Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Napster Bans Metallica Fans

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the i-never-got-my-nick-anyway dept.

W00dDuCK noted that Napster has banned the 300,000 users that Metallica reported were pirating copyrighted music. Moments later, all 300,000 created new accounts. This isn't over yet.

12 of 524 comments (clear)

  1. Could they sue Metallica for libel? by cluke · · Score: 5

    Napster : Metallica say you are trading in stolen property. We're closing your account

    You : You bastards! That's libel*! I only trade in free mp3s from my own group Spametallicarr! I'm going to sue!

    (* or is it slander? I forget)

  2. Re:CNET article by kwsNI · · Score: 4

    This also had a little more info on it, straight from Napster.

    kwsNI

  3. No bots by BrianW · · Score: 5

    When I log into Napster, it says, quite clearly:

    "NO BOTS ARE ALLOWED ON THIS SERVICE. IF YOU RUN ONE HERE, IT WILL BE BLOCKED AND YOUR IP WILL BE PERMANENTLY BANNED"

    So will Napster be blocking NetPD's bots?

  4. How does the Rio ruling affect this? by Amphigory · · Score: 4
    As I recall, when the courts ruled in favor of the Rio, one of the ideas was that `fair use' entitled you to maintain a copy of the media. Furthermore, the judge in that case implied pretty strongly that you had a right to a copy even if you did not make it yourself.

    In other words, what these fans did would seem to be illegal if and only if they did not own a legal copy of the media. I just remembered something from the CNN story this morning: apparently, according to Metallica `the straw that broke the camel's back' was that their newest song, which has not even been released on CD yet, was being pirated. Possible, the reason it broke the camel's back was that it was impossible for anyone to own a licensed copy of that song yet since they weren't selling it.

    Possibly, this ruling is not as far reaching as we are being led to believe.

    Am I missing something? Any lawyers out there (Hawk, you're the man)?

    --

    --
    -- Slashdot sucks.
  5. From the mouth of the beast by Wah · · Score: 5

    Under the section. "Why do CD's cost so much?"

    ...For example, the most significant cost of a CD today is the marketing and promotion of that music. To learn more about why CDs are a great value -- check out Cost of a CD.

    I, for one, am tired of paying for marketing. Why am I paying for someone to tell me what I like?

    Oh, BTW, their closing argument for this defense.

    By all measures, when you consider how long people have the music and how often they can go back and get "re-entertained" CDs truly are an incredible value for the money.

    Thanks for your opinion, RIAA, now I'll go form my own.

    --

    --
    +&x
    1. Re:From the mouth of the beast by weave · · Score: 4
      Under the section. "Why do CD's cost so much?"

      That argument fails when you consider that cassettes of the same material have a lower retail cost and a higher production cost. The same marketing costs applies to both products.

      The question should therefore not be "why do CDs cost so much?" but "Why do CDs cost more than cassettes?" Same music, same production and marketing costs.

      The price they set is what the market will bear. People are used to paying more for CDs because in the beginning (mid 80s) there was a serious shortage of plants cranking out blanks. That is no longer the case. The cost to manufacture a CD is far less than cassettes.

      But the market is not "bearing" the cost obviously. The illegal trading via napster is an example.

      There is a deep irony in this, proven through people of my (baby boomer) generation. When I was a teenager in the 70s, I couldn't afford to buy records. I copied stuff off the radio, taped friends' records onto cassette, and listen to the stuff over and over. If I didn't have access to that illegal copying, I'd have never had grown so fond of groups like Led Zepplin, The Who, Rolling Stones, etc, etc...

      Now look at the market. Baby Boomers are damn loyal to the groups they grew up with and spend a ton of money buying their CDs, going to their concerts, etc. I blew $150x2 just to see the Rolling Stones at Vet Stadium in Philly in the cold pouring rain in April a few years back. (It was pathetic too, a bunch of old fucks trying to relive their happier younger years... and no, I'm not talking about the band! :)

      The point is, did I rip off these bands when I was a teen by copying their stuff? Yeah, technically, but not literally. I could barely afford gas to fill my car at the time. Trust me, I had no money to buy anything like that. If I didn't bootleg it, I would have went without.

      But now look, the "Classic Rock" market is a HUGE and very profitable market. Now days, I often buy CDs on impulse and very often never even get around to listening to them. I'm too damn busy to bother hunting down mp3s on the net to copy.

      Kind of ironic, no?

      If Metallica turns off their young fans now, when their young fans are older and making money like mad, they won't be spending their money going to a Metallica reunion concert in 2010.

      The world is changing. Musical artists should almost give away their work to get exposure, then make their money on public performances, marketing of products, endorsements, etc, etc... the kind of stuff you can't digitally copy.

      Open Rock baby! :)

  6. Online legal form... by MosesJones · · Score: 5


    Very confused about the legality of the form on Napster. I could fill that in (I don't even use Napster) with the name and address of a banned person. No signature, just text...

    Another point. If I, as a British Citizen, were banned, how would the DMCA apply to me ? If the transaction took place between myself and a person in Germany why is a US rule being applied ?

    The phrase "can of worms" comes to mind. And of Napsters form the phrase "half-arsed" presents itself.

    --
    An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
  7. Good news, very good news by streetlawyer · · Score: 5

    Here are a few other bands whose fans should be banned:

    Nine Inch Nails (like heavy metal without the talent)
    Rush (think they're clever, but aren't)
    Hootie and the Blowfish (shit name, shit band)
    AC/DC (the single least musical bunch of morons God ever created, and disgustingly sexist to boot)
    The Grateful Dead (shit beyond shit)
    The Beatles (the Britney Spears of their generation)
    The entire country of Australia ("I come from a land Down Under, where the only band is a one-hit wonder)

    And in general, anything else I don't like.

    --


    -- the most controversial site on the Web
  8. Can electronic form be a binding document? by brassrat77 · · Score: 4
    In spite of all the notices on the web page that the counter notification form is a legally binding document, I don't see how it can have any validity in court.

    I see no obvious way a form could be linked in court to a specific Napster user unless the user testifies they submitted it. There's no authentication that the name and address entered belongs to the person completing the form. There's no authentication by any obvious strong cryptographic means, no witness's signature, notary, or anything else normally associated with a legally binding document, let alone one where the alleged signer starts giving up their legal rights.

    I suspect anyone could submit a form on behalf of any napster user. (Those more familiar with Napster's registration process are welcome to correct me). Yes, that's possibly perjury, but could someone sumbitting a false form be tracked down with only an IP address to find them?

    I don't listen to Metallica, so I'm not directly involved in this issue. But I wouldn't fill out the damn form if I *was* blocked inadvertantly. It feels to me like replying to the opt-out address in SPAM email. If someone wants to sue me, they can use the traditional methods to find and serve me. (Been there, done that, my attorney and I are waiting)

    IANAL, standard disclaimers apply.

  9. 3,000 Worms May Turn on Metallica by warpsmith · · Score: 4
    This can of worms is incredibly fascinating.

    The DMCA allows anyone to easily force an ISP (or something like Napster) to kick off others by alleging copyright violations. However, the catch is that, if you are wrong, you face the penalty of perjury.

    Metallica/NetPD admit that the list may not be completely accurate. Let's say that it is 99% accurate. That still leaves 3,000 people kicked off unfairly. If those people were to hit back, Metallica/NetPD would be faced with serious risk of massive perjury.

    Takers?

  10. Steve Albini's famous rant by Hesperus · · Score: 5

    I believe that this piece first appeared in Maximum Rock and Roll about five or six years ago. In it Albini exposes the finance mechanisms behind a major lable record, including an sample balance sheet:

    http://www.interstate40.com.au/NEWS/Nov_Dec/Troubl e.htm

    (I found this particular URL by doing a google search: '"Steve Albini" trouble music')

    Anyhow around the same time I first read this I was enrolled as a grad student in Music Business at Columbia, where I was taking a course with Irwin Steinberg, the guy who founded Mercury and later Polygram.

    He was totally convinced that the majors were about to take a fall, because as soon as real artist realized that they could distribute there music for free they would, since they usually wind up loosing money on a major label deal anyhow.

    It's funny buy in the class they actually gave us copies of a major label contract, and ran us through the negociation process, and yes, the whole thing is designed to make the artist think they are making money from the records while actually making them NOTHING!

    So why would anyone make a major label record?

    People who make the decision to sign with a major are usually following one of two lines of reasoning:

    1. (the smart ones) A major label record will get us a ton of exposure, and we'll make a lot of money when we tour.

    2. (the stupid ones) We'll sell a bunch of records and get rich.

    Obviously anybody thinking either way about this is couting on the label to do a lot of marketing work, and that the marketing is going to provide the exposure, but really anybody who is confident that their music is truly worthwhile and is savvy enough to be thinking along the lines of the first line of resoning would not be at all threatened by mp3s, napster, the hacker ethic or whatever.

    As for those following the second line of reasoning, I think everybody can agree that the music scene will be alot better off without "musicians" who make music in order to "get signed and get rich".

    Wanna prove that our way is the right way? Try this (if you have some cash):

    Find some band or DJ or whatever that you really really really like that hasn't been signed to a major label, and offer to pay for a recording, so long as you can give the recording away in mp3 form, and more importantly under a licence like the GPL which will prevent somebody from signing them later and taking the recordings back.

    The artist still owns the songs themselves, only the recordings will be gpl'd (or equiv.) That way they will still get the paid for radio play.

    Of course they (or anybody else) can put the record on a CD, with or without nice cover art and shrinkwrap (whatever).

    Build a fancy website about the group, put the recordings up in their full form, and start telling people about it. If the music is as good as you will get lot's of hits and can sell ads, and the band will start getting a bigger turnout at shows, and can start reqiring much much larger amounts from venues. Everybody wins.

    --
    ____________________________________

    -- I beleve you'll like this -->
  11. CD cost a factor in this fight by RayChuang · · Score: 5

    Folks,

    As I said earlier, the whole issue with Metallica versus Napster points out the fact that music buyers in general are suffering from a case of sticker shock buying new CD's.

    Right now, if you go to a "brick and mortar" music store the average price of an album-length CD is about US$15 to US$17, and already there is talk of the price going to US$18 very soon. Even the online music stores like CDNow.com, Borders.com, and other can only knock a few dollars off this high price.

    Given that the duplication cost per CD is measured at about 35-50 US cents (that's including packaging), something tells me that the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and its member companies may be conspiring in a price-fixing scheme to keep prices high. I mean, just how many middlemen are we paying in order to get the price of a CD to US$13 to US$17 per disk?

    In my personal opinion, this is a true case of monopolistic practices, because the customer _is_ being hurt by a possible artificial high price by an OPEC-like cartel of record companies. Maybe lowering the price of an album-length CD to US$8 to US$9 will definitely help things along, since not only will there far less incentive to pirate the music, but also there will be substantially more volume sales of _legitimate_ CD's. Anyone who's taken a course in microeconomics can figure that out pretty quickly.

    --
    Raymond in Mountain View, CA