will decrease. To enlighten your ignorance, this is due to the fact that trees breath carbon monoxide and expel oxygen. Without trees and forage, humans are as good as extinct.
Two mistakes:
First, plant life consumes carbon dioxide, not carbon monoxide.
Second, recent estimates say that 90% of the world's oxygen is produced by life in the world's oceans. Even if this estimate is extremely high, all the figures put out by environmentalist extremist groups is still inaccurate. Coming down on plastics, I can accept. Cutting down trees is bad, I agree - leave the wildlife habitats alone, and the wildlife won't be wandering through our cities. However, claiming that cutting down the rainforest will suffocate us all to death is a little extreme.
Off topic, I know, but environmentalists like the folks who've been swarming the whale hunts in Washington on jetskis, of all things, are too hypocritical to take.
So, my summary:
Environmentalists and their sympathisers blind themselves to the facts too often in the pursuit of saving cute and cudly animals.
------
If a tree falls on an anonymous coward yelling 'first post' in the forest, does anybody hear?
Thank goodness for Tipper Gore and the PMRC! They saved me from getting sued! If I hadn't been shown the evils of the Devil's Music (aka "Rock and Roll") I'd be in court right now!
darren
Cthulhu for President!
(darren)
I thought this snippet of Metallica lyrics was appropriate to the situation, from Shortest Straw on the ... And Justice For All album.
[...]
Blacklisted
With vertigo make you dead
Shortest straw
Challenge liberty
Downed by law
Live in infamy
Rub you raw
Witchhunt riding through
Shortest straw
The shortest straw has been pulled for you
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Er, duh, I said "Goths tend to follow." I didn't say they were Goth. If you have a hard time believing that, do a web search on goth and metallica and see the thousands of hits that come pouring out.
Besides, it's not the point. "Reverand Manson" workships the dollar as much as the rest of them. It's all a show and goth's all take it far too seriously. It's just good music, he ain't a god.
Sure, they're going to have a hard time tracking down all of these users, and prosecuting ANY of them. I'm sure the number's inflated, but you don't really think that there are only 4000 users on Napster at any given time, right?
There are many napster servers. You can easily prove this by logging on, submitting a search, not finding the song, re-connecting, and finding the song.
If there are 8 napster servers, each with the 4000 users you've seen, we've got ~10% of the 333k users Metallica claims to be pursuing. Plus, we don't know how often users log in and out.. I don't think that 1/4 million users distributing Metallica IP on napster is impossible.
You mean I'm NOT supposed to type in my REAL email address?
What about on IRC. It's still ok to put in my real name in the "Real Name" box, right?
(-:
Is there a difference between the mp3 i ripped from a CD i own and an mp3 of the same song i got from someone on napster? I say yes, they may have the same digital data, bit for bit, but one is a copy of a CD i own and the other is a copy of a CD that someone else owns. I'm tempted to say that its ok for me to have the copy i made but not the copy the other person made, they are different, every CD is distinct even if it has the same digital data on it, at some level they are at least a little bit different. So now if i destroy my CD, and have never made a copy of it, or a backup of any kind, is it ok for my friend to give me a copy of theirs? is it ok for some big central distribution center, unrelated to the creator of the orginal CD, to give me a copy of the destroyed CD, even if i can prove that i owned it at some point. I guess i'm leaning towards No. If i didn't back it up myself and it is destoryed, its my own fault(or the fault of someone who is responsible) and i(or the responsible party) should have to go buy a new copy from the creator. It seems like I have the right to back up my copy and keep it safe but i really don't have the right to someone elses backup of their CD. And as such even getting mp3s of CD's i already own, from napstere really isn't right. So the way i see it, i have the right to make mp3's of my CD's, but not to grab mp3's made from other people's cd's.
How they made the request will be relevant.
If they send Napster a nice text file on a couple floppies, this won't be a huge issue for Napster. Just hack up a quick Perl script. Everyone gets a new userID, everyone's happy.
If the send Napster a 7000 page printed document of user names... They would be obliged to remove the names, pretty much by hand.
The quick solution of course is to dump all the existing user names. 98% of them are probably expired already...
I can see it now...
Napster User: Why did you drop my username?!?
Napster: Are you SURE you weren't pirating Metallica?
Napster User: Uh... I can't remember!
Napster: We thought so...
Okay, so they lock user Foo from logging in. Damn! Now I'll have to re-register the login Bar. Then Baz... etc.
They could block IP's but that would seriously piss off a lot of people, probably to the point of a class-action suit against them.
Lars must have thought of this one.
If Metallica does get money this way they have an obligation to pass most if not all of that cash to the record company. Its the company that invests, promotes, and produces this Backstreet Boys for AlternaTeens band. Instead of handing them this legaly dangerous money just donate the $15 bucks to charity unders Lars's name.
I can't wait to see the next press release if this catches on, "Pirates, stop donating my money to charity!"
Wouldn't sending $15 to Metallica be like 8 times the share they see from an album sold by their label?
Gee, I only hope they go after me.. I have been on Napster, searching for and downloading Metallica, for the last week or so. Why? My Garage, Inc. discs look like a chainsaw was dragged over them, (one was) and I needed to fill in the holes I couldn't rebuild. I'll even show them the three copies of MOP I own!! I hope Guns and Roses are next to sue me. I snagged Use your Illusion I & Appetite for Destruction via Napster this morning. Forgot my CD's at home.
.sig: Now legally binding!
As the press release says "Hold nothing back: this is Metallica, after all. They can take it."
It's worth a try. If Metallica actually were persuaded it would help a lot. I won't be home so I won't be able to join in. If I were able to I'd arrange my thoughts ahead of time so I could cut and paste them.
However, we all know this is going to be a moderated conversation. There will be a million questions submitted and they'll choose the questions that they've already got prepared answers for (probably.) It would be really cool if it were a real "chat" but I have a hard time believing it could possibly be anything like that.
numb
That the Open Source Movement seemingly supports these hardened criminals is ludicrous. No wonder no one takes you seriously, you seem like a bunch of children screaming "Mine! Mine! All mine!".
Hardened criminals? Anyway, it's not the OSS people that sound like children screaming "Mine! Mine! All Mine!" It's the RIAA plants that have shown up in the forum that fit that description.
As far as my feelings go I'll continue to resist anyone that tries to close off distribution channels for music on the Internet. If the RIAA could find a way to stop their music from being distributed without screwing it up for everyone else I'd say "more power to ya."
I know it must be upsetting to the RIAA that people on here don't seem to care about their rights and such. Speaking for myself alone, it's because I understand the technology to realize that you can't stop it--at least not without stopping everyone else from being able to distribute their own music. That's why the issue of copyright infringement means so little to me in this case--because it's freedom of speech and expression that will get choked to stop this so-called piracy. I'm sure I'm not the only one that feels that way, but I can't speak for everyone.
The RIAA wants things to be "business as usual" as it's been for the last 50 years. I won't just sit here and let that happen.
numb
I agree that it's probably too late to single out Metallica for this kind of treatment, but I've often wondered... what would happen if the record labels suddenly started getting letters, phone calls, and e-mails saying, "I like this song and want to purchase a license for the MP3. No, I don't want the whole album and I'm not going to buy it at $15 for the one song I want."
This is kind of like Microsoft's Open License program, just for music.
Do you think it would actually work, or is it really just about control and not money or legality?
How can the eyes be the Windows of the soul when they never blue screen?
Open source music!!
Or would that be open sheet music?
Yeah!
Milions of former linux-geeks start spending their free time working and reworking their open source songs until those songs are the most stable, versatile, extendible of the planet...
or would stable versatile music made by several thousand different people be boring?
Metallica provides us with something we want but cannot legally obtain ourselves and it's just fair that we pay them for that.
Theft is theft even when you're stealing from a group of very rich guys, even when the chance of getting caught is zero because everybody on the web is an anonymous coward.
If you have such significant problems with paid music, do the sensible thing, start an "open music" movement, protest, write letters, bla.... Just using the fact that you think metallica "charges to much" for their music or whatever as an excuse for theft is really weak.
If any of the people complaining about metallica really felt strongly about what they're shouting the ACLU would have had ten times the membership it has, or there would have been a free music foundation where artists deposit the rights to older songs when they think they've gotten enough out of that music, so as to let everybody copy it to hearts content.
Right now napster users are just criminals (albeit very small ones) that are complaining they got caught.
---Electronic Shock Resistance? Root Mean Square? why is everybody discussing that here?---
Uh *duh*
Goth != Metallica
Read up on your music styles old person
And, Metallica might well be the band "losing" the most money to napster.
I just did a few searches and "metallica" returned more than 100 results with ping 0, while "Garth Brooks" returned only 11, true, britney spears was in the hundreds to but then again somebody had to tell her that australia was actually pretty far away and not "somewhere south of new mexico" so maybe she also isn't very "up to speed" on that internet thing...
With an open subscription model you can't precent evil people from getting on the system even if you squash the account. A random ascii string can be generated for a username each time. Quite effective.
Slashdot social engineering at it's finest
They're having a chat today specifically about the Napster shenanigans at 5pm PT (GMT -8). Show up 1/2 hour early to submit questions/comments.
As the press release says "Hold nothing back: this is Metallica, after all. They can take it."
-----
This whole Metallica thing is ridiculous. Back in the realy 80's, when they actually took off, there was a whole scene based around tape trading. That's how bands became known. People traded the tapes, the band's played gigs, people turned up to the gigs, people bought tapes at the gigs etc. etc.
So their whole success is based around the fact that people "traded their art as commodities" and built their reputation up. They would not be where they are today without that.
Though why anyone would actually _want_ to listen to the more recent stuff is well beyond me...
Whether that claim would stand up in court or not would be irrelevant -- it's easy enough to get a warrant for the confiscation of your computer which would then be held as evidence pending the resolution of the trial, which would last for a decade and a half, cost 12 million dollars of your own money and $30 million of the taxpayers' and which no one would even remember at the end, whether you win or lose. All you really need to do if you're a big corporation or the US Government is make an example of a few people like this and everyone else will fall into place quickly enough.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
1) What's the substantial difference between Napster and old-media cassette tape copying?
2) If the online exchange of their music is "sickening", treating their art as a commodity, how is that different from stamping out millions of copies of their work, which can be re-sold freely through used CD shops?
3) How do they envision the music industry working 10 years from now? Will Metallica be remembered as a defender of the industry or a misguided old-school band that missed out on a great opportunity?
4) Does Metallica or Electra Records have any plans in the works to offer music online? Do they have any ideas to offer the Internet Generation other than a Luddite-like prohibitionist stance?
P.S.: Of course the Napster users are stealing, but its massive popularity could well be interpreted as a great market waiting to be catered to, rather than a problem that needs to be wiped out.
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
>Actually, no it's not your "right."
>U.S. law only allows you to make your own copies of your own albums for your own personal use and archival purposes. It is not your right to redistribute those copies to other people or
>take someone else's copies just because you also own an original. The law's pretty specific in that respect.
under U.S. law... maybe, but I don't see anyone suing me over this in Belgium.
Please remember that US-law is not universal, global law (even if you'd want
it to be so ). And if they do sue, well, heck I don't give a damn...
A few of my lawyer friends are more then willing to help me out for free
(they owe me one becaused I helped them out once), and I doubt they have
a very strong case against me. Go prove I didn't download those MP3 by
mistake (I of course immediatly deleted them), and those MP3's that are on my
hard-disk weren't ripped by me.
I'm sure your laws are pretty specific... and I don't care. There I said it.
Now moderate me down, and flame me all you like...
na na na na nah
J.
PS: We can't buy guns easily over here ("Europeans have no freedom"),
but we can walk down the street drinking a can of beer...
Now tell me what's more important to you
[don't respond in this thread please, just mail me]
Yeah, that's a great idea, but now that the whole thing's started it's probably too late for Metallica to back down and admit that Napster is a good idea for them. Plus, their record company/management certainly won't want to do this - they've got a lot more tied up in it than the band itself.
I can see how this would mollify the bands themselves if it happened enough times, but for the people behind the bands it's less about the money and more about control over distribution. Even if Napster was a sure-fire way to make money (which unfortunately it's not) they would still want to crush it or control it, whichever was better for them. Sad, but true.
"We can't have Metallica cutting into those profits. We're suing them on the grounds that their actions will reduce the popularity of their music and may even make it more difficult to distribute Metallia MP3's, which in turn would drastically cut into our Metallica profits from new listeners. Let's face it, Metallica hasn't made a great album in quite a while, so the only money we get out of them lately is people listening to their OLD stuff and deciding to buy it."
Also at issue in the suit are about a dozen songs released by Metallica that, according to the RIAA's legal team, "really suck." These include "Whiskey in the Jar" among others.
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
Its nice to see that metallica really appreciates their fans.
There is a concert up in Dallas in a few weeks - several bands, including Metallica, are playing. I really wanted to go - I like some of the other headliners. But I will be damned before I let one penny of my money go to support Metallica ever again...
As for anyone who is still making Metallica available through Napster - removed the MP3's. Don't distribute their music. Not because they
are suing, but because they have proven themselves to be unworthy of their fans.
Just my 2 cents...
Check out Magic Firesheep!
That sounds fair. If they did indeed trade Metallica music (and it's not hard to get a list of people who do), then this seems pretty fair, not to mention official Napster policy. No money, no greed, just prevent illegal trading.
Recently, it has come to our attention that you have been illegally trading certain digital representations of the music belonging to our client, Metallica. First, our position on the matter has always been clear: The Thing That Should Not Be. Your actions have put our clients in dire financial straights. According to Frank Metallica, "they're Bleeding Me dry". This is Sad But True. Our clients preferred recourse is apparently to Kill Em All, but in a less drug-induced stated they have relented to allow Merciful Fate in our dealings with offenders such as your self.
In a Blitzkrieg investigation of the records obtained from Napster (herein known as Phantom Lord), we have clear indication that you were engage in this illegal activity. You may have tried to cover your tracks, but The Memory Remains. After a long Struggle Within, we have decided that while you will remain Unforgiven, we shall not Seek and Destroy Overkill.
You are hereby banned from using Napster until further notified. You should consider your Napster logon Stone Dead Forever and realize any actions on your part should be considered Too Late Too Late.
We seek only to protect the financial security belonging to Metallica - Nothing Else Matters
Sincerely, FUD ( Master of Puppets)
XML causes global warming.
Does anybody else think that maybe Napster should have built in some kind of encryption or scrambling, so that something like this can't happen so easily?
I would just stop using Napster and go with something less centralized and a little more secure.
The enquiry lasted quite a long time as I recall but wan't covered heavily in the news (probably largely because those running TV and those running the music industry are largely from the same cartel) so we didn't get to hear much of the details (like for example which of the MMC's relatives was a high-up in the music industry)
Rich
So, has anyone tried a suit against the record industry, (or some random represantative of them) accusing them of price fixing?
I read somewhere that napster isn't breaking the law if they show evidence of "trying" to remove people with illegal material. Given that napster usernames can be created very easilly, a mass ban just may help napster in the RIAA suit. The people who get banned shouldn't have much of a problem creating a new user. Metallica may have opened the door for napster!
Today is the closing of a parenthesis opened before this sig, before this story, before this existence that is me (as if
Why not try changing the laws instead of finding more ways to break them? Both sides will be happy in the long run. "what they found a way around this copyright law? well lets write another" see my point? I tried gnutella and it needs a hell of a lot of refinement. First show ping times and such like napster, and make a real connection speed indicator. I'm tired of downloading at 400bytes/sec from some guy on aol with a 14.4 modem.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
I guess these 335,435 Napster users truly are...
The Unforgiven.
love,
br4dh4x0r
Signed up with Napster using my real name/e-mail. Downloaded every bit of music I own, and not one bit more. I didn't even down load stuff I'd bought then had stolen. Only stuff I can put my hands on. Now, sue me Lars. Come on, take your best shot. Soon as you file, I'll be after that huge pile of cash you call your wallet.
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
Free Software != Free Music, of course. However, what you don't seem to have noticed is that the two practices share a lot of the same philosophy. Supporters of open source feel that the movement will help content producers and users both, and will result in better software for everyone. Likewise, supporters of freely distributable music do not feel it will lead to an anarchistic state where good music is no longer worth producing; they do not even think that pirating Metallica songs will hurt Metallica.
"But how could this be?" Have you ever bought concert tickets? How about band merchandise? Or even purchased a CD even though you already had the one or two singles off the album? My guess is yes. And do you realize that most bands do not make most of their money off of CD sales (the giant recording industry takes most of it), but rather by touring? Don't you think freely distributable music could increase concert ticket and merchandise sales? Of course!
Finally, I take issue with your stipulation that just because something is a law, people should be made to pay for breaking it. First of all, the idea that a content seller has nothing to do with piracy of its products was, in fact, even attacked by Judge Jackson, who mentioned that piracy of Microsoft products would not be so widespread if their prices were more reasonable. Interesting-- piracy as a market regulating mechanism? It's true-- Napster use would be much lower if people could log on to e-Music and actually find the songs they wanted to hear at a reasonable price, instead of its current paltry selection (thanks to the recording industry's refusal to grant rights at a reasonable price, of course). Second, people break many laws on a widespread basis all the time. Traffic laws, for instance-- there would be a huge outcry if everyone who went 1mph over the speed limit was thrown in jail; in fact, they don't even ticket people until they're more than significantly over the limit! There are also laws against cohabitation, most sexual practices (oral sex, sodomy, etc.), and so on and so forth-- we break those all the time. Yes, these laws should be repealed, and so on and so forth, but the second people start changing their behavior to perfectly fit the laws, we will be an utterly submissive society. I think you need to rethink your die hard law and order stance a bit.
New Metallica: "Grr! Napster! No electronic distrubution of our music!"
Old Metallica:
"Do you see what I see?
Truth is an offence
You silence for your confidence
Do you hear what I hear?
Doors are slamming shut
Limit your imagination,
Keep you where they must
Do you feel what I feel?
Bittering distress
Who decides what you express?
Do you take what I take?
Endurance is the word
Moving back instead of forward seems to me absurd."
New Metallica: "Let's exploit the legal system by burying people who can't afford it in endless lawsuits!"
Old Metallica:
"Lady justice has been raped
Truth assassin
Rolls of red tape seal your lips
Now you're done in."
New Metallica: "Hey, where'd you get those copyrighted lyrics? Thief!"
Several music groups already publish mp3s on their cds - Cherry Poppin Daddies leap to mind. So, while you're swearing up and down how you'll never support metallica again, why not skip on down to the store and buy a little CPD?
Judge Pag, the Learned, Impartial, and Very Relaxed
You guys are missing the point. Metallica isn't going to sue every user. They probably realize people can just get a new login.
.MP3 if you own the CD.
But what they have proved is that Napster is basically designed to enable piracy. This wasn't some sneak attack out of nowhere.
There's been enough press lately that a majority of the people grabbing Metallica stuff realized that Metallica didn't want them doing it and considered it illegal. But that didn't stop anyone from grabbing songs.
My big problem with Napster is that I don't see what's so hard about making your own
- My password is slashdot
>Environmentalists and their sympathisers blind themselves to the facts too often in the pursuit of saving cute and cudly animals
:-)
Yeah, and feminists are mostly hairy-legged man-haters.
It might save some thought and make you feel more self-rightious to uncritically equate the fringe that is outrageous enough to make the news with the _actual_ movement, but this would reflect very poorly on your judgement or intellect, so I'll hope against all evidence that this is not what is happening
You wouldn't believe the amount of effort that enviromentalists put into overcoming the public reluctance to care about anything that _isn't_ cute and cuddly. It's mostly the non-enviromentalist public that makes saving cute and cuddly animals into a big deal, and unfortunately, it's often the only publicity conservation can get. No-one cares about desperately trying to save some bug or frog or prickly shrub that is the keystone species of an entire ecosystem, except the environmentalists. But it'll never make the news (no cutesy appeal) so people are left with the idiotic assumption that environmentalists are only interested in cuddly animals, when the media and general public should stand accused.
Among conservation circles, there is even a term for it. I forget it, but it's something like "LFM syndrome" Where LFM (not the real term) means something like "Large Furry Mammal". If a threatened ecosystem doesn't have one, good luck trying to save it - the public won't care, and that means you'll probably end up carrying the burden alone. And since the media don't care, the public will never know of the magnitude of sacrifice, and write you off as another loonie band-wagon tree-hugger.
Now, the argument that this is really bad press and fewer people would want to attend concerts/wear t-shirts/buy CDs might make a bit more of a reasonable approach. Also the thought that there may be many new Metallica fans now that more people can get their music... but then I guess that's what radio is for.
I demand a million helicopters and a DOLLAR!
metallica is doing just what the slashdot community said they wanted.....going after the crooks, not napster. But don't worry, most people's opinions will be against Metallica.
----Freedom has no exceptions, but Slashdot does.
But nowhere in Napster does it show if a user actually owns the CD. What if I rip copies of tracks for my own backup and store it on my hard drive? That's perfectly legal (they're backups).
Is Metallica saying they have a right to sue people who have already bought their CDs?
- I don't care if they globalize against free speech. All my best free thoughts are done in my head.
That Metallica is one of very few bands who actually own exclusive copy rights to thier own music. Thats' why they can do this under thier onw name and not have to deal with Electra lawyers. They even have exclusive rights to thier orignal Master tapes of all thier albums. A little fact that Electra records does not seem to mind. So to all those Artists that want to follow in Metallicas foot steps you had better own the rights to your materail or yo will be cutting your own throats and helping the sleazy recordget richer instead. I know very few artists today actually get rights to their own music. Most will sign 10 album slavery deals just to get thier foot in the door then later find out the are stuck.
Egfrow