Shut Down Metallica, Not Napster

Metallica has every right to fight for its interests. But the unleashing of lawyers on more than 330,000 Napster users -- many of them kids -- who allegedly downloaded the band's music last week is an outrage, a punitive and thoughtless assault on privacy and freedom. . It's time to bite back against this corporatist band. They've made some great music, but Napster contributes a lot more to the world than they do. Take note: P.S. Tomorrow, Slashdot will be taking questions for a Metallica interview. (Read More.)

Metallica ought to be stopped cold.

The band's efforts to identify and intimidate 335,435 fans and Napster users for alleged copyright violations are a shock. In the perfectly legitimate disagreements regarding the distribution of free music online, this action goes way over the top. It invades privacy, is a blatant act at intimidating mostly younger Net users, and sets a dreadful precedent for resolving the many issues raised by the Net concerning who can own, control and disseminate intellectual property.

This an issue for anyone who believes in a free and open Internet, not just music downloaders.

Yesterday, the band's attorney said his firm will deliver close to 60,000 pages of documents to Napster today, asking that the site block all the indidividuals named from its service. The announcement sent shock waves through the online music community. Napster and a handful of other music-swapping sites have allowed hundreds of thousands of computer users to open their hard drives and share music files online. People can remain "superficially" anonymous but Napster can track individual users to their computers. And that's just what happened: Metallica's Los Angeles attorneys (who also represent Dr. Dre in his suit against Napster) say they hired NetPD, an online consulting firm, to monitor the Napster service this past weekend. The company came up with more than 335,000 individual users who had made the band's content available online.

Artists are perfectly justified in worrying about how they will get paid for their work as the sharing of online music grows. But Metallica has legitimized a wholesale invastion of privacy, and a pointlessly punitive campaign. It's targets include many younger children and younger consumers who have no idea their online movements are being tracked, and who certainly have the right to pursue individual cultural interests without worring that they're being watched.

The implications of Metallica's bone-headed move (this from a group that markets itself as rebels) are awful. Parents, school administrators or political parties will be further inspired to hire consultants to track the movements of kids -- and adults -- who might be listening to music, reading books or visiting websites that are not-approved, or are controversial in some way. One of the miraculous things about the Net is that it has opened up all kinds of information to people who were previously denied access. Metallica seeks to reverse this liberation in the interest of more royalties.

Many people online will now feel justifiably intimidated about moving about freely on the Net for fearing that someone is watching and planning a court action or lawsuit. This chilling effect is particularly outrageous, since the legal issues Metallica professes to be worried about are already being threshed out in negotiations between the music industry and MP3.com and in courts in New York and Los Angeles.There is no reason to go after some of the Net's most vulnerable users -- kids -- or to establish a precedent that privacy can be wantonly violated and free Netizens intimidated every time some company, artist, or group is worried about maximizing profits.

Apart from all these other concerns, Metallica's action is dumb and nearly insanely self-destructive. Even music industry executives are beginning to concede that sites like MP3.com and Napster are helping bonding an entire generation to many different kinds of music, something that is good both for artists and their industry.

Metallica's fingering its own fans on Napster isn't a step forward towards artists' controlling their art. In addition to protecting their own work, artists also have a responsibility to protect freedom and creativity. Metallica's name-gathering is an ugly, excessive and noxious assault aimed at curbing the free movement of information and ideas that characterizes the Internet, while doing little to resolve the many copyright, commercial and other issues involved in the free music controversy.

Everyone reading this can name at least a half dozen alternative sites and programs that have boomed in recent weeks even as the music industry, Metallica and Dr. Dre have moved against Napster and MP3.com.

There is simply no justification for a band to go after hundreds of thousands of its own fans, mostly kids, for the purpose of intimidation. Said Metallica's attorney Howard King: "I don't know if it's going to put a chill on the user end, but it certainly is going to show other artists what they can to do get their work out of Napster."

Metallica and King both ought to know that the action will certainly "put a chill on the user end," to put it mildly. This issue is no longer about money and copyright.

Metallica is invading its fans' privacy, challenging the ability of others to move freely and privately about the Net and the Web -- perhaps the hallmark social, creative and educational feature of the Internet. The band's action will not improve the life or work of a single artist. It will advance the interests of the greedy and invasive corporatists moving aggressively to turn the Net into the cultural and commercial equivalent of a Disney theme park.

Artists have the right to fight for their interests. But Metallica's move against hundreds of thousands of music lovers is outrageous. It needs to be fought tooth and nail.

Step One: Let's Shut Down Metallica's attacks on computer users, not Napster. Stop buying the band's music. Urge everyone you know to do likewise until Metallica calls off its legal Rottweillers, leaves kids downloading music alone, and agrees to slug the issue out in court and other venues where it belongs.

Comments

Metallica boycott is old news....

[MAXOMENOS]

Some of us have been doing it since that stupidass Black Album :).

The Second Amendment Sisters

Re:Metallica boycott is old news....

[Dharzhak]

Some of us have been doing it since that stupidass Black Album :).

Yep. I knew that no good would come from Mr. Rock producing their albums. He also produced such musical geniuses as Bon Jovi and Motley Crue, the type of bands that Metallica loved to hate in their early days. It's a sad thing to watch a band go from fighting the establishment to becoming the establishment. I find it ironic that their web site has the quote, "And if I close my mind in fear Please pry it open." Seems their minds are closed in fear these days.

"Then I'll get on my knees and pray we don't get fooled again." --The Who

Guess what, gang...we got fooled again.

Once again...

[br4dh4x0r]

Once again Jon Katz has delivered a 5k rhetoric that he is unwilling to back up.

Once and for all, Jon: if you are for freedom and privacy, let me post the text of every book you've written to the web and allow it to be viewed and downloaded.

If you are unwilling to do this, you have no right to vilify Metallica for trying to protect what is rightfully theirs.

love,
br4dh4x0r

Re:Once again...

[ajcook921]

THE BIG PICTURE

Wake up and smell the coffee people! Is the music industry trying to stop the online exchange of music? Do you think that they're really that stupid?

They know darn well that the genie is out of the bottle. Last week its IRC, yesterday its Napster, today its Gnutella, tomorrow its ???. The RIAA is well aware of this.

So, if you're an Armani wearing, cigar chompin, secretary screwin music executive, what is going through your mind? Stop the inevitable? No way. All they need to do is DELAY the inevitable.

Face it, the music industry is sitting on a cash cow. Make a CD for $1 sell it for $16 (okay, so middlemen get a cut). These guys make BILLIONS per year. Even if it costs them $10, $20,...$100 million to unleash a pack of lawyers on internet upstarts like Napster, they've won the battle merely by DELAYING the full onset of online music.

The music industry will milk their current business model for what its worth (I give it 5 more years or so). They will have web sites where you can download music for free, just like on Napster, but even easier. You heard me right. Free. Dont believe me? Why are Time-Warner and AOL merging? hmmmmmmm. You'll still pay for it, but it will be disguised in the form of an AOL access fee and perhaps an all-you-can-download monthly subscription fee for non-AOLers. Expect more record label mergers with ISPs in the future.

I believe the point at which the record labels make their transition to online distribution will be when broadband internet becomes common for the masses. At that point, they will have no choice but to switch over. All the hundreds of thousands of people with DSL, Cable, and college dorm T1s still only make up a small portion of the music consuming population (think global).

The point I'm trying to make is that 1) the only way to collect real money from Internet music content is to control the gateways to the Internet and 2) traditional CDs and tapes still have quite a bit of life left. These people know exactly whats happening.

I still love Metallica but I think they've been talking to the wrong crowd and are ill informed as to the real developments that are occuring. I think some industry execs figured that recruiting a Metalica or a Dr. Dre to carry out their delay tactics would have more credibility than the RIAA could attacking directly. If poor Metallica could see how much Stephen King pocketed with his recently released $2 online book (minus the middle man), they'd probably go after the execs that put them up to this and and Kill'em All.

"Master of puppets are pulling their strings...twisting their minds and smashing their dreams...." oww i just smashed my head on my monitor...

P.S.: I think this issue has huge implications that extend way beyond online music. What we're dealing with here is content of any kind being exchanged.

Re:Once again...

[gus2000]

You have hit the nail exactly on the head.

I think that I am going to start buying his books, scanning them in page by page, and posting them for everyone to download. Then what will you do Jon? Will you write an article praising me for opening up a whole new world of thought to all the 11 year olds out there? I didn't think so...

Until you develop the bravery to open source all of your work, and until you can prove to the community that you would not go after one of us with Andover's team of lawyers if someone started to freely distribute your work, you have no right at all to criticize other artists, especially not when the are acting within the law.

A related article (METALLICA CHAT BACKFIRES...)

[antdude]

http://www.dimensionmusic.com/news/news.php?id=253 6

They are doing what Napster asked...

[NetJunkie]

Napster said that they would block any user pirating MP3s on their system. They just needed a list. So this is what Metallica did. Stealing MP3s is illegal. Get over it. If you want to do it fine, but don't whine when you get caught or Napster blocks you. If CDs cost too much, don't buy them. Eventually the market will evolve where they are cheaper. But the bottom line is that it is theft, plain and simple. Argue it any way you want but it is still theft. It's their music to sell as they want for however much they want. That is a free market. If it costs too much buy someone elses music that is cheaper.

Re:They are doing what Napster asked...

[kwsNI]

I see both points here. Metallica has every right to protect their music. Napster's policy (at least since I started using it 6 months ago) has been to ban anyone that is brought to their attention for pirating copyrighted material. I expect Napster to live up to this policy and ban the people doing illegal things and I really don't have a problem with that. It's a fair policy.

Now, back to what John Katz said. Metallica hasn't, legally speaking (IANAL), done anything that they don't have the legal right to do. However, I don't think they are doing the most reasonable thing.

Metallica has always claimed to be about their fans (forget the 10's of millions of $$$ that they make:) yet they just went off and stuck at their fans. Are the fans doing something wrong? Yes. But Metallica needs to realize that you don't get very far when you piss off all your fans.

kwsNI

Re:They are doing what Napster asked...

[RossB]

But the bottom line is that it is theft, plain and simple. Argue it any way you want but it is still theft. It's their music to sell as they want for however much they want. That is a free market. If it costs too much buy someone elses music that is cheaper.

This is NOT a free market. If it were a free market, I could make as many copies of any song that I wanted. The copyright laws take away my freedom to make copies of things and thus its not a free market anymore.

The copyright laws were setup to further arts and science. People felt that if anyone could make a copy of anything then people who write books or songs couldn't make enough money to live. The writers do the work and the copier would make the money. If they writers couldn't make a living off their work it would suffer. So we set up a system of copyrights to allow writers to make a living off their work so their would be more of it for me to enjoy. The only reason we have a copyright system is so I can hear more music (or whatever) in my life.

This system, however, has been twisted into a system of profit. The copyright laws were not set up to give big companies profit, which is how people are starting to look at the laws. For instance "How is Meticalla going to make any money." Well you know what, they have made enough, they don't need sales of their old records to make then want to publish a new one. As a matter of fact, if they stopped making money on their old ones, maybe they would come out with new ones.

Another argument is "if it cost to much don't buy it" doesn't float either. I, as the government, have restricted my right to copy certain things so that people can make money off of them, only so they want to create more. However, when the price of these things they created goes out of my reach and someone says "Don't buy it if it cost to much." Then I hear less music in my life, which goes against why we set up this system in the first place.

So we need to change the system, and napster is one way of doing that.

Re:They are doing what Napster asked...

[ToLu the Happy Furby]

Yes, Napster said that they would take action against users whom they were notified were copyright infringers. However, you should be aware that they took this position not because they think it's right to censor the Internet, but because they are required to do so by law.

Which law? That's right, our very favorite law: the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Napster "asked" for a list of names just like your ISP is required by the DMCA to "ask" for the names of everyone hosting deCSS on their servers. They are exactly the same application of exactly the same law.

If you'd be thrilled with the MPAA asking the ISPs of everyone listed on 2600's catalog of deCSS mirrors to take down their sites and revoke their Internet access, then you have every right to revel in Metallica's plucky invasion of Napster users' privacy. If instead you'd think that it was a misguided and overzealous application of an unconstitutional law which is not in the public interest, then you should think the same think regardless of whether the illegal content is deCSS.c or enter_sandman.mp3.

Re:They are doing what Napster asked...

[iserlohn]

This is not "theft" nor "pirating". Distributing unlicensed copies of IP is violating the copyright of copyright holder. This is all that these people are doing.

Intellectual property laws were designed to increase the dissemination of information (the reason why all copyrights expire a certain time after the author's death). Now we have people that will buy the likeliness of dead people, so they can continue the franchise and make a buck.

Copyright violations, as with other violations of contracts and licenses, should not be held under tort law. They should be held as breaches of contract. Copyright violations are criminalized due to the fact that there have been many lobbies for them. Guess why? To protect the interest of the individuals?

Corporate interests of course, and to that theme I question you on what happens when only a few large corporations dictate the supply of the "free market"?

Why, an oligopoly of course, but a cartel should be a more appropriate in this case.

Everything has flaws, but the gaping flaws in your beloved "free market" in the context of the music industry is so obvious. Please retake Econ 101.

The last thing we need debating on legislation is strong emotions. If you close you eyes, sure, you'll see what you want to see, but you're no different than being blind.

Re:They are doing what Napster asked...

[Kaa]

But the bottom line is that it is theft, plain and simple.

You know, I want to confess to a crime.

Yesterday at work I printed out an email I got and brought it home.

This is theft, plain and simple. Actually, triple theft. First, I stole my time from the company while I was reading that email. Second, I stole the computer and printer resources used for this. Third, I stole a sheet of paper (on which the email was printed) and brought it home.

This all is clearly illegal. I am a thief. I bow my head awaiting punishment.

[for the thinking-challenged: if you throw a word such as "theft" around and apply it to things like .mp3 copying, pretty soon the word will lose any meaning.]

Kaa

Re:They are doing what Napster asked...

[DaveHowe]

Napster said that they would block any user pirating MP3s on their system. They just needed a list. So this is what Metallica did.
I can't find much to complain about with this one either (and I am usually in the front row with a rock when it comes to stoning the unbeliever)
The My-MP3 issue aside, Napster made a credible offer to remove anyone found infringing copyright from it's service; Metallica have taken them up on that, as is their right. If they find themselves blocked from Napster, then they can move on to Gnutella or something newer - I can't see a problem here.

Stealing MP3s is illegal. Get over it.
Stealing MUSIC is illegal - MP3 shouldn't be a special case. and yes, you weaken the entire legitimacy of MP3 by using it for piracy, but that is because it isn't as established as CDR and audio tape are.....

If you want to do it fine, but don't whine when you get caught or Napster blocks you. If CDs cost too much, don't buy them. Eventually the market will evolve where they are cheaper. But the bottom line is that it is theft, plain and simple. Argue it any way you want but it is still theft. It's their music to sell as they want for however much they want. That is a free market. If it costs too much buy someone elses music that is cheaper.
Indeed - if Metallica went ahead and actually sued the kids doing the passing of these MP3s, then that would be an outrage (no matter how much in the right they were) - but I can't see the difference between this and discovering that a school audio lab was being used for illegal audio tape piracy - and doubt a judge would either.
--

minor technical error, katz:

[dentin]

The lawyers would have obtained the addresses of people _exporting_ metallica tracks, not those attempting to download. Downloads they would not have been able to track. But making known copyrighted material available for public download is definitely illegal according to current copyright law (not that the law is practical or enforcable, but thats a separate issue).

moderate this up and one other item....

[FascDot Killed My Pr]

1) This is such an excellent point I'd pay $5 to be able to moderate it up a point.

2) Even if we can't post the text of every book with Katz's name on it, can we at least post the text of the book WE wrote? (follow .sig link for details)
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?

Re:moderate this up and one other item....

[locutus074]

Um, they've already said that the full text of the book will be available online.

So I fail to see why you're making such a BFD on that particular point.

--

Is Metallica's Action Illegal?

[magic]

Now that it is illegal to collect personal information on people under 13, didn't Metallica and NetPD themselves violate the law by electronically collecting user information on a large number of people without ascertaining their ages (presumably some of the 300k+ Napster users lister are under 13)?

magic

Re:Is Metallica's Action Illegal?

[Tweezer]

Probably not. I'm guessing that NetPD just gave a list of the usernames to be blocked. I doubt they did anything more than that.

I say we SPAM their ass. We all load up Napster with a bunch of text files named Enter Sandman.mp3 or something like that. I doubt it would be possible for NetPD to actually download and listen to each song to verify it is indeed Metallica.

Here we go again

[EricWright]

Jon, do you just not get it? This has nothing to do about the freedom to pursue cultural identity, or any other such crap. It's about breaking the law. Granted, you may not like the law. I don't like the law. I do know that if I break the law, there may be 'consequences and repercussions' to those actions. Deal with it.

You don't like current laws? Work to change them. This isn't working to change them. This is much more like preaching to the choir.

You don't like current music distribution mechanisms? Work on changing that, too. I will warn you that encouraging people to steal from artists isn't the best way to convince those artists to part with the fat cats of the recording industry. They may only get 50 cents per disc, but when someone downloads music via Napster, Gnutella, etc. the artist gets squat.

And another thing: How is monitoring someone's network use invasion of privacy? I didn't realize there was any such thing as personal privacy when one is in public. Believe me, the internet/WWW is most certainly public. It's not like they sent the feds into someone's house and took a small boy at gunpoint... oh, wait. That's another thread! Anyway, when you have a central server like Napster, you have to assume that any traffic across it is open to scanning.

Now get off your high horse, quit whining about persecution of criminals and do something useful with your time (like buying off a few sympathetic Congressmen :)

Eric

For once I disagree

[tweek]

Jon,
I am usually one of the people that supports your opinions for the most part. There have been a few times (regarding religion) where I disagree and this is one of them.
I am all for anonimity on the internet but lately I have been struggling with people who claim anonimity as the cure all and anything otherwise is an invasion of privacy. I am truly tired of people not taking responsibility for thier own actions. I understand that most of these people on napster are high school kids or college students but enough is enough.

I use napster. All the time. I want to hear an album before i buy it. I want to know if all the songs are what I want to hear or just one good song. Eight times out of ten I buy the album if I like it enough. I have no problem paying for stuff. Not if it's worth it. But there are people who have completely stopped buying cds and are flocking in droves to napster to download album after album with no concern for the artists welfare. I used to be one of those people. To some extent I am. Maybe it's because I'm getting older but some things are just wrong. Mp3's in and of themselves are not illegal ( despite what the RIAA says ) but copyrighted music being distributed via mp3 without the sanction of the artist IS. There is no way around this. Whatever you think about copyright laws, it is just plain illegal.

Stop trying to get something for nothing. Grow up and take some fucking responsibility for your actions. When i was a child i spake as a child and all that.

And for those of you thinking I'm trying to make a point about opensourse software with that last comment about something for nothing you can blow it up your ass. I'm a rabid opensource advocate but this is something completely different. Don't read more into it. Flames and comments welcome.

Re:What ..

[br4dh4x0r]

The ability to trade audio files that are in the public domain. The problem is that less than one percent of the files available at any given time on Napster fall into this category.

And honestly, do you think the kid that wrote the software was thinking "Wow! I can trade John Philip Sousa songs with my friends!" when he started it? I kind of doubt it.

love,
br4dh4x0r

Plagarizing?

[Signal 11]

Jon, this article has several passages almost identical to this article, including:

The announcement sent shock waves through the online music community. - Jon

The massive number of individual names to be unloaded on Napster's front door could send shock waves through the online music community. - C|Net

"Yesterday, the band's attorney said his firm will deliver close to 60,000 pages of documents to Napster today, asking that the site block all the indidividuals named from its service." - Jon

"The band's attorneys will deliver close to 60,000 pages of documents to the small software company Wednesday afternoon, asking that Napster block all of those individuals from the service." - C|Net

There's also several references to the "chilling effect", paraphrasing the C|Net article. Jon, are you trying to get yourself and slashdot sued?

What's worse, why is slashdot interviewing Metallica? I mean, it would be like Linus asking Bill Gates to take a look at his kernel. Do you really want to stir up a hornet's nest? I see no productive conversation emerging from the interview and it will likely duplicate the answers given on last night's Metallica chat from Artist Direct.

Metallica can kiss my ass...

[ooky]

I'm sure this comment will be repeated many times here today but I don't care.

I just started using napster a few weeks ago. I've primarily used it to try out new bands and new songs from bands I already like, and download old music that I used to have and wish I hadn't lost/sold to used cd shops/had stolen from me during college. Some songs I've downloaded even though I already own legitimate copies - I just want to be able to listen to the songs on my computert at work and not have to lug my cds in.

After this kind of blanket attack by metallica, without them even trying to find out if music downloads could help them in any way (which I'm sure it could - I've bought 10 cds to date because of the mp3s I've loaded - AND I can even burn my mp3s onto CD. But the sound quality just isn't there after compression/decompression of the files...) I don't even feel like listening to their music anymore. I got a few metallica songs off napster, BUT I ALREADY OWNED and HAD PAID FULL PRICE for ALL of them.

This is the type of situation which makes me wish that real worls karma was reliable, predictable, and immediate enough for me to see the effects soon! Fuck off, Metallica!

Those who write the software choose the license

[brevity]

This has always been an article of faith in the Free Software community as I know it. Larry Wall didn't like the GPL, so he created the Artistic License. Was he wrong? Maybe, but it was his right to choose how his handiwork was distributed.

Even if you hate what giant corporations do to music and culture, trading MP3s of copyrighted material violates an implicit agreement that the artists thought they had with their fans. Personally, whether it is illegal or legal is irrelevant to me. There's someone out there who has made choices in their life, maybe foregoing other means of employment because they thought music was a steady source of revenue for them. (Yeah, I know Metallica are probably millionaires -- but so what? Hardly anyone in the music biz reaches that level of success.)

That said, I am all in favor of Napster and Gnutella and FreeNet, for privacy reasons and because I think it will be better for our culture if we have a non-corporate channel for music. However, I am willing to wait for a new generation of artists who embrace this technology wholeheartedly.

Giving away one's work sans copyright is a revolutionary act. Trading copyrighted music is NOT a revolutionary act. It's just selfishness.

It's up to YOU to guarantee your privacy

[monaco]

Many people online will now feel justifiably intimidated about moving about freely on the Net for fearing that someone is watching and planning a court action or lawsuit.

Well, good, they should! I see far too many people comporting themselves in a way that they may regret later. Does anyone use Usenet? Ever checked your posting history in Deja? Unless you set your x-noarchive header, everything you've said in a newsgroup is available. I envision data-mining companies forming profile databases just based on usenet posts alone, nevermind all the public messageboards that track your IPs.

It's targets include many younger children and younger consumers who have no idea their online movements are being tracked, and who certainly have the right to pursue individual cultural interests without worring that they're being watched

Ignorance is NO EXCUSE. And I'm sorry, in a perfect world everyone would have the right to do web stuff anonymously, but this just isn't the case. You have to watch your own ass. *snickers* "individual cultural interests", that's rich. "Mom, I'm gonna go steal some CDs from Tower Records, so I can induldge my cultural interests in the latest album, 's ok with you?"

As for whether Metallica has the right to persue users: sure they do! I mean, sure, it's a stupid PR move, but there's nothing patently wrong with persuing people who are ripping you off. They could certainly handle the situation in a more positive way, but that's their choice. To call it an "assault on freedom" is absurd. "Wahhh! I can't distribute pirated music anymore! Metallica is SO MEAN!"

The Band That Should Not Be.

[FPhlyer]

The good news is this:

Mettalica is part of the old world of popular music, in which teenage kids worship rock stars because they are marketed to them as being larger than life. Though Mettalica continues to exist, they will see their emphasis on the minds of the masses wane as MP3 (or the next generation of multimedia compressed file format) turns the traditional recording industry on it's ear.

The beauty of MP3 is not that it allows people to bootleg and distribute copyrighted material. The beauty is MP3 is now making music available that would otherwise never be heard. Real musical art has found it's greatest medium... the internet.

So quit downloading those illegal Brittney Spears M3s. Forget bootlegging Mettalica's precious recordings. Those artists were created for mass consumption. Find those MP3s created by all those garage bands around the world. Sure. Some of it may suck, but there is some good music out there... and it's free.

What the Almighty Metallica said...

[gregor]

Napster said that they would block any user pirating MP3s on their system. They just needed a list. So this is what Metallica did. Stealing MP3s is illegal. Get over it. If you want to do it fine, but don't whine when you get caught or Napster blocks you. If CDs cost too much, don't buy them. Eventually the market will evolve where they are cheaper. But the bottom line is that it is theft, plain and simple. Argue it any way you want but it is still theft. It's their music to sell as they want for however much they want. That is a free market. If it costs too much buy someone elses music that is cheaper.

I was at Metallica's chat last night, and this was certainly the impression that they gave. According to them, the list was only to back Napster Inc, into a corner for not following their own Acceptable Usage Policy. The ``list'' was only done to put the legal ball back into Napster's court in an attempt to make them look bad.

They also went on to say that they're using their cult following and status as the Almighty Metallica to help new, upcoming bands continue to profit from the current economic guidelines that rose them to success. They say they're out to protect other bands who don't have the money to defend themselves, and they're out to protect their right to choose the distribution channels of their music.

One of the things that they were constantly slamming home was the fact that they have nothing against the mp3 format as a music medium. They say they are against Napster, Inc, from profiting $$$$$ from Metallica's music instead of Metallica earning the $$$$$ from their music. Napster Inc, according to them, is simply an IPO hungry company of leaches who seek giant profits off of musicians work.

That's what the Almighty Metallica is saying- while I'm a hardcore fan, I'm feeling torn whether to follow the band that has helped me grow stronger throughout my life, or to instead follow my own heart and say that what they're saying is bull#$%*. And, even as a platinum fan club member, I'm leaning towards the ``Metallica- you guys have changed'' feelings of my heart.

And that makes me hurt inside.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

KATZ, YOU ARE SO FULL OF FSCKING SH*T!

[kmcardle]

Okay, let's see...

1. Metallica is bad for wanting to protect their rights. Katz screams invasion of privacy.

2. People steal Metallica's music. Katz says good.

3. I'm starting to bleed from scratching my head over this one.

From what I can gather, Metallica should be making music and charging nothing for it. I think Katz should produce books and charge nothing for them.

Katz, Metallica has broken no laws (well, with regards to this case). Some of the people using Napster have committed theft.

Let's cheer for the criminals and boo Metallica?

What the fsck is wrong with you? Are you just trying to justify your theft of people's comments for the Columbine book?

I've been a Metallica fan for a long time. I still am. Check the .sig. Their music isn't up to the old standards, but that's life. They've done nothing wrong or illegal in this case. They have every right to protect their rights. If one does not fight for his own rights, who will fight for him? I don't think Metallica has a right to get Napster shut down, because it can be used to legally trade non-copyrighted materials. But, Metallica is well within their rights to stop people from giving away their music. Period.
--
then it comes to be that the soothing light at the end of your tunnel is just a freight train coming your way

No, he's pretty far off...

[Tower]

aside from nearly a nearly word-for-word copy of the c|net article (bad enough), he makes some really outrageous statements, none of which have any relevance to the industry or law...

I won't ever buy 90% of the music that I've heard on mp3, and the other 10% is my own stuff anyway. If I can get one Metallica song for free, what the hell. Saves me a whole lot of money. It's really not encouraging me to buy the CD. Granted, it *did* encourage me to purchase Big Bad Voodoo Daddy, but it also stopped me from purchasing the Episode 1 soundtrack (all DVD concerns aside).

The point is, Jon saying that this band should be stopped from taking action against people that are stealing from them is a ludicrous position. It doesn't matter how much money they've made before, or how much they are losing, but they are being treated unjustly as artists. More power to them for standing up for their rights. I wish them luck, if only to set an important precedent.

I'm against invasion of privacy and all that, but hell, don't use the service if you don't want your illegal activities tracked! If you break the law using somebody's system, be prepared to stand the consequences. Deal, people.

I wasn't going to buy any Metallica merchandise before, and this isn't going to change anything, but it almost makes we want to support them.

Re:Insightful? Idiotic is more like it

[Kaa]

Stealing MP3s is illegal. Get over it.

No, creating the MP3 is illegal. Trading it is an issue after the fact.

Bzzzt. Wrong.

MP3 is nothing but a file format. Provided I have a CD I have a perfect right (acknowledged by courts and basically everybody except for RIAA) to make MP3s off the CD tracks and use these MP3s -- at home, at work, in the car -- wherever I want. Making MP3 from my own music is completely legal.

Now, making those MP3s available for public download (what you call trading) happens to be a copyright violation. But making the CD tracks themselves available would be exactly the same violation: there is nothing specific to MP3s here.

Kaa

Total lack of reason

[rechsmjr]

The views expressed in this article totally lack reason and substance. The piece advocates no position at all; instead, it's pure rhetoric, designed to be emotionally inflammatory rather than persuasive or rational. To wit:

The band's efforts to identify and intimidate 335,435 fans and Napster users for alleged copyright violations are a shock. In the perfectly legitimate disagreements regarding the distribution of free music online, this action goes way over the top. It invades privacy, is a blatant act at intimidating mostly younger Net users, and sets a dreadful precedent for resolving the many issues raised by the Net concerning who can own, control and disseminate intellectual property.

You seem to be making the following argument:
Unfair copyright law + Right to lawbreaker's privacy outweighs the rights of copyright holders. It's a romantic argument, but it totally ignores the rule of law. The fact is that if I go to Blockbuster and rent The Phantom Menace, then make copies of it and hand it out to all my friends, my right to privacy isn't going to protect me from the rule of law.

There is simply no justification for a band to go after hundreds of thousands of its own fans, mostly kids, for the purpose of intimidation. Said Metallica's attorney Howard King: "I don't know if it's going to put a chill on the user end, but it certainly is going to show other artists what they can to do get their work out of Napster."

Your repeated focus on the fact that most offenders are kids is irrelevant and inflammatory, and I'm offended that you chose this cheap tactic in a nearly transparent effort to raise the ire of your readership. It's appalling.

I'd guess that most software pirates are kids, also, I can't remember meeting a warez sysop in the old days that was over 17. Do you defend the rights to privacy of illegal siteops on the basis of the fact that intellectual property law is outdated and ambiguous?

How about the DOS attacks? The mean age of these kiddies seems to be about 14 -- let's hear your argument that the anarchic nature of the internet combined with a user's right to privacy equals special protection for the lawbreakers.

Like everyone else, I believe the record industry is screwed up, and it's governed by 50-year old ideas about cannibalization and control that don't hold true anymore. The music industry would make a lot more sense (and money) embracing the technology instead of running scared.

But I also believe that the only coherent and meaningful argument in favor of Napster is that copyright law is immoral and injust, and must therefore be resisted, or at least ignored. I don't think that's a good argument in this case, but at least it makes sense, and it puts you on the side of something.

Which side of the Napster debacle is Jon Katz on? Oh, he's Pro-Child.

Slashdot is losing my respect

[toofast]

I just read the link the parent poster refers to (Slashdot publishing our posts without our authorization) and if these statements are true, who is Slashdot to editorialize a subject concerning privacy and copyrights???

If Metallica play a concert publicly, their live performance does not become public domain.

Re:Slashdot is losing my respect

[paulm]

If Metallica play a concert publicly, their live performance does not become public domain.

Yes, but if a band records a concert and decides
to sell the recording of it, they do get
to keep the crowd noise on the recording. This
does enhance the performance and is an actual
part of the content, but they do not have to get
permission from the fans in the crowd.

This is just the other side to your imperfect
analogy.

"vilify Metallica for trying to protect" ?

[unquiet]

Katz' wrote: "Metallica has every right to fight for its interests" and "Artists are perfectly justified in worrying about how they will get paid for their work as the sharing of online music grows". It seems pretty clear to me that protecting their property is not the problem that he's writing about. It's their methods that Katz takes issue with.

Unless you believe it's OK to track down surfers on the web; sic attorneys on them (many of whom assumed that if the music was available, it was OK to download it); and to use intimidation as punishment while the 'jury is still out'... then perhaps your obvious disenchantment with Katz over other issues is coloring how you read this particular article.

Re:"vilify Metallica for trying to protect" ?

[DrStrange]

many of whom assumed that if the music was available, it was OK to download it

Point: ignorance of the law is not / was not / can not be justification for breaking the law, and that is the law. If some "kid" downloaded a Metallica mp3 and did not know it was wrong to do so, then maybe the parents should be held responsible for not keeping tabs on their child.

The internet was not meant to be annonymous so users could do as they please without recourse. If I break the law on the internet I fully expect to be tracked down and punished appropriately and if your interests ever get violated on the internet I can assure you that you would want the same to happen.

Metallica has shown themselves to be the enemy

[Carnage4Life]

Warning: Before reading this I will warn you, this post will probably contain profanity because I am very angry at Metallica

Now ever since slashdot and Jon Katz started attacking Metallica, Dr. Dre and the RIAA for exerting their rights granted by law to prevent theft of their copyrighted materials I have been vociferously on the side of the RIAA et al. This situation changed after I read this article. My points of contention are the following:

First Metallica is talking about spearheading a lobby to push "government" to get involved in the Napster proceedings, specifically "There has to be some laws and guidelines to go by before it gets too out of hand and sucks the life out of musicians who will stop making music," and this has to be done "before this whole Internet thing runs amok.". Now as if it isn't enough that my rights have been robbed by UCITA and DCMA some drug-adled rock group wants to create even more restrictive laws to preserve the status quo. Instead of being like Off spring, Limp Bizkit and Chuck D and realizing that a paradigm shift is taking place. If there is no outside intervention (i.e. from the government) eventually the RIAA as it currently exists cannot continue enforcing it's cartel like behavior which include illogical pricing of CDs and cassettes, raping of musicians financially (TLC sell millions of albums and are bankrupt???) and the bribing of radio station executives to play only member chosen material. The RIAA is fit to be replaced by a pro-artist digital distribution model that can benefit consumers (lower prices) and artists (more money instead of 50 cents per dozen song CD, 50 cents a song or more) alike. The only thing that will kill this revolution and stop it from ever happening is if the government steps in and passes laws that reinforce the status quo. Die Metallica

Secondly Lars Ulrich stated "The goal is clear and simple: Put Napster out of business." in their online chat session yesterday (which I missed due to taking finals, AAAAARGH). After reading the Halloween documents and all the MSFT internal emails that circulated when the DOJ case was active, such comments have instantly struck a negative chord within me. Now for a more rational response, Metallica wanting to ruin Napster as a company because of the behavior of it's users is the stupidest, vendetta-motivated shit I have ever heard. I am black and have never entertained thoughts of ruining slashdot because I browsed at -1 and read some ACs racist rants. I have never entertained thoughts that AOL should be destroyed because some of its users were rude to me in a chat room or sdent me spam. If Metallica has a problem with Napster's users that is fine, but to attempt to destroy the company due to the behavior of a percentage of it's customers is wrong.

Finally, I have tried to find the online firm NetPD that metallica claims to have used and cannot find hide nor hair of them on the Internet neither with Google, Yahoo nor at netpd.com. The reason I have sought them out is because until I see all 60,000 pages of logs showing 335,435 people downloading songs by Metallica in one weekend I refuse to believe it.

Re:Metallica has shown themselves to be the enemy

[G27 Radio]

I just read the article you linked to:

"There has to be some laws and guidelines to go by before it gets too out of hand and sucks the life out of musicians who will stop making music," said James Hetfield, Metallica guitarist and singer.

I can't believe Hetfield said that with a straight face. He's supporting the RIAA and at the same time saying that Napster will suck the life out of musicians? What about all the musicians that have made the RIAA millions and have been left with nothing?

I think Metallica's problem is that they are too far past their prime. Don't get me wrong, I still love most of their music, mostly stuff prior to the Black Album. S&M is actually pretty impressive, but how many many times can a band do that for an encore when they run out of good original music. They need a business model where crap can be sold as if it's gold.

Contrast this to the bands that support Napster. Limp Bizkit has a new album coming out. If their record label does nothing to promote it the fans will still run out any buy it because it has value. How about Public Enemy and Cypress Hill? They're not getting the promotional support that they used to, so they'd rather be able to move the music themselves. Then there are the several musicians that I know personally that have never been involved with the recording industry yet. They support Napster because it will allow their music to be distributed without signing away their creations to a record label.

"For the doubters out there, Metallica will carry on for the next 20 years," Ulrich said. Whether you're around for the ride or not, that's your problem, not ours."

Honestly I don't think I could take another 20 years of the crap you guys will put out Lars. I'll still listen to the pre-Black albums I have. After all, there was a time when you guys were for real and listening to your music made me feel good. Thanks for the good music and I'm sorry that I can no longer continue to support your career. You will be missed.

numb

Get OFF it, Jon!

[Robotech_Master]

Sigh.

I'm this close to disabling Jon Katz articles in my profile...if it weren't that he has that train-wreck sort of "stop and gawk at all the carnage" appeal, I probably would.

Jon, where are these lawyers you refer to in your first paragraph? As far as I know, Metallica hasn't yet named any of the 335K users as codefendants in any of the 10 "John Doe" slots they've got listed. All they've done was had a private agency look at Napster and compile a list of all the names showing up as having Metallica stuff. Hell, you or I could do exactly the same thing just by doing a search on "Metallica" and taking a screenshot of all the names that came up.

They haven't threatened to sue any of them; it would take much more time and effort than it would be worth. They've just asked Napster to carry through on the promise it's been hiding behind. "We'll block any user who you can show us is trading illegal MP3s," they say to Metallica & Dr. Dre. So Metallica's ponying up a list of names, and what Napster does in response could have a lot of power to help or hurt them--if they meekly remove those users, they could take a lot of the wind out of Metallica's legal sails.

This reminds me of a poem I once came across...

Tobacco is a dirty weed. I like it.
It satisfies no normal need. I like it.
It makes you thin, it makes you lean,
It takes the hair right off your bean.
It's the worst darn stuff I've ever seen.
I like it.
--Graham Lee Hemminger, Penn State Froth "Tobacco"

Nobody can honestly say that rampant MP3 trading of stuff you didn't buy is not illegal. No one. People can, and do, try to justify why they do it (myself included)...but in the end, their arguments come down to knowing it's a bad thing, but, like the verse says, "I like it."

While Metallica may be making a rampant P.R. blunder, and their "art vs. commodity" quote belongs right up there with some of Danny Quayle's famed utterances, I can find no legal fault in what they're doing. They're perfectly within their rights. I'm an amateur writer, and if I ever write something worth getting paid for, I'll be very annoyed if someone rips it off without paying me.

As for Jon's much-vaunted "chilling effect"--well, maybe people need to be chilled. Hello, MP3-traders of the world, this is your wakeup call! Stuff you do on the Internet is traceable! It always has been, and unless you take extreme precautions, it always will be. If you make information publically available, as your userID on Napster when you put a song up for download, it's not an "invasion of privacy" to collect and collate that information.

This is why we say never to post stuff to the Internet (when the saying originated, it was "to USENET," because that was the only publically-postable area of the Internet back then) that you wouldn't want your parents, kids, future employers and employees, etc. to see. We cheer and hoot and holler when this is used to track down spammers--but oh how conveniently we forget that it's a double-edged sword. If you do something that's illegal , why yes, you can be tracked down and held accountable. Surprise!

Wake up, grow up, and get real. "Because I want to!" is not sufficient legal justification to be able to do something.
--

Re:Get OFF it, Jon!

[Danse]

I haven't seen a shred of evidence that mp3 trading actually harms artists. That's an unsubstantiated claim made by the RIAA. I've bought many CDs after I downloaded some mp3s and realized that I actually liked the songs. I doubt that I'm some kind of special case. I don't think artists are being harmed. It's probably even helping them.

Fans of groups WANT to support those groups. They just don't like the fact that they have to get screwed over by the RIAA in order to show their support. The RIAA doesn't care about the artists. They exist for the sole purpose of protecting the record industry's profits. The fans DO care about the artists they like. The RIAA is just getting in the way now. Cut them out and we could buy our music a lot cheaper, thereby supporting the artists, and we could buy a lot more music, thereby supporting even more artists rather than just those on the top 40. Additionally, we could listen to music that we haven't heard before. If we like it, we naturally want to support that artist so that they keep making more music.

While I'm sure that trading mp3s is currently illegal, that doesn't mean it should be, and I'm not sure there's any way to fix the situation right now. Someone is gonna have to come up with a new way of doing things that will be beneficial to both artists and fans. Unfortunately, if the RIAA doesn't get their cut, they'll do everything in their power to stop any change from happening. I'm not sure there is a way to get rid of the RIAA without breaking a few laws. That's probably what will have to happen if artists are to see that there is another way that won't require them to sign their life's work over to a corporation. I hope something can be done to change the current situation to benefit artists and their fans the most, rather than treating them as employees and consumers, respectively.

Re:Get OFF it, Jon!

[Robotech_Master]

You hate double standards? Why is it ok for you to deprive the poor helpless advertiser of the revenue they need to keep their cupboards stocked with Ramen noodles, but it is not ok to similarly deprive poor crybaby Lars of the revenue he might have had if you bought his crappy CD instead of downloading it?

I'm not likely to be arrested for using Junkbuster, as much as the advertisers might want to. I could morally justify my stance on using Junkbuster, but that's entirely beside the point, for this and for MP3s. (Besides, the technology to block ad blockers does exist, and pages could use it if they wanted--but they know that this would cause such an uproar among their users that, compared to the handful of pennies of revenue they lose from it, it's not worth it.)

You will say, the difference is legality - distributing illegal mp3s is illegal whereas junkbuster is not yet illegal. Frankly, if the advertisers had their way, they would make it illegal

That may be so...but they don't. :) The fact of the matter is, everyone who uses Napster has some sort of moral justification for it, simply so they don't have to be all depressed that they're such an Evil, Bad Person for trading MP3s. No, they tell themselves, "Hey, it's not as bad as (foo)," or "The law is wrong," or even "Nobody will ever find out."

The simple point I'm trying to make, and which people keep ignoring and shoving their moral justifications at me, is that 99.99% of the sort of MP3-trading that Napster promotes is illegal. Regardless of whether you think it's wrong, or I think it's wrong, or whether you or I somehow manage to talk ourselves out of thinking it's wrong. Regardless of whether we think Metallica are a bunch of (expletive deleted)s for filing suit. It's against the law. All the Jon Katzian "But...but information wants to be free! This will lead to Big Brother controlling the Internet!" slippery slopes in the world will not alter that one simple fact.

I am just so tired of all the moral justification and posturing, on both sides. If you knowingly do something illegal, you face the consequences, and all the moral posturing in the world won't save you. What's so hard to understand about that?
--

Speak for yourself.

[zCyl]

The views expressed in your sig are completely alien to the concepts of open source, freedom of speech, and community that I am familiar with. So when they are expressed as the "typical slashdot person"'s views, I would have to disagree. If I write a book about politics and I quote Clinton, Bush, or Nixon, I can say, "And a past president has said, 'I did not have...'" There is nothing immoral about such non-specific quoting.

As for Katz and digital copies of his book, it would seem a little weird of him to not put a digital copy of his book online (unless he signed a contract that prohibits him from doing so). I reference www.codebits.com/p5be, (Perl 5 By Example) as an excellent example of a high quality book available online, and paid for by advertising. There's no reason Katz couldn't do the same.

It's not copyrights we are fighting against, and it's not that we're fighting against the music industry because we want music to be free. No, I would gladly pay for music, and I traditionally do pay for music. I want material available on the media that are most convenient for me, and I don't want the producers/distributers of content, such as Metallica, Katz, or the Library of Congress, to fight against certain types of media because they're afraid of them or uncomfortable with them.

Give me quality mp3s to buy, and I will buy mp3s.

Me and Copyright

[JonKatz]

Boy, is the e-mail flying on this one. Good stuff, pro and con.

One point. People keep asking me, thinking they are devastatingly clever, whether I'd be happy to give my books and articles away. Here's the sitch:
I can't give people permission to download my books (my publisher would sue me) but I can give people permission to download my columns and reprint them on the Net and Web. I get no copyright or other royalties for them, and a few years ago, or in print, I would have.
So I constantly give permission to link, mirror and distribute my work. I feel it makes me more valuable, though I'm certainly not valuable.
I make some money on books through advances, but have never earned royalties on any of my books. I would be happy to go to a flat fee for writing..that's what I do on /., and otherwise, am happy to see my work distributed (books are a very tiny part of my income..maybe 10 per cent) for free. Consider this permission to link, reprint and post my columns anyplace, at no charge. This is, in fact, the model the music industry will be using in a few years I predict.

Whoa, hold it Jon.

[Chris Johnson]

I take _serious_ exception to one thing you said up there. Sure, Metallica are being noisy and stubborn and not a little bit controlfreaks on this issue, but you said: "Napster has contributed more to the world than Metallica".

Bullshit!

Napster is a service. They are _facilitators_. They are not making a contribution as much as they are helping along interactions.

Metallica are a band. They create art. Sure, it may be crap art, sure they might not be able to make as good art as they used to, but let me tell you about a guy named Ernesto Cortazar and maybe you'll understand a little better...

Ernesto Cortazar is the king of Easy Listening on mp3.com. He dominates the charts, sometimes in genres that aren't even Easy Listening- he dominates the Classical charts in spite of many complaints that his music isn't really Classical- he has 11 CDs available on mp3.com, _all_ a humble and reasonable $5.99- he's earned over 29 thousand dollars in downloads alone, again on mp3.com.

Ernesto makes music that would make a Metallica fan puke! He's totally committed to Piano Easy Listening, love songs, the complete 'not even new age' approach lacking only the candelabra on the piano. But he _means_ it. That's what he _likes_. I am telling you from the viewpoint of a musician (one who's only made $54 off downloads and makes infinitely less 'easy listening' music, except for "Wood Dragon": mp3.com/ChrisJ) that Ernesto contributes more to the world than Napster, because Napster _facilitates_ and Ernesto _creates_.

By the same token, of _course_ Metallica contributes more to the world than Napster! You don't have to _like_ what they contribute, but saying they contribute less than Napster is damned insulting because Napster never wrote a song in its life! It's not _about_ contributing, any more than TCP/IP is about contributing. It's about _communicating_.

I could wish that, instead of trying so hard to tear Metallica down, you spent some of that effort trying to build the musicians who _do_ cooperate and share and communicate, up... yes, of course I say that as I'm a (and only one of the) token slashdot musician, and of course I would like to actually be able to buy strings more often and get more of the tools I use to create with. But frankly I would be nearly as happy to see you go out there and hype Ernesto, or Bassic who also makes plenty of money by, again, doing what _he_ genuinely enjoys, which is Mike Oldfield-influenced synthesizer music that's very pretty and peaceful, most of it. These people are doing things the right way, as am I... must the whole story be about tearing down Metallica, can't some of it be about building up us?

How d'y'know it's illegal? or financially damaging

[divec]

the fact that Metallica was able to find 335,000 people illegally trading their songs sounds like it would take the wind out of the sails of people like Katz.

They have no way of knowing how many of those people are actually acting legally, i.e. have already bought the song. If I have an album on cassette/vinyl, and "upgrade" it to mp3 via Napster, it's completely legal. Metallica may hate it if they want people pay for albums all over again on CD, but that's just tough.

Is there no conceivable situation that will cause him or those like him to say 'oops, I guess people are ripping off artists'?

What if some people *are* acting illegally, but would never actually have bought the album at the monopoly CD price, even if mp3 did not exist? Then Metallica is losing precisely nothing from these people copying their music. Whether or not you think illegal copying is morally wrong, you can't claim that every instance of copying denies the copyright holder another royalty payment.

Taking both of the above into account, that 335,000 figure probably needs a substantial reduction. I hope that people in the first category I mentioned don't get their accounts shut down due to Metallica's threats, without anyone bothering to discover that they aren't actually breaking the law.

Antitrust, Record label price fixing and $15 CD's

[Sleepy]

When CD's were in their infancy - and thus a vulnerable format - didn't all the record companies insist that CD's were 'only $15 until production gets up' then presumably it gets cheaper, no?

Why is it then that CASSETTES are cheaper than CD's? I will bet every penny I have that it cost more to mass produce a tape than a CD. SO why then is the price so unrealistic. BECAUSE THE RECORD COMPANIES HAVE AN UNSPOKEN AGREEMENT TO CONTINUE RIPPING US OFF.

Legally, due to anti-trust laws, record cannot discuss pricing among themselves, as this would be evidence of price-fixing. They seemed to have arrived at fixed priceing regardless.

Metallica fingers 300,000 Napster pirates? Weren't they an anti-authoritarian band, before they "left their anger on the barber shop floor"? Former glory or not, say hello to the new boss, same as the old boss.

I WONDER what effect say 300,000 signatures to Washington DC would do regarding recording industry price fixing and Metallica's possible involvement (as a label) in CD price-fixing.

These kids may be guilty, but their parents can vote! I hope Napster contacts these named users and successfully gets them to become a PAC lobbying group to put some constraints on these out of control copyright laws. Where do I sign up??

Kicking your fans is stoopid

[divec]

I don't think Jon Katz was suggesting that Metallica are outside of their *legal* rights.

Nobody can [] say that [] MP3 trading of stuff you didn't buy is not illegal. [...] Their arguments come down to knowing it's a bad thing, but, like the verse says "I like it."

I think you are confusing "illegal" with "morally wrong". I agree nobody can deny it's illegal. But whether it's morally wrong is a matter of opinion. For instance, there's a point of view that says downloading mp3s purely for try-before-you-buy purposes is morally ok. I might certainly believe, in some circumstances, that an avid fan who had no money would be acting morally soundly if he obtained some copied music.

What Katz seemed to be saying is that Metallica were being cruel and stupid. As has been pointed out, many of those 335K users may be acting legally or trying before they buy. Metallica can't possibly have examined each of these 335K cases in detail, so they're bound to be burning the fingers of plenty of true fans as well as all the casual users. I hope (probably in vain) that they find that their CD sales and concert audiences drop and then put two and two together and stop doing this. Using the law to kick fans who really, really like you is stupid, shortsighted and (I think) somewhat gratuitously nasty.