At Last And At Length: Lars Speaks

On May 4, we asked you to suggest questions for an interview with Metallica. It seemed for a while, though, like the interview that emmett had wrangled would never happen -- despite agreeing to speak with us, calls to his agents found that drummer (and frequent spokesman) Lars Ulrich was either "too busy" or "unavailable" for a long time, and we felt pretty much like the winner in a game of "hold the grenade." Yesterday, though, Lars came through for us: after I explained the nature of a Slashdot interview, and how the questions were gathered and chosen, as well as the fact that he was free to be as candid and discursive as he'd like, I spoke with him for more than an hour. Lars seemed impressed by the forum that Slashdot offered and called it "a nice setup" for an interview. You don't have to agree with his conclusions, or with the actions that the band has taken, but you ignore his words at your peril. So without further ado, here are your questions, and Lars, unfiltered.

1) Whose decision was it?
by fprintf

Was it your decision, your manager, your lawyers or record company that made the call to go after the Napster users?

Lars Ulrich: Obviously, it was our concern, 'our' meaning the four members of the band. The record company had nothing to do with it whatsoever. There has been no [support] from the record companies; they never instigated anything, so we took it upon ourselves, there was never really much in term of support. There's been the occasional pat on the back, the occasional call, but I would say that I'm quite, I'd say, more than surprised, I'm quite stunned at the lack of communication and input from the record company. Obviously, you know, with record companies we never really usually depend much on what they have to offer in terms of creative things, but I am stunned at the low volume of support from the record company, both publically and privately. That leaves the record company out if it.

The managers? I mean, obviously, Peter and Cliff, our two managers -- they're our closest advisors -- we have been, they've been advising us for 18 years now. Our managers are basically the fifth and the sixth members of the band. They're a total partnership. We view both of them as equal. And they're equally involved in this. And they of course helped strategize, and they filter things and so on, so obviously they're very involved. Our lawyers are obviously involved, but in a different way. I mean, they take -- the six of us strategize, the four of us [in the band] and the two managers, and then we tell the lawyers, obviously like with any situation, confer with the lawyers and give them direction, you know, what to do. The thing that surprises me a little bit about all this stuff is that people that know Metallica well -- and obviously, when you're dealing with something at this level, not everybody knows Metallica well -- but people that know Metallica well know how the inner structure of this thing works. And Metallica is a very very inward. very independent and actually I would say quite selfish unit, in the fact that we sit down and make our decision sort of proudly by ourselves, and work very, very closely with Peter and Cliff, our two managers. The record company's not involved in this, like I said, and the lawyers are more, sort of, they get directed and guided, and obviously we listen to their advice once in a while.

I think the question was who's idea was this. You have to understand one thing, that I am very personally -- when it comes to my relationship with the Internet and with my comptuer, the fact is that we don't spend a lot of time together. So you have to understand that I would never know what Napster was, unless somebody told me about it, you know what I mean? That's what you pay your managers for, you understand? (laughter)

I mean, I can just barely ... I know how to get onto AOL, and I will say that I have used AOL a couple of times to check some hockey scores. When we were in South America last May during the Stanley Cup playoffs. But other than that, it doesn't really amount to much. So you have to understand that I guess the question was 'Whose Idea Was it?' Well, obviously the information gets, comes to us ... now it's a different thing, but where did I first learn of Napster, I learned it from my managers two and a half, three months ago, but now it's a different story. I open ten papers, and just get bombarded with it. Like I said before, I actually find it kind of fascinating. It still hasn't changed my -- I mean I don't spend particularly more time on my computer or anything like that, but I think that this is a very very interesting topic, and forgetting about my role in it for a second, I think that it's just a fascinating topic, and I think it's one that's just so deep and on so many levels that I think -- you were asking before as if it's sort of a pain in the ass, and I'm actually quite enjoying it because I'm learning so much about it also.

2) Time well spent
by cwhicks

With other programs such as Gnutella, Freenet, etc. that are anonymous and are not controlled by a centralized company which you could sue, like Naptser, don't you think that you should be spending your time and money developing your own Internet solutions from which you can profit, rather than trying to push back the flow of technology which will only become more and more difficult to combat?

Lars: Well, I mean, obviously that's a valid question. But the bottom line is, whenever somebody -- whenever somebody, whenever we feel that somebody -- I don't want to sound too combative here, but you know, when somebody fucks with what we do, we go after them. You don't sit down and sort of try and sort of justify yourself, well, 'Maybe our time and energy would be better spent thinking about something a year or two from now.' We feel the story is pretty well documented about how this all sort of came about. We really felt that it was time for somebody, an artist, with a potential of a public platform, to get involved with this. What the RIAA has been doing has obviously been strong, but it has been sort of in a closed legal forum, and we really felt the issue here really is not just about Napster itself, it's also about the perception of what this whole thing means, it's about the perception of the Internet, it's about the perception of what my rights are on the Internet, it's about the perception of how people have become so comfortable with the computer as a tool that they feel they have a right to these things.

So Napster is, I would say that a month into this now, that Napster is really just one of the things that -- obviously there is a clear, specific legal battle going on with Napster, but I find that the other battle which I think is equally important, is the battle in the public forum, about a public debate, about a public dialogue, about presenting different points of view, about respecting different points of view, about everybody having a chance to go out there and say what they feel and so on. That is also important.

Now, are we aware of the Gnutellas and all these other things? Of course we are, but you can only take it one step at a time. And I believe, and the people that we talk to about this, we believe, that the minute some of these companies become active, when they basically come to a point that they become fully funcitonal, we believe that there will be technology and a way to go after them in the way they can invent this technology and make it untraceable. We believe that as quickly as they can make it untraceable we believe that you can find a way to fuck with it, and we have already heard about different ways of doing that. So I think it's clear that there is nothing that people can talk about for the future that becomes bulletproof. So it's sort of like -- the thing about this sort of mob mentality, what we call the 'Internet Extremists,' it's all kind of cute -- 'Yeah, we want to fuck with the system,' 'Yeah, we have a right to get everything for free.' But I believe that if you have the energy and the resources to chase 'em -- and that's one thing we have is a lot of energy and a lot of resources -- We believe that there will never be a point where they will be uncatchable, and we believe that obviously there will come a point, that we will, this is the question that was asked, where we will sit down and figure out what's right for us. Right now, you know, we know what is not right for us, which is Napster. And we know why it's not right for us, which is that we do not condone and want to be part of some kind of illegal trading of our masters through sources we have not authorized, it's that simple.

So of course there will be at some point -- we are not stupid, of course we realize the future of getting music from Metlalica to the people who are interested in Metallica's music is through the Internet. But the question is, on whose conditions, and obviously we want it to be on our conditions. We don't want these 3rd party services like Napster taken for granted, taken for granted that we want to be part of their system. That ultimately is what the biggest beef about this whole thing [is], is that Napster could have so easily avoided this whole thing. It's like, OK, 'It's January, my name is Napster, or I'm Sean, or whoever the CEO was at the time, we have this service, we would like to know if you are interested in being part of it.' If we'd said Yes, then there's no issue, if we'd said No, then this whole thing would have never -- it's really what this is about, it's what this whole thing ultimately comes down to, you know. We own and control these masters, we feel that we're the ones that have the right to decide where they get used. It's a little bit, what we have called the Book-of-the-Month scenario, which is this whole thing about, it sort of ends up being the reverse; we're the ones who look like assholes for chasing after what we feel, for getting off the service. It's a little bit like the book-of-the-month analogy, where you get a book sent to your mailbox once a month. And if you don't return it within 7 days, you have to pay for it. Do you know what I mean? Are we assholes for wanting to get off this service that I was never asked if I wanted to be part of in the first place?

3) Art vs Commodity
by HeghmoH

In several articles about your actions against Napster, you were quoted as saying something like (paraphrased): "Napster takes our music and treats it as a commodity, instead of as art."My question is, how is it that trading your music for free over the internet makes it a simple commodity, but selling it for far too much money through record companies and stores makes it somehow "art"?

Lars: Yeah. I mean, OK, 1st of all, let's start by making sure that I am not the one who decides that a Metallica CD should sell for 16 dollars. That's a whole other arguement, one that at some other time I'd be glad to partake in, OK? I'm a consumer just as much [as anyone else] ... just because somebody feels that that CD is too expensive doesn't give them a right to steal it, in the same way that if I go down to the car dealership and want to buy a new Suburban, and I feel that paying $47,000 for a new Suburban is too expensive, that doesn't give me the right to steal it, right? It's sort of like, you know what, fair enough, I can certainly respect and I would certainly somewhat agree with the fact that paying 16 bucks for a CD is probably, you know, pushing too much. But, it's the marketplace that dictates that, not me. And people who live in the United States live in a Western capitalist society, where most of these things become about marketplace and about fair competitionin the marketplace, and that's what ultimately dictates these prices. That does not soldify that my only other option is to steal is it. My other option is to not buy it.

It does happen in certain other instances. If there is a full-on consumer boycott of a product, whether it's toothpaste or Suburbans or CDs, sooner or later the people whose livelihood depends -- not the artists, but the companies who are selling these toothpaste or CDs or whatever, will take note. But the way to combat a $16 CD as being unfair is not to go out and steal it, that just bcomes sort of the anarchy, the mob rules. But the reason that I will say, of all these things that I've been quoted as saying in the last month on this, I would say that the quote that this person refers to is probably not one of my finer moments. What I was trying to say by that was ... there's one thing that people kind of keep forgetting, which is that Napster, they have this sort of innocent smirk in front of their face and they hold up their hand and they go 'We're not really pirates, we're not really doing anything illegal, we're just offering a service,' but what people have to remember, and obviously some of this has developed in the last month, is that Napster is a corporation, OK? They just got $15 million in funding from some of the major venture capitalists out here. They have all along, ultimately getting to the point where they could have a major IPO, which is the one option, or get basically bought out by an AOL type of company. So at some point there will be a major, major profit going on for the people who've invested in Napster. And that money is basically the same as profiting from stolen property.

Understand one thing: this is not about a lot of money right now, because the money that's being lost right now is really pocket change, ok? It's about the priciple of the thing and it's about what could happen if this kind of thing is allowed to exist and run as rampant and out of control for the next 5 years as it has been for the last 6 months. Then it can become a money issue. Right now it's not a money issue. I can guarantee you it's costing us tenfold to fight it in lawyer's fees, in lawyers' compensation, than it is for measly little pennies in royalties being lost, that's not what it's about. And also, we're fortunate enough that we sell so many records though the normal channels. Where it can affect people, where it is about money, is for the band that sells 600 copies of their CD, ok? If they all of a sudden go from selling 600 copies of their CD down to 50 copies, because the other 550 copies get downloaded for free, that's where it starts affecting real people with real money. And so I don't know if I've sort of been jumping around a lot, it's just that there's all these points of view that tie into it. So back to the question again, the 'commodity' really becomes about it being traded around illegally, and rather than the art that it is. OK, that wasn't the finest quote ever, but that was also the first quote, six weeks ago. And we've all come a long way since then, including us.

4) home taping vs. napster
by commodoresloat

Have you read the 1989 OTA Report (http://www.wws.princeton.edu:80/%7Eota/disk1/1989/8910_n.html) on home taping, which concluded that so-called "bootlegging" was no threat to music industry profits, and that it in fact served as free advertising? It turned out that the users making tapes illegally were also both more likely to buy more music themselves and more likely to encourage other fans to do so. While obviously the technology has improved significantly since 1989, aren't we really dealing with the same issues?

Lars: Well, 1st of all, you have to remember that you're talking to somebody who advocates bootlegging, who has alwyas been pro-bootlegging. We have always let fans tape our shows, we've always had a thing for bootlegging live materials, for special appearances, for that type of stuff. Knock yourselves out, bootleg the fuck out of it, we don't give. We believe that there is a major, major difference between the old -- obviously one of the scenarios we hear a lot ... 'How is it different from home taping?' I guess is really the question. You know, home taping 10 or 15 years ago really was about, you had vinyl records, and you had the neighbor down the street with you know, his Iron Maiden records, that you wanted to make a tape of so you can play in your car. There is a difference, I think, let me think of a word here, I'm sorry, all of a sudden your mind goes blank (laughter), comparing that kind of home taping to basically going on the Internet and getting 1st generation, perfect digital copies of master recordings from all the world, is just not a fair comparison. We're talking about a network that includes millions and millions of people, and tens and tens of millions of songs that these millions of people have, they can trade. So the old 'home taping is killing music,' well, OK, so you borrow your neighbor's Iron Maiden record, blah blah blah, you know, some guy down at school. There is a long way from that to what's going on right now with perfect first-generation digital copies of music that's available to millions of poeple all over the world. We -- it's not so much once again, it's not so much -- look, our record sales have gone up in the last three weeks, OK? We obviously follow and monitor this. It's not so much about whether it hurts or whether it benefits.

What it ultimately comes down to, and this is really the simplest way of saying it, is 'Who controls it?' And I want the right to control what is mine. And if I decide to give -- I respect the next guy, who wants to put his music on Napster, but I want him to respect the fact that maybe I don't. It's that simple. It's really the point. This is what the whole point of this country is, you have the right to make your own choices in this country, and we were not given that right. People take for granted that our music should be out there and be traded. What if we don't advocate that? They shouldn't argue with that. Napster has the right to exist. I support Napster's right to exist, OK? But I want them to support my right to not be part of it.

And that's where it got, sort of like, wacky, because we believe that when they sat down -- this is another misconception in the last couple weeks, this whole thing about 'Metallica serves Napster with 300,000 names.' You have to remember, they asked for this, OK? That's a point that not a lot of people include. They asked. They said, "If you can give us the Names (ha ha), of people that are doing this (ha ha ha) and we'll take them off (ha ha ha)," like you can't. It was sort of like a dare. And then we hired somebody to basically -- and they could have gotten, you also have to reremember once again, , they [Napster] could have gotten that information themselves. So it became once again our burden, back to the book-of-the-month or the cd-of-the-month scenario. You know, I have to go out to my mailbox, I have to pick this fucking book up, I have to send it back where it come from so I don't get charged for it.

The burden is on me again, I have to sit there with these guys, the names of people trading our music. And you have to remember, the only thing that Napster really has, because legally they realize that it's very very thin, the only thing they have is sort of a public thing where they can pit Metallica fans against Metallica. That's the only thing, that's sort of their, that's their only strong thing, is trying to make us look like assholes in the eyes of the fans, and they're doing, I think they're doing a pretty good job of that. And it's sort of pathetic, because the fight is really obviously between Metallica and Napster. It's unfortunate that the fans become pawns in this, but understand a couple of things. The 300,000 names that were removed from Napster, ok, we believe, from who we've consulted, that Napster has the technology to block Metallica songs off its service, so it's not just about ... we go to them with a piece of information: 'This guy has traded among other things, Metallica songs.' So they take him off the service instead of just taking the Metallica songs off the service. Do you understand? Then this guy hates us, we become the assholes, and that's what they're trying to build their counter case on. And that's kind of a little bit sad I think, it's kind of pathetic that that's really the only shot they have, and obviously because they realize they don't have any shots legally. I don't think it's a fair comparison with 1989.

5) Is your speech free?
by Frank Sullivan

Are you free to answer any way you please in this interview? Or has your label requested that your responses to our questions be reviewed by their lawyers before being posted back to Slashdot? And if so, did you agree to this?

Lars: I think it should be pretty obvious to most people that I am really on my own here. What I know about it, most it comes from reading and educating myself on it. I feel I know a lot about this. Every day, I get all the press sent to my office, I spend the first 2 hours of the day reading, catching up to date with what's going on. Nobody tells me what to say, I don't have to check with anybody. That's sort of the thing we talked about 20 minutes ago, that is somebody who doesn't know Metallica very well, because somebody who knows Metallica konws that the 19 years we have been on our own, we have fought every battle on our own, we don't take anything from anybody. We take advice from our two managers, but ultimately we override them a lot. We are very, very -- about as independent as I believe it's possible to be in this business. But I should also say that we are, we're also, this is going to sound -- make sure you don't edit this! -- we're also, I know this is going to sound like we're full of ourselves, but I know we're also quite smart. And we treat the business side of what we do with respect, and we deal with it as a business so it doesn't interfere with the creative elements of what we do. We try and keep the creative things and the business things as two very separate entities, because my big fear is always that the creative side of what we do can never be influenced, or dictated, or polluted, by what happens in the business side of it. So we are very good at separating the two issues, and we treat the business with the respect that it deserves, because if you do not respect the business side of it, you can get fucked. This, the music world, is littered with the careers of people who did not pay enough attention to the business side of what they were doing and ended up getting majorly fucked.

6) Ignorance of the net?
by imac.usr

In the live chat, you admitted to not being very knowledgable about the Internet or about the technology behind Napster and MP3s. What kind of research on these subjects did you do prior to filing the lawsuit?

Lars: As I said, we were not very knowlegeable about it when we started. Research, research. I mean, we tried to get information from a bunch of different sources. We will always, when we feel we are ignorant about something, we always try to get enough information, we try not to make any decisions until we feel we have the full picture. So obviously, talking to people who knew about Napster, who knew how to operate it, who were dealing with it. People who know about it. We don't sit down and study a Napster operations manual or something, but sitting down and talking with people who understand it. There, you have to remember that Napster came pretty much out of nowhere. I mean, I think I first heard the word Napster probably in December or January, I remember somebody telling me about this "new thing that we're going to hear a lot about in a couple of months," and that guy was right. A lot of the people who advise me are very Internet savvy.

You have to understand one thing; I don't use the Internet a lot in my daily life, personally, because I choose to pick up the phone rather than send somebody an email. That's OK, that's my right, it's a little more comfortable. It doesn't mean I hate the Internet, it doesn't mean I despise the Internet. You know, I respect it, I understand that it plays a major role in a lot of people's lives. But I do also -- and this is one of the things that fascinates me about this whole thing -- I do also see things about the Internet being something that people I think taking for granted, that they're becoming so comfortable with it that the feel they have a right to any piece of information that comes to them through the Internet. The Internet is changing our perception about a lot of things, it's changing our perception about almost everthing around them in society.

And to me, it's just about treading kind of carefully and trying to sort of point a few things out that if you have downloaded music through your computer for the last little bit of time, understand one thing, that's been a privilege, not a right. That's been a privilege you've had; you don't have a right to download my music until I tell you, until the person who owns that music tells you that you can do it. Until then, it's been a privilege that's basically been the result of incompetence and lack of focus by the record labels, and that I don't think the record labels for the last couple of years have paid attention to this. I think that there's been a major, major wakeup call in the last couple of months. The hardest thing for all the major labels is it's very difficult for them to get together and work something out betwenn them. The hardest thing also about this is it becomes very hard to write laws and to generalize accross the board. Because to me this is about individual choices. So you can't sit there and say 'I think Napster doesn't have a right to exist,' because there are people who want to use a service like Napster, but at the same time you also can't sit there and say 'Everyone has to be part of a service like Napster,' because there are people who choose not to. It gets kind of complicated from a legal aspect, and that's where I think the record companies have really let this get to the point where it's at right now, by not being more on top of it, and I think somebody pointed out I think a very very valid thing the other day, that all the people, that are sitting right now, the Sean Fannings of the world, and the guy in Ireland, and all these Internet guys that are sitting there coming up with all these programs and all this stuff, you know what? The record companies should have hired those guys 5 years ago. That is the biggest single fuck-up that they did, was basically letting those guys get to the other side.

7) Skip the Record Company
by cwhicks

How much money do you get from the sale of each CD, and how much goes to the record company? Would you be interested in a system that allows you to circumvent the record company, sell your music for half the price you do now, and get quadruple the cut that Metallica gets on each sale? The internet has the potential to offer such a system.

Lars: Of course, of course. That's something that we have been anticipating for years. For years! I mean, five years ago we had that conversation. Of course, at some point we will get to a place that's close to that. I look at it this way. I believe that there are four -- oh shit! (Lars takes care of something in the background) -- I believe that there are sort of like four links in the food chain here. You've got the artist, you've got the record company, you've got the retailer, and then you've got the consumer. And everybody within the industry has been talking for years about, that ... different people have different opinions; some people think that the record company is going to go away, and others think the retailer is going to go away, and some people think that both are going to go away. What you have to remember is, it's only bands who are fortunate enough to be at the level that we're at that have the option of maybe circumventing the record companies and the retailer.

Because what really, essentially, is a record company? A record company is really essentially a bank, a bank that funds a bunch of money to make records, and videos and promotion, publicity appearances and so on, and they take that shot that one day the artist is going to be so successful that they're going to first of all get all their money back, second of all make a profit. So I'm not necessarily particularly pro-record company, but I do feel that the record companies, they've taken a big beating, because I think people are just very quick to jump on the record company, sort of the Chuck D's of the world -- "Record companies are greedy, it's about lawyers, it's about accountants."

That to me is a little too black and white, because you have to remember that statistically, for every one band that you hear about, for every one band that a record company helps make successful, they lose their fucking shirt on the nine other ones you never hear about, so it's -- that's a whole other conversation that I could talk about for hours and hours, the whole thing about the record companies. But record companies will never be completely extinct, for one reason and one reason only, that there will always be a need to develop younger artists, and record companies will always be able to play a big part of that, because this whole thing about "I'm a young band, I'm an upstart band, I'm going to put my music on Napster, and then I'm going to become successful?" Fantasy. The only way you you will become successful is by having a publicity and promotion campaign behind you that elevates what you're doing above what your competition is doing.

It's very very simple. One of the -- when we monitored Napster for 48 hours three weekends ago, we came up with the 1.4 million downloads of Metallica music, there was one, one downloading -- one! of an unsigned artist the whole time. You can sit there and talk about how this is great for up and coming artists or for unsigned bands, but a big counterargument that nobody gets is, me and you could form a band together, and we could like, make a demo and then we could put it up on Napster. Who is going to give a fuck? Nobody's going to care, because they don't know anything about what sets my and your band out from the gardener and the guy who cleans my pool's band. The record companies will never be extinct, because there will always be a need down at that level. Now where the record companies can become circumventable is when you're fortunate enough -- key word, fortunate enough, to be at our level, where you don't depend on the record company to front you a bunch of money, because you're fortunate enough to have a big pile of it yourself, and you don't necessarily need a record company to publicize, to promote you, because you're sort of kind already at that level. Yes, of course, the scenario that the gentleman asked in the question is very, very possible, and we've been looking at that for a long time. And when we are done with our record contract, I would say that something in that direction is somehwere between a real possibility and a certainty.

8) Question to Lars and the band
by acb

You mentioned that we need laws banning file-sharing software such as Napster. How far should these laws go? If in 10 years time, computer users labour under draconian restrictions on communications software under what is titled the Lars Ulrich Digital Copy Enforcement Act, to the effect that sharing music files (of any sort) without the digital signature of a major record label or copyright authority becomes grounds for loss of Internet access and/or legal sanctions, how will you feel about the fans and small-time bands whose attempts at networking are crippled by these restrictions?

Lars: Yeah, I would say that I have certainly through the course of this in the last month, absorbed what I've learned, and listened to other people and respected other people's opinons, and I have come to actually change my position from, I believe that if it's not Napster, then a type of service like Napster has the right to exist, on the condition that the only thing being traded through that service is music by people, artists and owners who have given that service permission. So that obviously changes the thrust of what he was saying.

I believe ultimately -- and this is sort of what I was talking about before -- that the hardest thing about this is to try and come up with a system where it becomes an individual's right to choose how he will want to partake in this sort of stuff through the Internet. That's the hardest thing because it becomes very difficult, it's very difficult to generalize, like I said before. It's not fair to sit there and say, 'Napster can't exist,' because there are people who would like to use it. And it's not fair to sit there and say 'It has to exist and you have to be part of it,' for the people who don't want to use it. That's where it gets really tricky. There are people who are far smarter than me on this, people that will ultimately ... I believe that five years from now, there will be systems in place where the artists and the owners of the intellectual property -- and remember, we're not just talking about music.

And that's one of the fascinating thing here, is that we're not just talking about music. Why is this a music issue right now? The reason it's a music issue right now is because, of major intellectual property, music is the one that is shortest in information right now, therefore it's the most easily transferrable where technology's sitting right now. We believe based on the people we hired that we're probably not more than a year away from where you can basically download Mission Impossible 2 the same day that it opens in the theatre, and basically watch it on a great computer with a great sound system and maybe even find a way to hook it up to a big monitor in your house or whatever. And when that happens, when the next Tom Clancy or whatever -- when the minute they become available, the minute you can download a 1200 page book five minuntes after it's released in a bookstore, you will find that other owners of intellectual properties, not just musicians, will come out there and [fight].

There's a lot of us on the inside who are sort of dealing with this right now, who are like 'You know what? it would be great if you could download fucking movies right now," because you know what? Hollywood would come out fucking swinging. The may be now, but it's still early. If you look at a baseball analogy, I'd say with music we're probably, I'd say we're in the maybe 5th or 6th inning as far as where we are, how far it can go, you know what I mean? I think with movies we're possibly still in the 1st or 2nd inning. I think there will be a major awakening in Hollywood in the next 6 months, and it's not just about music. This is about intellectual property, this is about the perception of intellectual property. Who owns intellectual property, how has the computer changed the majority of people's perception of intellectual property in the last 6 months? And how will intellectual property be reachable to the people out there who are on the receiving end of intellectual property ten years from now? You know, those are the major things that really need to be worked on.

But one of the main things that needs to be worked on for the next year, I think, one of the great things I think, is the public debate about it. People sit there and feel that they have the right to this, and then when they start getting mroe information about this, a lot of people have a tendency to start realizing some of the points we're trying to make, they start seeing things from a little bit of a different point of view, and ultimately that's a great accomplishment. I believe that a lot of people that are saying a lot of nasty things about some of the stuff right now are doing it out of sort of like a passionate ignorance. And I find that most of the people I talk to at a number of different levels, whether intellectual or a little more layman's, or media, or fans, or Newsweek ... whatever, that people start getting it, at least to the point that they say "We respect your right to not want to be part of this, if you respect" -- which we clearly do -- "our right to be part of this."

9) Just something to think about...
by GrnHrnt

I'm a huge Metallica fan. Lars is the reason I'm a drummer today. But something in an interview with James from "Behind the music" (I think) when he was talking about how he started to like the Misfits, when Cliff gave him a tape and they played it in the van all summer long, made me curious. Have any of you (Metallica) ever copied a tape, record, 8-track, CD, etc. from a friend? This is an infringement of copyright isn't it? I don't mean to make you seem evil, but is it simply the scale of Napster/mp3's that is of concern?

Lars: Yeah, I mean I think we answered that before. Of course we have, ok? And of course it's a valid point. The bottom line is the size of it. The size of it and the quality of it. When we go in, and check Napster out, we come up with 1.4 million copyright infringements in 48 hours, this is a different thing than trading cassette tapes with your buddy at school. I mean, 48 hours! So it's the quality, the quality and the scale.

Thanks go out to Sue Tropio and Gayle Fein of QPrime for their help in arranging this interview.

Comments

Re:Journalistic ethics

[Anonymous Coward]

I just wanted to let you know that, indeed, Slashdot is not the New York Times. However, the New York Times is a known quantity that plays by known rules. Slashdot, obviously, operates in a different universe and by different rules. It was not clear, then, that Metallica has any hand in choosing how the interview with Lars was presented. Both myself and my coworkers were under the impression that the interview was printed verbatim to make Lars appear foolish, in typical disinformation fashion.

If you have ever read a court transcript, you'll know that even sans "ums" a verbatim transcript of a conversation looks, well, unpolished. That's why reputable journalists don't print verbatim off-the-cuff conversations very often (the New York Times often does include complete transcripts, but generally deal only with politicians and other professional speakers). Hence for Slashdot to do something outside the journalistic norm without explaining itself simply looks suspicious.

In the future, extremely relevant and useful information such as "why the information is presented in this manner" should be put forth prominently at the start of the article. To do otherwise simply smacks of yellow journalism.

Brian

Some overlooked points in the MP3 / Napster debate

[Anonymous Coward]

I think there are some major points being missed in the debates here. First, I am not for rampant piracy. (ie. the "dot.commie" mentality) We here consider ourselves intellectuals. Our economic contribution in society is the production of immaterial goods. Piracy is like shooting ourselves in the foot.. to a point. Here are some thoughts and opinions:

1.) Most (nearly all!) of the music that is pirated via the various file sharing utils is modern pop music. This music, though not in all cases, is often considered pulp, manufactured music by purists. That is, it is marketed for mass acceptance and big numbers in first release sales and radio hype. Even large amounts of piracy will not hurt this goal.

2.) Most of the music being 'pirated' by your average college student with a high-speed connnection is what they themselves consider to be "crap" music that is kinda fun to listen to, but not worth spending any hard earned money on and worth deleting once the song "goes out of style." If this is the type of music sales is being hurt, then as a musical purist (classical, blues, jazz, etc. enthusiast), I'm inclined to think this is good for the world of music overall. (-:

3.) The number of people who actually go around downloading whole albums that they would have purchased otherwise is quite rare. I believe this activity is immoral, but on the other hand, most people I've seen only download one or two hit songs that fit into category (2) above. Then they go out and buy stuff they really like.

4.) Much of the piracy involves old songs from long past decades. I'm sorry, but it's time for the pop music of the 50's, 60's, and 70's to go public domain. I think copyright law needs to be changed to speed this process. (25 years anyone? maybe 20?) The artists and producers have made their honest buck after the first 10 years, really!

5.) On the topic of producers / labels and their necessity.. right now? Yes! 15 years from now? Probably not. When you get down to it, the world is still very much NOT wired. It's easy, while living in Suburbia or "Your College Town, USA" to be blinded by this fact. Once internet access is ubiquitous and companies like MP3.com replace MTV and local radio, THEN there will be a true revolution in music distribution. And that's not to say all music will be free. Artists are entitled to market their works any way they see fit. Once the change happens, the market will determine whether selling music or selling concert tickets and t-shirts is most beneficial to artists on an individual basis.

6.) Ultra-controlled methods of distribution for the paranoid such as registered serial number music downloads, SDMI and encrypted CDs need to be stomped out before they catch on. This is simply a matter of privacy and fair-use rights. If we want to stop these technologies, we need to encourage the honor system when it comes to fair-use and help artists to see this.

Re:Wow. That was a fucking cool interview.

[Anonymous Coward]

The point was not that the number might be innacurate by X%. The point is that the number is made up. Even if Napster, Inc wanted that number, it is almost impossible for them to get, since the mp3 ID3 record does not contain a "signed with a record label" field, and even if it did, you could hardly count on it to be accurate.

More importantly, Napster is probably not going to help NetPD/Metallica get that number, so evidently Lars is claiming that they got that number by connecting to the Napster network as a client, which is a lie that anyone who has even glanced at the Napster protocol (or even thought about it for more than 3 seconds) knows is impossible.

Making obvious, and self serving lies in a public forum is the best way to build credibility with people. I assume that Lars thought he could get away with that lie, because he has no fucking clue how Napster works.

Re:Get the users leave Napster Alone

[Anonymous Coward]

But we have to remember that Napster could easily drop any query that involved a "Metallica" statement. Napster "COULD" be doing more to protect Copyrights.

thousandth post!

[Anonymous Coward]

I am 31337!!

This guy is hard to follow

[Anonymous Coward]

This guy is hard too, i mean, 1st of all, it's like, well, I wonder if this guy is, you ever think this guy is on something and can't finish a sentence. You know: subject and predicate, whether compound or simple? Sure, as I've spent more and more time online over the years, I take certain liberties with the Englinsh language, but this guy seems to throw all the rules out the window. He's a drummer and not an orator, so it hardly matters, but I couldn't finish the interview. Music good! Coherency bad!

Re:This guy is hard to follow

[Mawbid]

He's hard to follow because you're following him through a transcript of a telephone conversation. If you'd either heard the conversation, or read a written response, I'm sure he would have come across a lot better. People ramble a lot in voice conversations; they start sentences, change their minds what they wanted to say and start again; they go off on tangents and fail to return to the departure point to finish the sentence, etc. Even in IRC chats, people are more organised than that because they can backspace and restructure their sentences.

IIRC, A while back there was a telephone interview with someone more "one of us" on Slashdot, someone technical, someone we liked. He sounded just as bad as Lars, but no-one jumped on him for it.
--

Re:This guy is hard to follow

[Mawbid]

Hehe! I went searching for the interview I was talking about and I couldn't find it. Perhaps it *was* the Bill Gates interview I was thinking of! :-P
--

Re:This guy is hard to follow

[Forrestina]

i hate to break it to you, but as someone pointed out above...

1. he doesn't have a backspace key for his vocal chords

2. i ramble and cut off sentances, and forget what i was going to say when i'm talking on the phone, a lot of people do.

3. what, you wanted a work of art or somthing? it's just an interview, and actually a fairly refreshing one i think, since it sounds like a real human being, not a record company made canned POS.

there, thats my rant.

-------

Hmm.. answers were somewhat expected

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing really new here, you knew what he was going to say. It was good that he actually responded to the interview, but I don't think there were enough questions to get the whole deal.

Basically the attitude is "They're ripping us off, getting something for nothing, so we should stop that". I can agree with that. There are however, big differences between piracy and stealing physical property.

You can't go into the street and instantly copy a $500,000 car. If I steal the car, then the person who owns the car is directly affected. However, if I copy the car and drive off with it, the owner of the car doesn't lose anything.

Piracy doesn't affect the music artists as directly as stealing of physical property. The artist is only affected when people stop buying records from the artists and turn to the pirated copies. That is wrong. But what is the right way to prevent it?

That is the question. Intellectual Property is an increasingly thorny issue in a world where information is increasingly easier to get. Sueing people is not the answer.

Look at it this way: Technology allows the recording companies to sell ONE performance millions and millions of times. They're happy, and jack up the price as much as they want. Suddenly, when technology is working in reverse, they want to kill it.

Going back to the car analogy. Lets say instead of you being able to copy cars only the car companies could do it. But they still charge the same amount of money for the car, because they can. Eventually this copying technology advances and consumers have it. They start copying their own cars. Which is the greater evil? CD prices and piracy ARE part of the same issue. People PAY others $5+ for burned CDs. Recording artists could very easily make as much or more money with lower CD prices.

I'm not sure I understand. Metallica wants customers to put up with insanely high prices when there is an extremely cheap alternative on the honor system when it won't fight for cheaper CD prices itself? Sounds pretty selfish to me.

Like "haha, I don't have to deal with high CD prices, that's the customers problem. But please don't steal from me!!!" Customers are dealing with the problem the only way they can. How can you expect them to honor you when you aren't honoring them?

Re:Hmm.. answers were somewhat expected

[s_fuller]

"You can't go into the street and instantly copy a $500,000 car. If I steal the car, then the person who owns the car is directly affected. However, if I copy the car and drive off with it, the owner of the car doesn't lose anything" I don't think this is a very good analogy, because in this example, the person who owns the car (ie the person that bought the CD) has already paid the car's producer (the artist), the requested fee for the car (CD). You are right, that the person that owns the car isn't affected. But the issue is that the company that made the car just lost a sale because you have a perfect copy of the car. The only way that many people would actually go out and BUY the car, was if they could only drive it on a certain road.

This

[Anonymous Coward]

I have been lissening to this band for years, from the very start, but what this *really* comes down to in my mind is very simple. They make a big issue out of "its the volume that bothers us", ie the amount of ppl getting the songs from others, but I am forced to wonder how many ppl like that *have the cds* and just don't have the software or time to burn to to mp3? *I have had multiple copies of there cds but have never once burned them to mp3, but have downloaded there mp3s, am I breaking the law here?* *no*. I'm sure some ppl have gotten there songs without having there cds, but I'm willing to bet a big part of those 300,000 had at least 1 cd that they got songs from, and to be honest, even if just *1* person did, Metallica has a lot to answer for. The copyright law alows for making 1 copy. In this case they have 1 copy, if I had been removed from a service over this, I would personally contact my lawer over it. Metallica really screwed this up bigtime. I and many *old school* metallica fans have made the choice to give up the band over this and I'm sure they could care less. But I have meet them before, talked to them, and I can't beleive how stupid there being.

Re:Lars, and the errant logic of OK/Not OK..

[synaptik]

It's simple.

The quality of dubs of audio tapes degrade with each generation. Since one person's not likely to make 50,000 first-generation dubs from a CD, the amount of piracy is limited in this domain.

With mp3's, you sustain a hit to quality when you encode-- but after that, each copy's as good as the previous one, regardless of generation.

QED.



--synaptik
If you want to flame me, do so here.

Napster Remixes

[mosch]

Yep, these remixes probably are often the same things that you find in the white label section of your local independant record shop. White Labels, if you're not aware, records which aren't particularly legitimate. They're often used by DJs, and I sincerely doubt that any artist ever sees a dime from them. The napster remixes are the same thing, only more widely distributed.
----------------------------

*shake of the head*

[shaldannon]

I don't believe this guy.

I agree that an artist in general should be allowed to stop piracy, if he/she so desires. This is the artist's property, much as code is a programmer's property. Most of us in this forum get vociferously angry about some alleged violation of the GPL but think nothing of grabbing a bunch of mp3's from Napster/Gnapster/Gnutella. And who is accusing who of a double standard?

On the other hand, for a band that encourages piracy to suddenly claim the moral privilege of stopping piracy is ludicrous, especially when one of the band members justifies his own piracy other artists' work in the same breath that he condemns widespread piracy of his work.

I agree that most of the people who download mp3's are doing so because they either have the disc and don't want to spend the time to convert it to mp3 format, or because they are trying to recover music for a disc that has become unusable, or because they are evaluating a disc to decide whether they want to purchase it.

I personally have never used Napster/Gnapster/Gnutella. I make my own mp3's from my CD collection. However, Napster (and clones), while capable of aiding piracy, aren't necessarily designed with piracy in mind. Napster is like a slimjim: it can be used for good or evil, but in certain circles has a bad reputation.

But what I really don't get is Lars. I've never listened to Metallica, and after reading this interview, never want to. I'm not the brightest person in the world, but Lars comes across as extremely ignorant (and I don't just mean with respect to computers). How on earth did the man ever understand enough to sign a contract with a record label? Or is this why he relies on his agents? I can imagine a sample conversation:

• Lawyer (to agent): contract sign contract.
  Agent (to Metallica): Sign this.
  Lars (to agent): Zug! Zug! Me sign! *marks an X on the signature line*
  

Man...next time, please DO edit the interview...and get a speechwriter to put something comprehensible into his mouth.


Who am I?
Why am here?
Where is the chocolate?

Re:I Expected Lars To Be More Of A Dumbass

[jpatters]

You could say the same about money. The problem is that copying money degrades the currency.

IANAL, but... Your analogy is invalid. The prohibition on counterfeiting has to do with the fact that money (at least paper money) is really a note representing a promise or certification that a certain valuable good exists and is uniquely represented by that piece of paper. It has been upheld (in court) that you can copy currency all you want as long as it is not being copied for the purpose of fraud. More specifically, you can create your own currency as long as you do not represent it as being guaranteed by the Federal Reserve. This is often referred to as "local currency". Another example: there is an artist that produces "money" that is nearly an exact replica of us-currency. he then uses his "money" to purchase goods (from retailers who are informed as to the nature of his "money"). he then sells the goods (and the receipt and any cash change he receives from the retailer) to an art dealer. the art dealer negotiates with the retailer to purchase the "money". the "money", product purchased, receipt, and change comprise the complete work of art, and is displayed as a single piece. this is of course a very round-about implementation of local currency, which is perfectly legal. In Burlington Vermont we have local currency (not currently widely accepted) called Burlington Bread, and many other localities in the US have similar things. US currency is not copyrighted, AFAIC.

If the "street performer protocol" and other methods are really a more efficient way of doing things, then surely, it should replace the copyright system -- because it will give consumers a better deal without harming the author.

The original poster did not mention Street Performer Protocol, you did. Moreover, SPP is a new idea, and I expect it will gain more use then it has now. It is clear, however, that many intellectual property producers would rather continue to use the current copyright process. This is because large corporations have been able to manipulate the government to make the copyright laws more and more favorable to them and less favorable to the American public.

Re:Wow. That was a fucking dumb interview.

[Bryan Ischo]

Well, at least he gave REASONS for his beliefs on this issue. If you did that, instead of just attacking this Lars guy without any apparent justification, then I might take you half as seriously as I took him.

BTW, with all the negative spin on the Metallica-Napster issue here on Slashdot, I had let myself come to the same conclusion as everyone else, that Metallica was just being greedy assholes about this. But like alot of people, I am sure, I read the interview, and am extremely happy that I have been given the opportunity to read about the real issues instead of just hear the spin, and I have changed my mind about Metallica.

Re:Half-off-topic: Contempt for non-computer-peopl

[Kurt Gray]

I don't know a damn thing about the music industry.

Re:hey, thats not right!

[Kurt Gray]

Dude, I know you're trolling but for those who don't, I feel compelled to take your bait. So I'll be nice to your young and innocent sheldon persona (don't want hurt his feelings) and simply say that Lars asked not be edited, and I personally appreciate Lars' candor as do many other readers here.

Not so fast

[Tim Macinta]

People who maintain that Napster will somehow free the unsigned artist fail to realize that there already is a service that does this and as at yet it has not created any house hold names nor spawned any artists who have quit their day jobs to pursue music fulltime with the revenue from MP3 sales. It is abundantly clear now that besides good music, an artist needs good promotion, music videos, radio airplay, etc. or else the artist will wallow in obscurity despite being extremely talented and having their song on the internet either via Napster or MP3.com.

Whoa there... I don't think just because MP3.com hasn't generated a mega-platinum supergroup in their less than a year of (public) existence their business model deserves to be written off as a failure. Several of the artists on MP3.com are actually already making enough to live off of through their MP3.com earnings and most are garnering far more exposure than they would be otherwise. It is very important to realize that this is just the beginning, though. You need to give the service and community a few years to mature before you can begin comparing it to traditional promotional channels. If MP3.com sustains their tremendous growth for the next couple of years I'm pretty certain it will be a far more powerful ally for artists than record companies in their current incarnation.

Re:Either/Or

[Craig Maloney]

Actually, I'd find it reprehensible if they DID edit this out... I'm assuming Slashdot just e-mailed him the questions, and he responded in kind.

MODERATE UP

[Chouser]

I have no idea if this type of post has any positive impact on message scores, but I followed the above link, and I must say the Street Performer Protocol is extremely interesting. And the essay is well-written, to boot. People need to read this thing -- this message needs to have a Score: 5.

--Chouser

Re:MODERATE UP

[cpt kangarooski]

Although the Cocaine Auction Protocol still wins as far as names go ;)

Seriously, I liked the SPP quite a bit, and I'd like to see someone use it.

Has anyone even tried napster?

[Sabalon]

I decided to give it a shot.

I think of the 100 songs/tracks I tried to download, I got about 8 complete. Everything times out, can't connect to the other end, or the other end kills you off.

It sucks. Perhaps what they saw was 1.4million attempts at downloading a Metallica song - probably by about 10 people having to try over and over.

Re:Unknown != Unsigned

[Defiler]

Gah.. Ani DiFranco is the worst musician I've heard recently.

Perfect eh?

[MoOsEb0y]

Lars said that being able to download MP3s off of the internet enables you to get exactly the CD.... well, I'm afraid to tell them this, but they're mistaken... anyone who knows anything about how MP3 works will tell you it's NOT perfect, by nature. Even if you get the bitrate up to 320, it's still not the same bit by bit.... very technically it's not illegal copying because it's not the same as the original CD.... of course one could say the same thing of photocopying books, which is also illegal... the problem, is just WHERE to draw the line....

Re:Perfect eh?

[Intrinsic]

Sorry to say but your wrong you can get the same cd quaility in a mp3 so long as you sample 320kbps go here http://www.r3mix.net/

Re:Control of Intellectual Property

[deanc]

That's what it all gets down to... control. And I don't think that's a good thing. The ultimate in "control" was DIVX... the company dictated when you were allowed to view your DIVX disc and charged you each time you did for those times you were allowed. If you decided to buy an "ultimated livense", you weren't allowed to play it on your friend's machine without getting charged.

What if Metallica said that their desire to "control" entitled them to dictate which CD player could play their CDs and dictated that you couldn't give the CD to anyone else?

I realize that these guys want to control how their music is distributed, but I think that is ultimately more dangerous than preventing them from controlling it.

-Dean

Re:One major point...

[Matt Amato]

Part of the bootleg taping issue is that the MP3s are often NOT CD or perfect copies. The fans which download this stuff, most of which are on 56k lines still, are getting cassette quality crud because it downloads faster. Someone has sold metallica a boatload of crud, Lars believes that everyone on Napster are making/getting perfect copies.

Last time I checked, one of the biggest complaints of Napster was that it was eating up bandwith on college campuses. I'v noticed many of the mp3 rips on Napster had the quality settings jacked up to 192 bits and such. Most of the trading is done over campus T1 lines, not 56k modems.

Re:One major point...

[Pr0Hak]

Yes, of course the MP3 is not a perfect copy of the track on the CD. MP3 is lossy compression, and you are going to loose some data.

But,I think that the important thing to recognize is that this distribution model gets rid of "Generational Loss". Say I take a CD, and put it on to tape for my friend. Then my friend dubs his tape for a friend, who in turn dubs it for another friend, etc. After this occours a few times (each duplication is known as a Generation), the tape starts to sound like shit.

If I do the same thing with a MP3, no generational loss occours. The MP3 that my friend's friend's friend's friend's friend gets is exactally the same as the MP3 that I gave to my friend.

Re:Wow. That was a fucking cool interview.

[perfecto]

Last week, I got a fan letter. Someone liked my music. That was fucking awesome. I am also nowhere near making any sort of a living at this.

as dead republican i was able to push about 150 tapes over the internet. i actually got a few letters and was reviewed in gajoob. this was about four years ago and before mp3.

anyway, my point is, i was able to sell alot more tapes over the internet than i could have in "real life". i do see legitimate bands who havent gotten a fair shake from the major labels seeing this as an opportunity to get heard. it worked for me and i never played out. not like 150 makes me a star but to me it was an acheivement.

alot of bands don't realize the potential and still chase these slave masters because they see it as the only way. but i think word of mouth and internet distribution will take alot of them farther than any record company ever could.

--
J Perry Fecteau, 5-time Mr. Internet
Ejercisio Perfecto: from Geek to GOD in WEEKS!

Re:One major point...

[Watts]

Actually, you couldn't really up the mp3 bitrate to make the quality higher for the discerning listener. All comparisons I've heard or seen using encoders to create mp3s at any bitrate above 192 hasn't really been that much better than 192kb/s. It's mostly the law of diminishing returns; beyond that bitrate, you're somewhat maxing out the effectiveness of mp3 quality. I'm sure an encoder that optimized for absolute maximum quality could be made to encode at really high bitrates, but by that point you'd be better off using a different format.

Re:No understanding of OSS *or* the internet

[Watts]

If a single application is primarily responsible for the copyright-violating actions, it could possibly be attacked in the way the MPAA has pursued DeCSS. But what if I develop a distributed protocol?
The strength of a system like gnutella isn't the program itself, but the existence of a protocol made for distributed filesharing, with no central server. If I publish a specification and anyone can make a client for it, who can you attack?
Do you try to stop the specification from being spread, or do you attack the myriad clients that pop up? And if you start filtering by packets, what's to stop someone from releasing a trivial change to the packet format that makes it untraceable again?
Unless there is complete control of the internet, where you have to have explicit permission for every media source you access, then stopping this type of system is troublesome. And even Big Brother wasn't that powerful.

Fat lot of good it did them anyway...

[matty]

No matter what Lars says, or whether or not anyone agrees with him, their ploy to ban Napster users who make Metallica songs available has been pitifully ineffective. Just load up Napster and search for Metallica and you'll find there are more files than Napster can display.

Re:Star Trek Replicator.

[cpt kangarooski]

Would _you_ want to use a holodeck? People get trapped in them and die on a regular basis. I'll live without them, thanks.

Re:Either/Or

[scenic]

I've had this idea for a while... It does seem to me, though, that the service would have to have some value add aside from the music (otherwise small groups of people would subscribe to the legit service, then go to gnutella and share it right away...) Of course, I don't know how willing people would be to give away what they paid for...

Re:ONE unsigned download? / OT: mp3.com banned me

[lambda]

Too bad you sign away your music when you post it up on mp3.com, eh?

A qoute from Napsters license agreement

[RattRigg]

This is from the splash screen that is displayed just before installation of the latest Napter as downloaded from their web site.
Quote:
"Unauthorized reproduction or distribution of this program, or any portion of it, may result in severe and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible under law."
Seems like the Napster guys are having their cake and eating it.

Lying? Stupid? Suspicious?

[fugue]

I've never been particularly stricken by his intelligence. And he excerbates the problem by not knowing when to shut up.

If he's not as smart as you are (yes, probably many slashdotters are pretty far above average, and you know what they say about drummers ;) just take what he says, and figure out what he means. It takes two to communicate, and if you can't figure out what he's saying, don't blame him. If he disagrees with you, do something cleverer than calling him stupid. I think he said a couple of dumb things, but his basic thesis---that people should be able to control what they create---is sound. You seem to differ?

So you think that a member of Metallica, the epitome of corporate rock, would have any qualms whatsoever about lying to protect their pocketbook? What about their popularity?

I tend to trust most people too far, but the interview did strike me as basically sincere. Yes, the "1 unsigned artist" did seem contrived, so how about we make like good scientists and try to duplicate the experiment?

I haven't given Napster a fair chance yet, and Gnutella isn't organised well enough to help me find my own butt, but I find it inconceivable that people wouldn't use a free source to check out new things that they haven't heard of. To me, that's what it's all be about!

Re:Lying? Stupid? Suspicious?

[GnrcMan]

I think he said a couple of dumb things, but his basic thesis---that people should be able to control what they create---is sound. You seem to differ?

Actually I would ignore this whole Napster issue when evaluating Lars' intelligence. It's undeniable that he does have valid points on this issue, and I have no particular problems with how he expresses himself. The problem is that the guy has a long history of being an idiot, which has hurt his credibility in this case. And when he starts throwing around numbers like "one unsigned artist traded on Napster in 48 Hrs" it frankly doesn't help.

--GnrcMan--

Re:What about fair use?

[MrBrklyn]

Lar keeps talking about his music and says he wants the right to it's use, and considers that to be the major personal issue for him. The trouble is that he's mistaken in the first place.

Creating a work of music or any other itellectual work does not create ownership of that work. We all live in the world together, and the foundation of human society is the sharing of our thoughts and creations. What Lars owns is a COPYRIGHT license to the music he created for a limited amount of time, and with limited prilvedge to the material. He never did and never will have control of how his music is used. Fundementaly, the ownership of a copy of his music is the owner of the medium of the copy. The owner of the medium is restricted in his use of the medium only to the degree that Lars copyright license restains the owners rights... or for that matter civilizations rights. Non-comercial uses of copyrighted material, even in copying the material is essentially a Constitutional right of the owner of the material.

So this issue isn't if Lars can control how the material he creates is used, as a moral and a legal issue, Lars never had the right to dictate in the first place. That he thinks that he does shows the degree of brain washing media companies have instilled into his and others thinking.

Re:What about fair use?

[MrBrklyn]

Lar keeps talking about his music and says he wants the right to it's use, and considers that to be the major personal issue for him. The
trouble is that he's mistaken in the first place.

Creating a work of music or any other itellectual work does not create ownership of that work. We all live in the world together, and the
foundation of human society is the sharing of our thoughts and creations. What Lars owns is a COPYRIGHT license to the music he created
for a limited amount of time, and with limited prilvedge to the material. He never did and never will have control of how his music is used.
Fundementaly, the ownership of a copy of his music is the owner of the medium of the copy. The owner of the medium is restricted in his use
of the medium only to the degree that Lars copyright license restains the owners rights... or for that matter civilizations rights. Non-comercial
uses of copyrighted material, even in copying the material is essentially a Constitutional right of the owner of the material.

So this issue isn't if Lars can control how the material he creates is used, as a moral and a legal issue, Lars never had the right to dictate in the
first place. That he thinks that he does shows the degree of brain washing media companies have instilled into his and others thinking.

Re:OK for me, but not for you.

[djweis]

By the time that tape gets to a dozen people, it's going to sound like hell. The 100th person to get the mp3 will have the same cd quality audio as the first person.

Re:Reason for AOL/Time Warner merger?

[otis wildflower]

It is also naive to think that the big ISPs and the universities will resist any demands by the RIAA to monitor data traffic and take action against users who are pirating music.

The universities perhaps, but ISPs have a long and moderately successful history of fighting for their status as 'common carriers', which immunize them against crimes caused on their networks without their knowledge, but only as long as they refrain from the very behavior you are postulating.

All you need is to run a new *ster/*tella variant on port 80. Then you're asking ISPs to create huge filter tables to please the RIAA. If you've any familiarity with the ISP business, you know that this is laughably impossible.

Fighting this is strategically like grinding your troops on the front to delay the inevitable. Metallica is grist for the credibility mill here, and the only people benefitting are the A&R people, janitors, and others employed in non-creative capacities by the record companies.. These are also the people with discretion over the money..

Granted, the AOL/Time Warner thing means that AOL will be very tempted to meddle with their filter rules and restrictions (particularly in its TOS).. This might even matter if Time Warner cable starts providing high-speed internet access over cable...


Your Working Boy,

Re:Wow. That was a fucking cool interview.

[otis wildflower]

Yeah, my friends' band is on there and they seem pretty happ with it (I was the one who encoded the MP3s on my UltraSPARC and uploaded them to the artist site).. They've been playing together for 6-7 years or so and are as good or better than STP or Rob 'Smooth' 's band IMHO ;)

There are ways...
Your Working Boy,

Re:My note to Metallica.com last night...

[otis wildflower]

what's to prevent passing along the (say) unique serial number on your CD

Good question! The easy answer is to make it the kernel of a proper registration system (requiring full name, real email address, maybe some optional demographic info) and make the added content/community valuable enough (such as an online chat 'rep') or smart enough (to only assign benefits once, so if you give your uid to someone else and they use the benefit you lose access to it: one shot deal kinda thing) to make you want to keep strict control over your userid. Another poster suggested including credit card info, which I think might help but it should be the basis of some 'expanded/Gold' services as not all purchasers are going to have a credit card or want to provide a CC# (or be big enough fans to care, even if it's 'free' like providing Shlockbuster with a CC# for rentals).

There will always be circumventions and cheats possible in any system, the key here is to reclaim as much value as possible by using new tools and systems, and to reduce the difficulty of staying legal to the point that only hardcore criminals and the terminally childish continue to break copyright.


Your Working Boy,

Why Napster?

[cyberassasin]

I was watching the MTV Napster/Metallica expose last night (Don't ask me why, I loathe MTV) and began doing some thinking. Seriously, what grounds are there for sueing Napster. IF anyone should be involved in litigation, should it not be the companies that provide software for the MPEG encoding or "ripping CD's"? Or not?

It seems like sueing the infrastructure for trading is like suing the library if someone copies pages of a book and distributes them. Who is responsible, Xerox for developing the technology to make photocopies, the library for providing the book, or the person who pushed the green button on the copier?

I guess it is the exposure of sueing the hottest name in MP3dom, but bringinf a lawsuit against that which facilitates exchange of information seems to be a bit ridiculous. Why have the encoding software companies been left unscathed? And no, I am not trying to ruin it for them, I am just curious why Napster is at the forefront of this, and we do not hear about the companies that make MP3's possible.

To my limited knowledge, Napster does not facilitate the creation of MP3's, just the ability to exchange files of this format.

IMHO, I think the whole thing is half baked. There is going to be a change.....and the first person to come up with the best compromise is going to be one wealthy individual.....

The Key

[Gray]

"We believe that as quickly as they can make it untraceable we believe that you can find a way to fuck with it, and we have already heard about different ways of doing that. "

Talk about unclear of the concept, or history so far.. This is how it works Lars, you spend years developing some sceme to stop pirates, 24 hours after release some northern european teenager cracks it and that's that, we win again.. We always win because we outnumber you a million to one. And since when did morality ever stop anyone from doing anything they can do alone and by themselves? :)

http://www.lowpass.net

Stardom Wisdom

[Gray]

> But I believe that if you have the energy and the resources to chase 'em -- and that's one thing we have is a lot of energy and a lot of
resources

Funny Lars, that's just was I was thinking about all things digital. If you have the energy and resources to chase 'em, you never pay for anything..

If I read correctly, you're taking on Napster in order to highlight the moral issues involved.

Perhaps copyrights and intellectual property are the moral issues that need some work (ie. demolition). They're a fairly recent creation of homosapient's. They've made the west very rich but there are a few billion people in the third world who would really question how much they've helped their lives.

IP laws are on their way out, the majority human race want it that way and it will come to revolution if it must. We're talking medicine for babies and jobs(whole industrial bases) for countries here, but MP3s gotta get gone too..
Even if you totally won all lawsuits and Napster was able to invent technology to get Metallica off their servers, it wouldn't slow down the big game..

I don't believe you're in it for the money, so why cost yourself all this cred? Shutup, spend that IM2 money and enjoy the ride.

www.lowpass.net

Mene, mene, tekel upharsin...

[alumshubby]

It's not all that lame-ass; it's actually a very apropos Biblical metaphor. Check out Daniel 5:24-28 -- the writing on the wall was "Thou art weighed in the balance and found wanting." Sorry 'bout that, Belshazzar.

It's a great little story about not getting too big for your britches (as we say in certain parts of the US).

Metaphors be with you.

Re:Definitely

[myconid]

Umm.. do you not understand what 'lossy compression' is? Take a 100mb jpg. Compress it 99% so you have like a 100k jpg. Do you SERIOUSLY think that you can take that blocky POS 100k jpg and recreate the 100mb jpg perfectly from that 100k copy? You cant.

The same holds true for mp3s. Even at 192+ kbps, your losing some data from the original cd.. You cant ever create an exact bit by bit copy of a cd from mp3.. not matter waht the bit rate.

I download to buy

[Malachi]

If at all possible I will sample music online through whatever means necessary to preview. I will always be a consumer, but one who is aware of what they are buying. I like having a finished product in my home. By having mp3s and sharing them I give bands money for friends that buy their music. Until someone can do a comprehensive study on record buying, music download, advert effects, then relax, cause your just fuckin too excited about YOUR shit.

Re:you are absolutely wrong

[DrumHacksaw]

1. Did Napster even try to protect copyright?
It's one thing to say they are a service provider, but it's clear that unlik regular ISP's, which in effect promote free discourse, Napster can only exist by promoting the copying of materials that are copyrighted about 99.9 percent of the time.

2. You can't run a business on a protocol. Napster had some business plan that would let them make money. Did they have a model to compensate the artists who works they were using to promote this business model? Apparently not.

Metallica's suit could be likened to restrictions on gun dealers: You may only sell assuming you promote correct usage. Sell guns to people who basicly say they are going after the president, and a case could be made that you are promoting assasination. If an ISP promoted use of their system to arrange for assassinations, you can be sure it would be shut down.

Fighting the wrong battle

[Mumble01]

I think Metallica is right to be outraged about piracy. Every other well-known artist should be too, because they don't get enough money for their music as it is and now for the first time there exists a method to make perfect copies of music and distribute it to millions of people in seconds. That far exceeds what people have been able to do for years with cassettes or digital methods like MiniDiscs that didn't have the installed base of users.

So what's my suggestion for musicians such as Metallica? Forget about MP3s. You've unfortunately lost that battle and you'll never be able to put that genie back into the bottle. Ever. As long as there is one person with a computer and MP3 encoding software the format will not only survive but thrive.

Instead, direct your energy and attention towards the recording industry. Join together with your peers and force them to quickly implement a service that allows people to purchase digital music on a pay-per-track basis and allows them to easily assemble their own custom CDs. And force the industry to keep the price reasonable, something like $.50-$.75 per track with a $2.00 burning and shipping charge for the music on a CD rather than digital versions that are limited to computer based players.

What will happen? Sure, the younger portion of the listening audience will continue downloading anything they can get their hands on for free and amass MP3 collections that would make the nearest music store seem quaint by comparison. I did the same thing when I was younger, had fewer morals and had nothing better to do.

But the rest of the market will want to follow their conscience and pay a reasonable charge per track. They buy CDs now and don't bother trying to tape them anymore. Like me, they want to reward musicians for their efforts by purchasing a song from one artist and another song from a different artist and fashioning collections that represent their own unique tastes. *BUT THERE IS NO WAY TO CURRENTLY DO THIS* Yes, some services exist but record companies are unwilling to make their more popular material available and that defeats the whole purpose of it. Greed seems to be the principal motivation there.

Re:My note to Metallica.com last night...

[hobbit]

Indeed.

you know, when somebody fucks with what we do, we go after them. You don't sit down and sort of try and sort of justify yourself, well, 'Maybe our time and energy would be better spent thinking about something a year or two from now.'

Well, Lars... why not? Must you react in a knee-jerk fashion, despite having realised that that is just what it is?

Hamish

Oh dear...

[Dagmar d'Surreal]

I think that after reading the replies from Lars very carefully that the stark reality of the situation is clear. Lars has killed WAY too many brain cells.

I almost feel sorry for the guy. Either he has an absolutley unbelieveable problem with expressing himself clearly, or he's spending most of his life in a daze now, barely aware of the events going on around him.

Very sad.

Re:Wow. That was a fucking cool interview.

[Jeff Monks]

One other thing to note here is that the statistic about how much Metallica music was traded is probably inflated, as well. I don't mean by the band; I mean that all this controversy and coverage and legal wrangling has brought a ton of publicity to Napster and Metallica, so it seems likely to me that during the 48-hour period they observed, the number of Metallica tracks changing hands is somewhat higher than it would have been had no fuss been made.

Granted, we're talking about a huge number of downloads either way, but I suspect that a graph of Metallica downloads via Napster over the last few months would show a pretty significant spike right around the times of all the major press coverage of the issue...

The damage is taking something you don't own.

[NaCh0]

The music is property. The band who made it decided that they would like to keep it property. Now we have people who don't want to respect the idea of property. That is the problem.

If you can't respect the choice of the band to keep their property distributed by their rules, then how can you insist that free licenses (GPL) apply to groups who want to take free and close it (Brett Glass, MS, et al.). I can understand your position on freely making copies since your real job has already once compensated you. I think you'd have a different position if your real job took all of your ideas, used them, declared your ideas as free and told you to get lost.

Re:How Does This Guy Make Any Money

[jmpvm]

Errr, he wasn't WRITING this. It was obviously a phone interview and that was the transcript. If you have ever heard him talk you'll know thats exactly how he speaks. I am sure if it had been WRITTEN from him it would look alot better, but probably taken alot longer to get.

Re:One major point...

[AArthur]

However if you decode a MP3 file and rencode it, the quality quickly decreases. This is actually a pretty common scenario -- many people download Mp3s, decode them to put a CD. Once they have been decoded, don't even bother to rencode them -- the quality is very crappy.

Obviously copying Mp3 file bit by bit, and not decoding it is a different story -- but you have been able to do this for years with CD-R drives and audio cds. But even that isn't true bit-to-bit, since many CD-R drives make a few mistakes everytime the burn a copy (so after a dozen or so copies the quality quickly decreases).

And Mp3's after being passed around for a while start to decrease in quality. Many Mp3s have skips, and jumps in them (caused by corruption in copying or downloading them).

So Mp3s don't copy as perfectly as you claim....

Todd Rundgren input?

[tsikora]

Nice article. It appears Lars is pretty much computer illiterate. (Great musician though!)Maybe an interview with Todd Rundgren? He uses the Net to put it mildly. Maybe he can offer his opinions and insight into mp3's, the music industry and his feelings on what Metallica is doing.

Re:Out of the mouths of drummers

[jshare]

That's my first point. My second point is that he basically puts his own foot in his mouth by trying to defend live concert bootlegging and home recording while attacking MP3 trading. He goes so far as to advocate duplication of unowned albums and then tries to cop out out of the contradiction by saying its a different issue because its done on a smaller scale than Napster. (I don't doubt that the root of that conundrum comes from Lars' having taped friends' records while never having downloaded an MP3 himself).

I guess I don't see how this is putting his foot in his mouth. It is a different issue. One is worth your time to pursue, one isn't.

It's not about whether trading (MP3s or bootlegs) is "morally right" or "morally wrong." I think it is pretty clear that they would be well within their rights if the also went after the bootleggers. They choose not to. That doesn't have anything to do with Napster. It's a different situation; they deal with it in a different manner.

I agree that it is the same issue involved. I think they have the same rights in either situation. But they aren't going after bootleggers. They are going after Napster. Bootleggers have nothing to do with their case against Napster.

When Lars answered the question about this topic, he was explaining why they chose to go after Napster and why they choose not to go after bootleggers. Yes, both are breaking the same laws. Yes, they could go after both of them. Nowhere does he say that he gives up his rights against bootleggers. He just doesn't enforce them.

I don't see where the conflict lies.

Jordan

Good faith effort at least

[Latrell Sprewell]

Sure, any method to block songs could be circumvented, but at least Napster would be making a good faith effort to exclude artists who object to being listed, like Metallica and Dr. Dre. That's would be far more than Napster Inc. is doing now.

Also, you've gotta figure that the majority of Metallica songs listed on Napster aren't there by fans who are actively offering Metallica songs. They're listed by default when Napster scoured their mp3 directory. If Metallica became an excluded keyword by the Napster programmers, the vast majority of these people are NOT going to resort to such renaming tactics just to have Metallica songs up for offer. These people aren't in the same mentality as IRC offer bots, after all.

From reading this Lars interview and listening to the rhetoric coming from the Dr. Dre camp, I believe that's all it would take to get the heat off Napster's back - just a good faith effort by Napster to block "Metallica" and "Dr Dre"

Re:How Does This Guy Make Any Money

[RichDice]

Come on, cut the guy some slack. It was a telephone interview; he didn't _write_ anything at all. Few people have the ability to speak in formal essay style on the fly in real time and at great length. After a certain point, even a sentence or two gets muffed.

Re:That's where you are mistaken...

[aphr0]

It's so close that for all practical purposes, it is cd quality.

how did they monitor napster?

[Thrakkerzog]

I'm wondering if they set up a machine on a high-bandwidth connection and put a bunch of metallica songs on it, and other artists. Then, they watch how many people download from them.

If this is how they did it, it would be quite biased! I can't see how they could get this sort of information without actually getting the information from the people who run the napster servers.


-- Thrakkerzog

Re:How did they monitor Napster?

[Nater]

No, it's peer to peer. As in, you connect to the server and ask it who has "x" and the server says where "x" can be had. Then your client connects to somebody else's client and gets "x".

They probably did one of a few things in order of probability:

1) They logged on as regular Napster users and searched for Metallica songs to see who's trading them.

2) They worked with Napster to actually dig through their online database of who's got what to see who's got Metallica songs.

3) They worked with Napster to watch searches to see who was searching for Metallica songs.

Working with Napster? I really REALLY doubt that. When you search for songs, you get a list back from the server of places you can get them. On the list is also the name of the user who's running each source. If I were NetPD, that's what I would have done.

Re:How did they monitor Napster?

[wulfe]

Who cares if he pulled the number out of his ass, can you really dispute his point that the vast majority of music downloaded from Napster is NOT from unsigned artists?

Wow, a very good reply

[astyanax]

It certainly sounds like Lars is at least trying to get as educated as possible to answer these questions. His point about there not being a middle ground in the music sharing scene is certainly a good one., and it made me think more about this whole issue. The book of the month club is probably not a good analogy when you think about it though, because you do sign up for the service, even if "8 books for a buck" is waved in your face, you see the terms and conditions right where you sign up. But overall a pretty good response.

Interviews with musicians.

[Lemmy Caution]

I remember reading a bit about the neurology of musicians: how, often, regions of the brain that are 'colonized' by the language and higher cognitive functions are, instead, recruited into the service of audition.

It went a long way to explaining why most interviews with musicians are borderline-incomprehensible fugues of inchoate rambling, false starts, and unformed thoughts. This is no exception. I was wincing throughout the whole article.

One of the few musicians whose interviews were always a wonder to behold and a joy to experience was Glenn Gould - who had his own, very prophetic perspectives on the relationship between music and technology.

In general, I've always gotten along swimmingly with composers, but I tend to get annoyed by musicians.

Re:Interviews with musicians.

[delmoi]

I remember reading a bit about the neurology of musicians: how, often, regions of the brain that are 'colonized' by the language and higher cognitive functions are, instead, recruited into the service of audition.

That has got to be the most idiotic thing I've ever heard in my life.

Re:Interviews with musicians.

[jazzkat7]

What about Sun Ra? I found his version of being born on Mars to be acticulated very clearly..

Re:Interviews with musicians.

[Lemmy Caution]

And yet it's true. I will refer you to the data when I am back at home, and have access to my library.

Re:Interviews with musicians.

[Lemmy Caution]

And it should be noted that 1. there's a lot of neural mass which is devoted to specific brain function, but also a good amount of it - particularly in the cortex - which doesn't have "innate" use, but forms connections with more functionally specified brain regions as needed - when young, they are committed into the service of different functions. That this relies on the plasticity of young brains is born out by the fact that it is much easier to teach a language or an instrument to a child than to an adult; 2. to be specific, this study, using fMRI, focused on musicians with perfect pitch, which admittedly is a specialized subset of musicians. I don't know whether Lars has perfect pitch or not. I don't know whether he was trained as a musician in his childhood or not. (I do have some evidence, however, that he's a bit incoherent.)

Before you dismiss this sort of thing out of hand, you may want to learn a bit more about brain mapping.

Re:Interviews with musicians.

[AugstWest]

Sun Ra is an exception to just about any rule.

If you spend about 12 hours a day communicating non-verbally, eventually your thought processes tend to lean that way.

Much like those of us who keep throwing tech garble into sentences, or trying to figure out how to express a smiley in real life...

You just smile.

record industry wants royalties for CD-ROM in Eur.

[Lazy Jones]

Here in Europe, the record industry and their associated bloodsucking associations get royalties from sales of CD recordables and recently they've sued Hewlett-Packard to force royalties on CD recorders as well. Also, they're demanding royalties for mp3 players, but downloading mp3's is still illegal. The consumer has to pay, but has no rights to what he paid for.

None of this matters.

[ShaKti]

I'm so sick of this whole debate. The reality is that no lawyer, artist or record company will stop what is happening. To use a lame ass metal lyric that I'm sure Metallica has used at some point:

THE WRITING IS ON THE WALL

It's over. We will personally see to that and it truly is unstoppable. No matter what anyone comes up with, it will be circumvented.

If Lars thinks that he, or anyone that he is able to make use of, can move at our speed..he's sadly mistaken.

This being the case, let's get on to topics that are important..

Population growth..
Human Rights...
Civil liberties...

This debate is over.

Re:Wow. That was a fucking cool interview.

[Phexro]

there were a few good points in there. but i still feel that metallica is wrong to sue napster. napster isn't pirating metallica's music. and i don't think it's right that metallica is laying responsibility for the actions of their own fans at napster's feet.

napster gives music fans a freedom they didn't have before. it's not their fault if that freedom gets abused. think of the second amendment; do we curse the writers of the constitution and the government whenever a person is killed with a gun? no. we punish the _individual_ who commited a _crime_. not the person/people/company who gave that person the freedom/ability to commit the crime. i don't see how this is any different with music. if you pirate music, the legal consequences are _your_ responsibility.

even though i can feel for the band's position - the bit about the book club, though muddled, did have merit - i'm still glad to see 30,000+ people who got kicked off napster fight back.

anyways, enough rambling. back to work.

--

Re:Wow. That was a fucking cool interview.

[Phexro]

well, i think my example still holds water. the fact that gun manufacturers are being sued for crimes committed with their product is just as wrong as napster being sued. and in any case, the gun manufacturers aren't the ones who gave u.s. citizens the right to bear arms. the people who wrote and passed the second amendment are.

my point was that napster is a liberator. the founding fathers of the usa were liberators. they were both seen as criminals by the powers of the day, though all they wanted to do was give people more freedom. it's just that that freedom conflicts with the beliefs of the powers that be.

of course, napster is also in it for the money. so it's not a perfect example, but i'm sure you understand.

--

Wow.

[H20]

Throughout the interview I was stunned time and time again by Lars utter inability to articulate any points in a more than infantile manner. I mean it's ridiculous, he's started a witch hunt to capture those 'fuckers' 'fucking' with his 'fucking music', and shit -- so to speak. He demonstrated a profoundly deep ignorance toward the technology he is seeking to combat and responded to the question of Gnutella and emerging technologies as future targets because the companies will mature and then somehow grow into an entity capable of being sued. Funny since in the question and _everything_ describing Gnutella makes it clear that there is NO centralization. The guy is an utter moron.

how soon we forget?

[banky]

The only way you you will become successful is by having a publicity and promotion campaign behind you that elevates what you're doing above what your competition is doing. funny, as a longtime metallica fan, I thought it was cause you guys played your asses off, wrote kickass songs, and worked harder than anyone else.

Re:Wow. That was a fucking cool interview.

[GoRK]

I have tried, and failed miserably, to find music from small (unsigned) bands that I have heard and like on Napster because either they haven't released an album or nobody distributes the albums. It's actually nearly impossible to find anything like this on Napster without being very specific.

Re:Two points: transcript and monitoring Napster

[GoRK]

Not if they monitor their own computer for file accesses and sniff their own network rather than watching napster directly.

Comparing TVs and music

[ToastyKen]

I'm not saying music-copying is right.. I just want to point out a major difference between stealing a TV and copying music.

In the TV case, the store is out of a TV. They've very definitively lost whatever money they paid for the TV, and probably lost whatever profit they could have made on it, assuming they would eventually have sold it.

In the music case, the artists have lost only a POTENTIAL sale. They have not lost any cost, only potential profit. And is every copy a lost potential sale? Of course not. Not any more than every copy of, say, Photoshop is a lost potential sale. Fact is, when people copy software or music, they copy a lot more than they otherwise would buy. They copy a lot of singles and a lot of expensive software and such that they never would have bought in the first place.

Of course, they also copy a lot of music that they WOULD have bought, but even then, they often do buy the album anyway, if it's good. There is definitely a lot of added value to a physical album that is missing with copies. In Lars's example where a band is selling 600 copies, and now 550 people have copied copies, I'd say that they band will probably sell MORE than 50 copies because more people are exposed to their music, and there will be people who want to buy their album anyway. Will a full 600 buy their album? Perhaps; perhaps not.

I guess my point is just that comparisons with stealing TVs, or mentioning that every copy is a lost sale, is misleading and untrue.

Re:Journalistic ethics

[cowmix]

One thing that bugged me is that there were a ton of mis-spellings in the interview. These mistakes look Metallica look bad when it is not their fault.

Lars, here's some clues for ya...

[Duckie01]

Now, are we aware of the Gnutellas the minute some of these companies become active, we believe that there will be a way to after them.

Gnutella isn't made by a company. It's free software, made by a couple dozen volunteers around the world. It's not even made to specifically share mp3's. Who are you gonna sue? The users?

comparing that kind of home taping to basically going on the Internet and getting 1st generation, perfect digital copies of master recordings from all the world, is just not a fair comparison.

You don't realize though, that at the time the home taping was an issue, there was no better quality. If you record a good 'ole black disc to tape, it's exactly the same quality. Mp3 on the other hand, is worse than the original CD. If you decode it and burn it on a CD, it gets even worse. So you can use it only when sitting behing your computer... What's the difference with you listening to songs you don't own in the car again?
Only the quantity... so let's keep it at that.

I think I first heard the word Napster probably in December or January, A lot of the people who advise me are very Internet savvy.

I really think you should get yourself some new advisors. Napster's been around faaar longer than that. Its popularity has increased tremendously in the last few month though. I wonder what got them all the media attention. Duh.

We don't want these 3rd party services like Napster taken for granted, taken for granted that we want to be part of their system.

That should indeed be your right. I mean, compare it to software. Most programmers, open source programmers included, stick some sort of license on our software. Suppose some company includes someone's GPL'd code into a propietary product, that wouldn't make us very happy either.

but I know we're also quite smart.

Yet you talk like you're on crack half the time. I'm serious. Hopping topics, a lot of sentences don't make any sense. Aren't drugs illegal overthere?

Re:Help!

[Bernal KC]

The key question is how can the internet help emerging artists garner publicity and promote their work.

The answer is definitely not Napster. Napster reilies almost exclusively on the user having prior knowledge of the work and seeking it out by artist or song title. The result is that the Napster community ends up a hostage to record company, and radio industry, promotions. Lars sees this as an ongoing role for the record company. I don't see that as being the best answer for artists.

For me, the real breakdown in the music industry lies in the complete commerical corruption and industrialization of radio. Radio today sucks. Completely homogenized pop crap. All choices are the same. Non-mainstream formats and styles are completely out in the cold. Complete loss of control by artists to the industrial pursuit of profit. There is no art, no alternative visions, no creativity in radio programming. Just ads and marketing. Music is not a creative work. It's just a product, a vehicle for selling ads.

In this view the answer lies in creation of a viable, low entry barrior, popular internet radio. It is almost there. But it is not sufficiently differentiated from broadcast radio to effectively complete with and displace FM radio.

A Napster-like trading community could also work on a fee basis. But without some vehicle for promotions, web based music is incomplete and remains hostage to the apparatus that is dominated and corrupted by the record companies.

Ani

[Shadarr]

Most of the people I know who listen to Ani DiFranco are 20-something hippie feminists. Whether they actually like the music is hard to determine, but I suspect they just like the dogma she's preaching. I listen to a wide variety of music, and while I won't say she's the worst musician I've heard she's certainly down there. The funny thing is that her last album didn't suck quite so bad and her longtime fans accused her of selling out. Hee hee.

Re: Intellectual 'Property'

[Omnifarious]

I largely agree with you. The whole idea of intellectual 'property' needs to be rethought. Copyrights and patents are not natural rights. It behooves our society to encourage people to create works of art and useful inventions, but I think copyrights and patents are no longer very helpful in serving this purpose. This is something I've thought about at great length. The conclusion has not been reached lightly.

Here's an excellent article on this: The Libertarian Case Against Intellectual Property Rights

Re: The current system must be destroyed

[Omnifarious]

I don't think anyone has the answer to this question yet. I would like to see the current system dismantled, and wait to see what conventions people come up with, and then build a structure of law to support that.

I think the current system needs to be destroyed because otherwise the unimaginative will continue to doggedly cling to it and cause a lot of problems. :-)

technically feasable?

[elmegil]

Someone needs to point out to Lars that there is NOT any good way for Napster to guarantee that Metallica is not being traded on their servers. It's like the old Pink Floyd bootlegs which were by "the screaming abdabs". All the community has to do if they can't trade tracks with names or artist names of "Metallica" or any Metallica title, is come up with a way to encode the names. If they do checksums on the digital data, all you have to do is edit the data little and you still pretty much have the same song with a different signature. Etc. Relatively trivial measures to evade. Unless Lars' is a lot smarter than most of the folks here, I don't think he can think of a system that would guarantee no one could trade Metallica MP3's through Napster. Beyond that, Lars' contention that Napster is the provider of the data is flat wrong. Napster is the provider of storage. Users of the service upload to it, and users of the service download from it. Napster didn't say "Hey, let's put Metallica on our servers." Users are the pirates if they download music they don't own. I wonder how many of the 300,000 users actually own some if not all of the MP3's they downloaded from Napster? Wouldn't that make Metallica look like an idiot if a few of them came forward and proved that they had legal right to be listening to the music.

Re:Wow. That was a fucking cool interview.

[Lx]

(raises hand)
I use napster for things that I can't get otherwise. I'd rather have something on CD, where I don't have to spend hours finding a full album encoded at a decent rate, without the songs cut off. What I use it for is to get rare tracks, things off of albums that are out of print, live tracks, and singles off of compilations that have no other artists I'm interested in, and wouldn't spend the money just to get the one song.

-lx

Re:Napster == worse quality than tape

[earthman]

> With napster, the tail of the music is always cut off.

That bug was fixed ages ago

Internet media and short-cutting publishers

[Submarine]

A first note: Lars Ulrich has well expressed the fact that Metallica is a for-profit band that works inside the system. So much for youthful rebellion! But at least he's honest with it (plus, they have made some pretty decent music).

Now we are again at the starting point: how to reward authors of "virtual goods" (music, source code, novels...) that can be copied ad infinitum without loss of quality and at little marginal cost?

Lars Ulrich is very right at comparing a record company with a bank. It is even more than a bank: it is essentially a company that takes care of all the industrial aspects of music for the masses (to the point, sometimes, of swindling the artists themselves...). They sure lose a lot of money of artists that never succeed, or on artists whose second record is a total failure. On the other hand, they make a decent profit.

The idea of short-cutting intermediaries is not new. The trend in retail has been to reduce intermediary overhead: instead of small shops buying from wholesale retailers buying from producers, we have supermarket chains directly buying from the producers. It is therefore a tempting idea to short-cut the music publishers.

One other advantage, apart from making products cheaper, of using Internet servers to deliver music, is the alleged jump-start it gives to small bands. Alas, as Lars contends, this is bogus to a large extent: people look for well-known stuff.

The same goes for novel etc... publishing. While it's tempting to remove publishers out of the game, so that even unknown authors can get published, the common behaviour on the Net seems to be only looking for famour stuff. This can hardly be helped: for one interesting novel, how many semiliterate ramblings, boring short stories and ersatz sci-fi novels?

So, at least in the near future, it does not seem that the Net can make the life of small bands or authors much better. Even more annoying, there remains the question of how to fund the content producers.

Some people contend that artists could live on money raised in gigs. I do not know the economics of a band such as Metallica, but I bet that gig tours are not that interesting financially (some tours of famous bands have actually lost money). Furthermore, not every artist can afford to spend most of his life on the road (yes, they can have a life, children etc...).

So in the end, a question: how to fund artists if people download their songs? What about micropayments?

Re:Internet media and short-cutting publishers

[Buttercup]

In other words, the recording industry made money in exactly the way everyone else in a free market makes money: by exploiting a scarcity. They took advantage of the scarcity of recorded media and built a massive business around it.

The scarcity is coming to an end, and so is the business model of the recording industry. The question for defenders of the Napster lawsuits is: what makes you think that we should give the recording industry special treatment so that it can sustain its business model?

The copyright laws are explicitly designed to create an artificial scarcity. The justification for this legislation is that it specially motivates artists to create music. I think that the burden of proof is upon those who demand special treatment; do we have a shortage of musicians?

MJP

Re:Internet media and short-cutting publishers

[Lathi-]

The same goes for novel etc... publishing. While it's tempting to remove publishers out of the game, so that even unknown authors can get published, the common behaviour on the Net seems to be only looking for famour stuff. This can hardly be helped: for one interesting novel, how many semiliterate ramblings, boring short stories and ersatz sci-fi novels?

I disagree. When it comes to art, I am always looking for something new. Maybe when I was in high school or even college I was stuck on a few particular bands or authors. However, as I get older I am always looking for something new. It's also hard to experiment at $16 a pop for music or $7 a pop for a paperback! Besides that, I have read more junk published by a corporation than I have published by an individual on the net. The hard part in the virtual world and the real world is how to find quality work. That's mainly because quality artists are fairly rare (compared to the population as a whole). What I think something like Napster can provide (note that I have never used it) is some way for people to recommend other artists. I really liked that about Amazon.com. When you found a book you liked, you could see what other books were bought at the same time by other patrons. Basically, it takes the idea of "if you like this, then you may like these also" to the logical extreme of the internet. -- "It's too late for paradise"

Re:Internet media and short-cutting publishers

[Jamie Zawinski]

So, at least in the near future, it does not seem that the Net can make the life of small bands or authors much better. Even more annoying, there remains the question of how to fund the content producers.

Some people contend that artists could live on money raised in gigs. I do not know the economics of a band such as Metallica, but I bet that gig tours are not that interesting financially (some tours of famous bands have actually lost money). Furthermore, not every artist can afford to spend most of his life on the road (yes, they can have a life, children etc...).

I think a very interesting point that a lot of people are overlooking here is, who says the music industry has some innate right to exist? Who says that it has to be possible to become a millionaire by playing in a rock band?

Evolution and natural selection don't cause individual organisms to adapt to their environment. The primary tool of evolution is extinction.

Industries arise, thrive, and eventually die. Some of them take thousands of years, some far less long.

The music industry as we know it has existed for just about sixty years. Sixty years!

What happened before that? Did we not have music before that? Of course we did. We just didn't have millionaire musicians. We had millionaires, of course, but they did that in other ways.

This is how the free market works. Sometimes, in a profitable industry, the bottom drops out, and you can no longer make money doing it. (Try making money selling web browsers today, for example. Or gas lamps.) The people who are in that dying industry will fight as hard as they can to stave off the inevitable, because it's in their best interest to do so. But that doesn't mean that they have some fundamental right to the continuance of the status quo. Just because it has been that way doesn't mean it will always be that way, or that it's somehow a natural right for it to have ever been that way.

That said, I think this was a great interview, and I'm really glad Lars agreed to it. I understand their point of view a lot better now.

(However, Slashdot folks -- SPELL CHECK! It would have caught the zillion typos you made when transcribing Lars's words.)

Re:Long winded webby awards

[Lord Kano]

If you were paying attention you'd have seen that it was directed towards both Lars AND Katz.

LK

Who writes Metallica lyrics?

[jabber]

Can't be Lars... I mean, ug, grrrr (oh shit!) I mean...

"And it comes to be that the soothing light at the end of your tunnel is just a freight train coming your way" can NOT be a product of Lars. The sentence alone is too long, nevermind the imagery and ironic payload. Is Metallica the heavy-metal version of Milli Vanilli or what?

Re:Who writes Metallica lyrics?

[lpontiac]

James Hetfield writes the lyrics, not Lars. Kinda makes sense, since the former is the vocalist and Lars isn't even a native English speaker IIRC.

why i download mp3's

[chaos4u]

after reading lars comments i understand where he is coming from ...

he and the band dose not want there work distrubuted freely on the net like it is ... i understand that and will not download any metallica music .

but my entire reason for using mp3's is because i can not find a damn thing in the record stores !!

i go and look for a certain artist / song in the record store and after searching a hour or more what do i come up with ?? nothing but wasted time
i can not find specific music at any record store unless it is on the billboard charts .

so i go to the internet and surf for a bit and bam im finding music that i like and specific bands and songs ...

so what am i to do ... change my intrests to the billboards charts and chase down every brittney spears release till her music dies and jump on to the next band wagon ??



music the paint
dancefloor the canvas

Re:The point everyone seems to be missing

[chaos4u]

actually you hit the nail on the head ...

that is exactly how the record/movie/videogame/insert industry here
wants it .

as a consumer you have no rights to the media purchased except those granted to you via the liscense .

1. you have the right to enjoy this media on the orginal only you do not have the right to any duplications of this original .

2. you have the right to enjoy this media on equipment owned by you and enjoyed soley by you. you are not permitted to share this media with others unless they have also purchased a copy of the said media and have in there posseion at that time.

3. we have the right revoke any and all rights that are applied to this media with out warning or notice.

this would make the industry very happy .



music the paint
dancefloor the canvas

Re:Lars makes some good points ... and misses a fe

[Dark Fire]

Isn't anything that is available electronically being devalued by the ease of duplication? The reason for purchasing an item is because (You cannot produce the item yourself (lack of skill to produce the item, higher cost to produce it yourself, too much time to produce it yourself (or saves you the time). There seem to be to parts to an item, the blueprint that tells how to make the item and the finished item. A car company keeps the blueprints for its vehicles secretive. Another car company could reverse engineer the design or steal the plans, but legal action can be taken because the other car company is known to be the guilty party. A single entity. A record company records a master for an artist. They then distribute it on cd. Efficiently duplicating the item and with good quality was difficult and expensive. Such as a taped recording of a cd or record for use in a car. People become able to burn their own cds, so efficient copying is now possible but still pretty expensive and somewhat technical in nature for less than savy computer users. Now comes mp3s. Ripping a file off a cdrom becomes easy, but still may be beyond a lot of computer users capabilities in terms of understanding. But copying a file that someone else made and makes freely available, that is easy. The previous model for making money off recordings ceases to work because value has been taken away from the model itself. Duplication is easy. Unlike a car, in the case of music, the blueprints and finished item are one and the same. So what do you do? When this type of devaluing has occurred, historically, legal approaches have failed. They only incite anger and uprising. Trying to restrict technology also fails (e.g. DIVX). I would say the best approach would be for record companies to merge with internet portals. If you want to get attention, the internet is becoming the place to be. If I were an artist, I would say focus on laws/agreements that permit you to track the amount of attention your music is getting (number of downloads, page visits, etc.). Make deals with one of the portal companies to record/distribute or just distribute your music exclusively on first distribution. By first distribution I mean the first time your music is made available electronically. A lot of people would love to send money to an artist whose song they have in there possession in mp3 format. There is no method for doing so currently. People want some way of doing that that is as easy as downloading the file. The portal could provide that service to the artist and take a cut (let the user know what % though!!!). Also, people would like to know that what they are downloading is the real thing. That is something that will draw people to the portal--to know that the music they are getting is authentic. There are so many possibilities with the internet--I cannot come up with it all on my own. But one thing is for certain, any item that is distributable electronically loses a lot of its value, value must be preserved, but it won't be preserved with legal proceedings and technological restrictions. Historically they have failed and will continue to fail. Those who do not understand the business end will lose--Lars said that. What if the business end doesn't understand the business end and the artist depends on them? I agree with Lars that napster-like portals shouldn't profit at the artists expense. They are using value that they didn't create. However, when you try to apply that to consumers using value that they didn't create, that model fails because consumers are the f(0)=0, f(1)=1 in the fibonnaci sequence. Laws and technology restrictions work for Fn = Fn-1 + Fn-2 companies in the world, but the consumer is a special case that makes the whole thing work. The same rules cannot be applied and be expected to work.

Re:Either/Or

[fprefect]

It was transcribed from a phone conversation.

They allow bootlegs

[fprefect]

He had stated that the band encourages bootlegs of live performances, etc. He just doesn't want some 3rd party coming in and making a profit by trafficking millions of copies without his permission.

Quality and scale.

Re:They allow bootlegs

[Darby]

So does that mean I can rip all the copyright and registration info out of Maelstrom and distribute it as long as I replace the color sprites with grey-scale and downgrade the sound files?
---CONFLICT!!---

Losing Money??

[Julius X]

Although I'd agree this was a good interview. Lars has some excellent points, but there's still some BIG things that he's missing.

He points out several times that one of his biggest concerns(although he says this isn't about money) is that they're losing record sales to Napster(etc). I simply cannot believe this(especially in lieu of the recent article that the RIAA lost -$19bill(mill?) since Napster-like services have risen.

That means they MADE MORE money, folks! That's right, since Napster & MP3 have come about, people are buying MORE albums then they used to. I can personally vouch for this(Listen to this Lars if you're reading this), because before MP3s I had never listened to a Metallica song, ever. But since I found them on the internet, I have bought three of their albums, and many other albums from other artists that I would never have known about without Napster or Mp3.

You say that you're worried about the quantity & the quality of the bootlegging that is going on in Napster, but it really isn't the case. You should realise that this is probably helping you more than anything else. (AND BTW killing 300,000 names from Napster did absolutely nothing, it's just as easy to find someone there with a Metallica song as it was two months ago).



-Julius X

Would it be possible...

[eh]

... to post an audio copy of the interview in MP3 format for all of us to listen to? I know this'll get bumped down for flamebait...

He's Still Confused

[Nater]

My mind is changed. This man and his band obviously have a lot of obstacles in front of them and it's unfortunate that companies like Napster have put those obstacles in place, because the rights to those songs do belong to the band.

However, he consistently refers to songs as being "on the service" and uses an analogy to book-of-the-month clubs. I think he's still confused about where these songs are coming from. If I read him correctly(1), I think he believes that Napster, Inc. collects songs and houses them and makes them available to Napster users. If this were the case, then his comments about Napster representatives' smirks and (ha ha ha)s are totally justified. Unfortunately, though his intentions and points are all perfectly valid, the misunderstanding about the origin of the songs on Napster is leading him into the wrong battle. It is the Napster users who put songs on Napster, not Napster, Inc. and Napster, Inc. is under no legal obligation to account for or correct the actions of its users. I respect Lars's and Metallica's choice not to participate in Napster, but he and Metallica must also respect Napster's choice not to get involved in the legality of it's users' actions.

On the other hand, does Napster have a moral obligation to defend Metallica's copyright? Napster knows that infringement is going on (how can they not?), and has been asked to make a simple modification to their servers, that is, don't allow Metallica's songs to appear in search results. Refusing to make this change is perfectly within their legal right, but morally it is a big "fuck you" to Metallica or anyone else who has a vested interest in the songs users put on Napster and Lars is justified in his anger. Legally, however, there is no basis on which to attack Napster.

As for other technology like Gnutella (I'm not personally familiar with Freenet), Lars is still justified in being upset. His comment about waiting for the companies involved to solidify and then sue them just like Napster is very uninformed. There is no company at the heart of Gnutella and if there was, the operation of Gnutella net would not depend on its continuing existence. Metallica will still need to find and defend itself against individuals, just as it should in the Napster case.

(1) Please, if anyone reads him differently, or (Lars:) if you read this, please clarify how you understand the operations of Napster.

Metallica's Tour Schedule: protest time?

[bee]

Here's Metallica's touring schedule-- maybe if they started seeing former fans of theirs protesting in favor of Napster at every tour stop, they'd perhaps start to Understand.

What would also be good is letting the other bands that are touring with Metallica know that you will not be seeing their show because they are with Metallica and that you support Napster.

EMP METALLICA, DR DRE,SNOOP DOG,RHCP,KID ROCK,FILTER
Fri 06/23/00 6:00PM
SEATTLE MEMORIAL STADIUM
SEATTLE WA

METALLICA-KORN-KID ROCK-POWERMAN 5000
Fri 06/30/00 4:00PM
FOXBORO STADIUM
FOXBORO MA

METALLICA
Sat 07/01/00 4:00PM
ROCKINGHAM DRAGWAY
ROCKINGHAM NC

METALLICA * KORN * KID ROCK
Mon 07/03/00 4:00PM
GATEWAY INTERNATIONAL RACEWAY
ST LOUIS MO

METALLICA
Tue 07/04/00 4:00PM
PSINET STADIUM
BALTIMORE MD

METALLICA
Fri 07/07/00 4:00PM
GEORGIA DOME
ATLANTA GA

METALLICA
Sat 07/08/00 4:00PM
KENTUCKY SPEEDWAY
SPARTA KY

METALLICA
Sun 07/09/00 4:00PM
TEXAS STADIUM
IRVING TX

METALLICA
Wed 07/12/00 4:00PM
MILE HIGH STADIUM
DENVER CO

METALLICA
Fri 07/14/00 4:00PM
3COM PARK
SAN FRANCISCO CA

METALLICA
Sat 07/15/00 4:00PM
LA COLISEUM
LOS ANGELES CA

METALLICA, KORN & KID ROCK
Sun 07/16/00 4:00PM
SCHNEPF FARMS
QUEEN CREEK AZ

Re:Metallica's Tour Schedule: protest time?

[rimez]

All it's going to do is get your ass beaten down by a bunch of redneck drunks. Have fun.

Re:Metallica's Tour Schedule: protest time?

[mtrupe]

Face it, a few nerd protesting Metallica isn't going to do crap. They sell out every show, and they will continue to sell out every show with our without a bunch of Slashdot brats there.

Re:Metallica's Tour Schedule: protest time?

[t0m f00l]

Heh heh. It's even more funny because it's not even hyperbole.

Some Questions we'd like Answers to

[Minix]

Q: isn't there something fundamentally wrong with middle aged men wearing hair extensions?

Q: How many chords does metallica know, or know of?

Q: When i was in high school 90% of your fans were neanderthal gay bashing rednecks. Oh wait, that's not a question, is it?

Q: if the number of people pirating your music is greater than the number buying it, what does that tell you?

Q: have you considered trademarking the `metallica standard' of usability? ``So easy to use even metallica gets it.''

The point everyone seems to be missing

[WorLord]

I'll make this as quick as I can... the only reason I'm posting it is because I don't see it posted anywhere else, and I feel that the following point is very, VERY important to this issue. Although it deviates from the whole copying issue a bit, that point is simply this:

Metallica, once you release your music to the public - no matter HOW you do it - you NO LONGER HAVE FULL OWNERSHIP OF IT.

Flame away, gawk and gape all you want at that sentence, but it's undeniably true. Sure, Metallica owns the MASTER copy, and should have full say in what happens to that master, and how it gets printed or who those copies get sold to... but once the first copy gets sold, Metallica has *absolutely no ownership rights* of the sold copies.

Let me explain. I have, in front of me as I type, a stack of CD's. I paid for each and every one of them, legally, at a record store. They are MINE, and I can do with them as I wish, and I can play them as many times as I wish on whatever equipment I wish. I didn't pay to rent playtime, I paid to own a copy of the music. Neither the band, nor Lars, has any say in what I do with it. And all the existing laws support me in this. If anyone takes my Metallica CDs from me, it is called "stealing..." but Lars isn't able to press charges on the thief, only I can, because those copies didn't belong to him. If someone destroys them, I can sue for destruction of my property.., but Metallica can't, because those copies didn't belong to them. Ad infinitum.

But if we take Metallica/Lars's arguments to their logical end, then none of the above is true. According to how I understood what Lars has written above, he thinks that the music he's released on Vinyl/CD/Tape/MP3 is still HIS. If that's true, then the following scenarios are also true... and they demonstrate how ridiculous Lars's point of view is.

+ If I buy a Metallica CD, and I decide to destroy it, Lars has the right to come down on me because I did something with his intellectual property that he didn't approve of.

+ If I buy a Metallica CD at a bargin bin for two dollars, Lars could (probably) come down on either myself or the record store for selling his property at a price he doesn't approve of.

+ I could no longer give my disc (that I didn't really like) to a friend who may like it, because I'm giving away his property for free.

To be fair, I fully agree with the idea that an artist does have the right not to be forged, plagiarized, or stolen from. I do agree with the idea that an artist should be held responsible for the creation of his/her works, and no one should be able to take that accountability (and whatever profit comes of it) away from said artist. And the legal models set up to this end, as they are currently, may no longer be sufficient to protect said rights, because we're on a cusp between two worlds. Before, owning music meant you had to own a had-written copy of the musical ledgers. The material was tied to the physical matter, and there was really no way around this.

And we all know that this model no longer applies to the present day... but the model that Lars is proposing - that the music is his, even after he's released it to the public (by whatever means) - is even more flawed. It's simply not true, healthy, fair, or even possible. (And it's virtually impossible to police, to boot). Until this fact is realized, Metallica will continue to make enemies of their own fans and fools of themselves in the public eye, even though their reasons for the actions they've taken may be completely justified.

May the One shine in us all, even if the Industry really needs to sit down, sharpen it's pencils, and re-think the way it works.

--WorLord

Re:Wow. That was a fucking cool interview.

[yobtah]

Maybe... but I think they're also pissed because they might make less money. Lars talked about "western capitalism." Metallica is definitely capitalistic first. Their main concern is making less money.

Now wait a minute.

[viper21]

In the question where Lars is talkign about a guy taping his vinyl for the guy down the street, he mentions the fact there are now master-perfect digital recordings on the internet.

Does he know how not true that is? A 3 minute Mp3 is only around 3-4 megs for good reason, a lot of the data contained in the song is done away with. The MP3 compressor takes the 100 meg WAV file (which would be closer to master quality...) and removes all the sounds that the human ear can't hear... etc, etc, and compresses it. It's like saving a high quality tiff image as a jpeg. Somethere in there you lose information due to compression and dithering.

Lars is wrong on that one.

If I could find people trading album .wav's instead of mp3's, I'd be a happy man... but for now I'm still buying the cd's that I like.

-S

Scott Ruttencutter

One unsigned?

[Anonymous Freak]

I know others have said this, but....

...when we monitored Napster for 48 hours three weekends ago, we came up with the 1.4 million downloads of Metallica music, there was one, one downloading -- one! of an unsigned artist the whole time.

On the weekend that they monitored, I (not knowing I was 'being monitored') downloaded two songs by the unsigned garage band Electric Gypsy. I know for a fact that they are unsigned, because I was chatting with a band member on Napster's chat room. So, they missed at least one download that weekend. Also, I was sharing at least three Metallica songs at the time, and wasn't banned. Of course, I have since deleted all Metallica songs from my hard drive, and have destroyed all of my Metallica CD's, tapes, and records; along with sending each band member a letter expressing my disapproval of their actions.

The letter I sent Lars...

[Anonymous Freak]

Right after Metallica presented Napster with those 300,000 names, I wrote the following letter, and sent a copy to each band member:

I have been a long-time fan of your band. I was listening to your music when the most prominent way of getting to know your music was through a method known as "tape trading." I have seen many statements directly from you and other members of your band commenting on this practice, and in all, you promoted this practice.

It has come to my attention that you have recently filed a lawsuit against Napster, Inc. to force them to revoke the memberships of approximately 330,000 users for violation of your copyright. I am a large proponent of free speech, and of freedom in general. While I have only used the 'Napster' program once, and did not find it particularly useful; I have found that the use of Napster is more akin to tape trading than that of pirating. From my 'chatting' with other Napster users, combined with public comments and interviews of Napster users; most of them appear to be in their late teens and/or early twenties. Most do not have a lot of money (many are college students.) Back when you first started, this was your primary audience; and that audience participated in tape trading.

I have become thoroughly disgusted with your handling of this matter, and am writing to tell you that you have lost (what was) a loyal fan. I own all of your albums, plus I have a few concerts from early in your career that I acquired through tape trading. In trying to decide what to do to protest your actions, I considered making every single album of yours I have available on Napster. But, I would rather that demand for your work go DOWN. I am now going to destroy all of your albums I own, and will be active in spreading the word about your despicable acts.

You are only hurting your fans by your actions. If this was "only on the advice of your lawyers," I highly suggest getting a lawyer that cares less about money, and more about what is right.

I included in each envelope a piece of one of their CDs, broken. (The broken vinyl record of 'Kill 'Em All' in Lars')

If you are also maddened by what they have done, I encourage you to write a similar letter. You can mail them at:

Band member name - Metallica
C/O Elektra Entertainment Group
345 North Maple Drive, Suite 123
Beverly Hills, CA 90210

Or through their agency:

Band member name - Metallica
C/O Q-Prime, Inc.
729 7th Ave, 16th Floor
New York, NY 10019

Re:Wow. That was a fucking dumb interview.

[demi]

Well, I don't think the interview was dumb. It's unfortunate that Lars didn't answer the questions in writing, frankly, because a transcript of a phone conversation does sound pretty stupid, although I also think that helped convince people that Metallica, not the record label, was behind the lawsuit.

But Lars really doesn't get it--he says his beef is not with fans or individual napster users; but it is! He doesn't understand peer-to-peer file sharing--he thinks people are downloading pirated Metallica mp3s from napster.com. He thinks the same kind of central "company" organization is happening with Gnutella and so forth.

His beef isn't with Napster any more than with ISPs or the phone company, all three of which provide the medium for exchanging musing, it's with the end users themselves. And that's ugly, although I think it's within Metallica's right.

Re:Wow. That was a fucking dumb interview.

[Tardigrade]

"Sure, Napster trading isn't causing our income to go down, but it's the principle of the thing -- unless the trading is on a smaller scale, like the guy down the street with the Iron Maiden record; that's a different principle I guess."

That was only part of his beef. The other was that Napster was potentially profiting from this. The bootleggers of old generally were not. You have to look at his argument in it's entirety.

At the very least, they are being non-hypocritical by *not* going after the individual mp3-traders (ie. the bootleggers in your example), but after the Napster corporation.

Re:The most important thing he said:

[Tardigrade]

Meta-moderation is useful for something, without it I wouldn't have seen your post.

Are Metallica CD's "information" in the respect that you place on it? Is access to *all* information a right? If so, I'd have the right to know the most intimate details of your life.

There is also the distinction to be made of whether access to information *over the net* is a right. You do have access to all of Metallica's songs off of the net. Just go to a music store and use their listening station. That's free access. Are you guaranteed the right to any information you wish, through any channel you wish?

The right to information is not the only right people have. It must be weighed against the intellectual rights, the privacy rights, &c....

Re:Wow. That was a fucking dumb interview.

[Tardigrade]

"How do you conclude that they aren't going after the traders, if they are trying to get them banned? I mean sure, they are basically trying to ping-flood Napster with lots of paper, but... it's not just an attempt to waste Napster Inc.'s resources, but an attempt to wear them down until they become "responsible" and manage to prevent the users from trading their (i.e. Metallica's) music."

Napster didn't allow them any other recourse to getting their songs off the list. Metallica didn't *legally* go after the users. Napster did state that Metallica would have to give them the id's of the users if they wanted this stopped... so Metallica did.

Metallica also gave fans permission to make bootleg tapes of concerts, they didn't give the fans permission to trade mpeg's of the cd's.

There is a distinct difference between actions of differing magnitudes. Such would be the difference between a murder, and serial murder; a couple of bucks to a bellringer, and the donation of one's estate to a charity.

"Right now Metallica is just policing Napster's users for them."

Because Napster refused to do it themselves (according to Lars, that is).

Re:Slightly OT musings.

[tweek]

This probably goes without saying but if 50% of the population were stealing from the other 50% does that mean stealing needs to be legal? Mob mentality and majority rules does NOT always make something right.

BIG disagreement

[davek]

Where it can affect people, where it is about money, is for the band that sells 600 copies of their CD, ok? If they all of a sudden go from selling 600 copies of their CD down to 50 copies, because the other 550 copies get downloaded for free, that's where it starts affecting real people with real money.

I have a big disagreement with this one. If you're a struggling musician who puts all his effort into selling 600 CD's, and find that 550 of them have been pirated, I can understand how you'd be pissed off. Except that doesn't happen. What happens is that the musician still sells the 600 CD's, but because of forums like Napster that allow free trading of music, an additional 600 people have now listened to the music, and those who like it will probably buy the album if they can, and will be a million percent more likely to go see the band play at a local concert or something. Those who didn't like the music might keep the pirated MP3's, but they wouldn't have bought the album anyway.

The bottom line is free music distribution, pirated or legal, always helps the small musician. When you haven't hit the big time, exposure is the name of the game, not money.

-davek

Atom and His Package not signed

[FatSean]

But they tour everywhere and sell CDs. So even though they are technically not signed by a label, the download was done because somebody wanted to avoid buy a CD, not because somebody wanted to check this no-name band out.

Re:how am I supposed to find them?

[SeanNi]

Exactly. You can't. Napster at best is dubious. I've always steered clear of it myself, and don't really blame Metallica for going after it.

What REALLY pisses me off is them going after MP3.com. MP3.com was most definitely a legitimate venue for small, independant artists. And Metallica trying to shut them down -- now that, I will never forgive.

--
It's a fine line between trolling and karma-whoring... and I think I just crossed it.
- Sean

Drummers

[Ancipital]

Q)How can you tell that the drum riser is level?

A)Because the drool from the drummer's mouth is
hanging straight down

Q) What do you call someone who hangs around with musicians?

A) A drummer

Q) What's the difference between a drummer and a drum machine?

A) You only need to punch the information into a drum machine ONCE.

(And it seems that they are less prone to hypocritcal narcissism *sigh* I suppose fans get the heroes that they deserve)

"And so the head splatters..."

What Slashdot? Is this all you can say?

[Militant Elf]

I think that the Slashdot community has demonstrated just how correct and intelligent Lars is by only being able to correct his grammar.

Come ON people! By only correcting his sentence structure you're telling me that all of what he said was completely valid.

At least admit that. Lets say something nice.

Re:Cooked up? More like pulled out of his ass...

[NoahPhex]

On the subject of Atom and His package...

One of my freinds on IRC introduced me to Atom a couple years ago with some mp3's he made. I was instantly hooked to his music. There's just something about a 20 something punk rocker singing strange lyrics in a high voice while "the package", or the QY700 plays on in the background. Anyways, so far, I've been to 4 of his shows, and have all 3 of his cds, a couple of 7"s of his, and coincidently, I happen to be wearing one of his shirts as we speak (Go Metric Now). Woulds I ever have heard about Atom if it were not for mp3's of his? Possibly, but mp3's were what got me into him.

on scale and tape making

[PimpSmurf]

This was an excellent interview.
I think he is an asshole myself. In 1990, people made tape copies. It was the best, and cheapest way to copy music. Now, the internet is the cheapest way to copy music. I, personally, do not have any pirated mp3s at all. But I do use napster to get music that isn't sold yet, isn't avalible (out of production), or I have lost. When Metalica speaks of the quality of mp3s, what is he talking about. I have to spend 15 minutes or so just to find an mp3 that isn't cut off, or deformed. Many of the mp3s out there are low quality, and some are just recordings off of the radio. I advocate freedom of use. I advocate mp3 distribution. Without which I couldn't have recovered copies of CD I have lost, broken, had stolen or became unusable because of scratches. If there is a single legitamate use for a product, dont make it illegal. Otherwise americans _will_ see there rights deminish and deminish as time goes on.

That is all...
PimpSmurf

Lars= liar

[ethomas8]

?
lars? i think your lying.
prove it that 1.4 million metallica songs were downloaded.. and only 1 unsigned artist mp3 was downloaded in the span of 48 hrs..

and you don't have to worry about me downloading your music.. cause your the devil

Re:Lars= liar

[romco]

"... that 1.4 million metallica songs were downloaded.. and only 1 unsigned artist mp3 was
downloaded in the span of 48 hrs.. "

14,000,000:1 no sir, don't buy it. More than
one song would have by accident.

Re:Towards a new system of intellectual property

[kallisti]

Many good points, however I don't think most jobs can easily be automated. Such "simple" tasks as receptionist, cook, and janitor are far more complicated than any machine I know of can handle.

As as example of trying to automate everything, look at McDonald's. This is what you get when you make everything as automatic as possible. See The McDonaldization of Society by George Ritzer. He makes a case that this is the natural result of "rationalization".

I, for one, would love to live in the world you envision, but I'm not sure if we can get there from here.

Re:Pretty much what I thought

[kallisti]

It's basically a giant room where people say "I have such & such a song" and other people are asking for "such & such's song." Clearly you can't say that the room is illegal.. it's just there. Everyone I've talked to always agrees on that point. They may not be thinking, like me, about online distribution models, about convenience, etc. But they do agree, it's pretty stupid to outlaw a room.

If a room is created for illegal acts, then the room can too be illegal. For example, selling sex for money is illegal. If you create a bordello, you are simply creating a room. Yet, even if you don't sell sex personally as the owner, you can get jailed.

Of course, you can argue that copying isn't illegal, but given that as a premise, what is different between Napster and a bordello?

Smells Like Teen Greed

[Seanasy]

The only way you you will become successful is by having a publicity and promotion campaign behind you that elevates what you're doing above what your competition is doing.

OK, everyone STOP. Now, reread the above quote again. Do you get it?

He's not talking about art at all. He's talking about business. Don't let yourself be fooled.

I know a lot of bands -- a lot of artists -- and none of them compete. None of them have publicists. None of them make a living from their art. And they all consider themselves successful.

Just because there is a music industry doesn't mean there has to be a music industry.

Sean

Re:Small independent artists and success without R

[Seanasy]

Better yet -- Go Outside! Unless you're stranded in Antarctica, you can find 'unknown' local talent at a bar in your town.

The Record Industry != Music

Music != The Record Industry

Sean

Re:My note to Metallica.com last night...

[for(;;);]

> I don't recall Lars making any suggestions as to how you should do _your_ job or how you should be compensated for it.

Seriously, Lars, if you want a copy of any software I've written, send me an email and I'll get it to you. (Now *you too* can verify checks using our keypads!)
-------

Question: How much do artist make per album?

[DoorFrame]

Lars skirted the question... but does anybody know approximately how much an artist makes per CD sold? Is there a website with this information?

Re:I have to say that I agree with him...

[Buttercup]

Using Napster cannot be wrong because it's easy. That is an idiotic justification for law. If it really matters that the scale of bootlegging has changed, has it ever occurred to anyone that it might not be wrong in the first place?

MJP

Re:I have to say that I agree with him...

[Buttercup]

(1) Piracy is stealing.

Wrong. Illegal copying is not "stealing". Go ahead, look it up in the dictionary. There are no illegal copying scenarios that I know of which involve deprivation of property.

(1) makes legitimate (2).

Given (1)'s inherent flaw, by your own admission this puts (2) on shaky ground.

(2) can't be enforced for all.

This isn't about enforcement. This is about the moral status of data copying. If Metallica's copyright infringement was forgivable, you still fail to justify the Napster lawsuit. If it was not forgivable, then we might have a different conversation about this lawsuit.

(3) makes legit (4)

No, it doesn't, lackwit. Metallica copied The Misfits' album, apparently without fear of law-enforcement. I still can't see how the enforcement issue has anything to do with the scale of the transgression. They are independently variable.

and gives an easy attack point for (2), which is covered under law.

This is your conclusion? The justification for law is its ease of use within the context of specific circumstance?

This is simple. If you have any further questions I will write in simple terms.

A real logical argument, rather than this valueless exposition of nonsense, would be a worthwhile follow-up.

MJP

Re:No, that is exactly NOT the point

[Buttercup]

Moderate this up. Everyone must read this, it is the very crux of the entire issue.

MJP

The system is broke. Don't fix it.

[Rabid Mongoose Boy]

> the record company looses a lot of money on artists that don't go anywhere.

Sure.
But if 9 out of 10 artist are a complete loss, and 9 out of 10 successful artists have all the musical quality and value of Britney Spears, then who's really getting screwed here?

<digression>
Basically, when you pay 16.66 for a CD, you are paying the record company to market boring shit to you in an effort to fill their pockets. Do you really think anyone in the record companies (NOTE: not the artists, producers, etc., but the record companies) gives a shit about music? It's a product to them. A commodity! Not art. They wouldn't care if it was widgets or grapefruits, as long as they had the same monopoly over it; and could make the same profits from the monopoly.

From radio stations to retailers, the record companies have forcibly arranged things in order to maintain complete control of the way music is distributed in the US.

• You wanna sell millions of CDs? You gotta be on radio.
• You wanna be on radio? You gotta be on the radio programming company's list.
• You wanna be on that list? You gotta be promoted by one of the big labels?.
• You wanna be promoted by one of the big labels? You gotta sign a contract with them.
• You wanna sign a contract? You gotta work your ass off for the privilege of giving up shitloads of rights.

The system sucks.
The record companies know it.
And they have no intention of changing it, because it favors them by a landslide.

So the record company loses alot of money on artists that don't get popular enough for the company to screw the artist out of 99.9 percent of the profits. So what? Let the record companies get bent over for once, instead of the consumer. See how they like it on the receiving end without the KY. We shouldn't care if the record companies (not the artists) get fleeced, and here's why.
</digression>

If the record companies lose money on 9 of 10 bands, then they should think about promoting good bands instead of guessing what will be popular. I don't pretend to know how to fix their fucked up system. I don't intend to make any suggestions which will help them.

I suggest that we simply ignore them.

Think about this.

• You read slashdot, so there's a pretty good chance that you have an internet connection which will support a reasonably-good music stream.
• Do you listen to the radio? I mean really. You've got a cd player in your car, and at your house. You've got (or could have) a whole shitload of legal mp3s from your own cd collection. If you do listen to the radio, either you know of a great station that I've never heard of, or you secretly adore the BackDoor Boys and think to yourself "how talented that little Spears girl is".
• If you listen to internet radio, have you EVER tuned in to a station run by a record company? (if not, don't bother they suck like radio with blinking ad banners)

The point is, record companies couldn't get away with selling their cruft for 16.66 a disc in an open market. Hell, they can barely get away with it in their current closed market. I want to buy a cd from them. And I can't because the radio station didn't even tell me the artist who did the ONE FUCKING SONG that I have liked on the radio in the last 3 months. Too busy wanking off to pictures of themselves in the DJ booth, I suppose.

Radio sucks.
The internet is acquiring more users faster than it should (a rant for a different time).
And maybe, just maybe, we'll be able to design a system where you can listen to new music that doesn't suck; then buy it for a reasonable price; and know that the artist is actually going to see more than a couple pennies of the money you paid.

Shoutcast is a start. great idea. Nearly great implementation. But this is the internet, people. I shouldn't have to sift through god knows how many channels just to find new music that I'll like. How about a search engine? What if I could tell some program that I like the bands X, Y, and Z; then the program says "these 6 channels which play X, Y, and Z. These other 4 channels contain at least one of X, Y, and Z listed as influences or related music." Of course, everyone's playlists would have to be online. But we're close to that alredy. And what if the admins of the channels not only had their playlists online, but the playlists included links to sites that would sell you that hard-2-find and yet killer track thay you heard on Channel Z? (thanks to those of you who got that reference.)

Mp3.com is a start. But they are falling prey to a bunch of crap that makes them less attractive to serious artist who want to be heard. I don't care who the top ten downloaded songs are. Popularity and rankings based on how many CDs you sold through mp3.com don't matter to me.

Conclusion:

The current promotion/distribution system is hopelessly broken. The net has a chance to relieve it of some of its usefullness. We (the informed, the loudmouthed anarchists, the hackers who helped make the net what it is) need to quit bitching and use the net to solve the problem instead of creating new ones.

Re:No, that is exactly NOT the point

[FascDot Killed My Pr]

When I buy something, do I own it?

Sure
...
They create it, they own rights to replication.

So which is it? Do I own the it or do they? Personally, I have an opinion. But I think you agree that this is the crux of the matter--it's not about "how do we pay artists".
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?

No, that is exactly NOT the point

[FascDot Killed My Pr]

What IS at issue is exactly how the artists will be recompensed for their time and effort."

FALSE! I cannot stress this enough: FALSE FALSE FALSE.

The members of Metallica are not our employees who have had their insurance premiums raised and so need a little extra something in their paychecks. We have no moral OR legal obligation to provide money (let alone profit) to Metallica.

Clearly that's an issue for the musicians, but it is not the issue. The issue is about freedom. All economic arguments are secondary to that.

The issue is: When I buy something, do I own it? And if I own it, can I copy it? And do I own the copy? And can I resell/give away the copy?

I'm not saying that Metallica should be barred from making a profit--only that it's up to them how to do so. It is absolutely wrong to reduce public freedoms for the sake of an individual's profit.
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?

Re:No, that is exactly NOT the point

[t0m f00l]

When I buy something, do I own it?

Sure

And if I own it, can I copy it?

Sure

And do I own the copy?

Sure

And can I resell/give away the copy?

Under fair use and in limited quantity, obviously. Law can't define this as such, because you're obviously going to share your music with more than one person in many cases.

Copyright protection is only about controlling general trends in copying which subvert revenue. They do deserve to be recompensed for their time and effort because they produced these products. If general trends in piracy arise that subvert this intention, then law or precedent could then be set to stop these trends. You don't have a natural right to free information you know.

If you're talking about giving a copy of your CD to people on napster, that would be a resounding NO. Fair use only goes so far.

"It is absolutely wrong to reduce public freedoms for the sake of an individual's profit."

Blah blah, and we should have digital books on the internet and freely available to everyone, because free stuff is freedom, and free stuff is RIGHT -- because I want it.

Freedom is not an absolute. Freedom is not free of coercion. Freedom is balance. Metallica is seeking balance from their personally perceived injust activity (i.e., thousands of people trading their music for free).

"All economic arguments are secondary to that."

Nonsense. They create it, they own rights to replication. Fair use obviously comes into play, but not in this case.

Re:No, that is exactly NOT the point

[t0m f00l]

Obviously you own that copy. You can convert it, splice it, dice it, remix it to your hearts content. However, there is a gray area at a point where you start copying your cd and giving it to friends. Lets say you create 500 copies and give it to your friends. I'd hardly call that fair use. You own your copy, but it isn't a license to create copies for everyone else in the world a la napster. The proponents of napster seems to think that just because you can, you should. Obviously if you can there will be many that will. That does not make it technically legal under the law.

Anyway, napster isn't arguing any of this. They know it is illegal. They are arguing that they aren't doing the trading so they aren't doing anything illegal. This is clearly a case of technology outstripping law (although the DMCA somewhat covers it). Napster knows what they are doing is matching people up who are primarily trading in illegal music. It's like me setting up a service to allow thousands to download free computer software. I don't think it's too much different.

Obviously

[toolj23]

He obviously said 'obviously' 21 times in his obvious resposnses.

Record companies want Napster to succeed

[paulio]

Lars wrote: There has been no [support] from the record companies; they never instigated anything, so we took it upon ourselves, there was never really much in term of support. There's been the occasional pat on the back, the occasional call, but I would say that I'm quite, I'd say, more than surprised, I'm quite stunned at the lack of communication and input from the record company. I wonder why there is no support from the record companies.

Could it be that the record companies really want Napster to succeed? I think that the record companies want this Napster thing gets out of hand so that there will be a backlash. Then they can push for even more restrictive laws because as they say, these "pirates" are "stealing" from them.

The War on Piracy has started. Maybe it should be called the War on Information?

Re:Promoting the little guy

[Ruddigger]

Yeah, it is hard to search for a band you never heard of, but it isn't hard to search for a band you have never heard. The music I listen to isn't played on the radio, and I have only met a single person in real life who is into it as much as I am. So the only way I have to find bands I like is to look through fan pages and review pages and try to find samples of their songs. I'm usually not successful with napster tho, I can only find more "popular" stuff like death metal... good luck finding any Clotted Symmetric Sexual Organ or Last Days of Humanity on it... IRC is a much better way to find specific genres.

-ruD

I wasn't clear in what I ment

[delmoi]

I didn't mean that what you said wasn't true, only that the conclusions you drew were. There may be more brain mass in the aural part of the brain for musicians, but I really doubt that you could say because of it, musicians arn't that good at speaking/writing.

I'd also wonder what's the cause and what's the effect. Do they have more developed audio processing because they're musicians, or do they love music because of their larger lobes. Or, whatever.

Anyway, my problem wasn't with how much of the brain was devoted to audio processing, but rather the conclusion that musicians are not coherent because of it.

Re:I wasn't clear in what I ment

[Lemmy Caution]

We are talking distributions here, but this is the sum of it:

Someone who has been given a musical training is going to have a region of his cortex given over to acoustic processing that otherwise wouldn't. All other things being equal that is matter that isn't available to other functions. And all things being equal, the more neural resources you throw at a problem, the better you will do at it.

Now, it's also true that musical training can enhance other types of cognition, including mathematical reasoning, because the associative cortex's structures can be 'lended' to other functions (it's why people tend to use their own fields of expertise as source-metaphors for understanding other fields.) And, of course, someone who is given a good literary education in addition to a musical one will have stronger language skills than one who has had neither; it is most certainly not a zero-sum game.

I do hope you aren't someone who thinks that an exception will invalidate rules, when those rules are about probabilities (i.e., more/less likely, not either/or). However, if we are going to be anecdotal, I will cite my own brother, a Julliard graduate and musical prodigy from age 5, with sadly compromised verbal expression skills - he's a born hemmer-and-hawer, with lots of um's and frustrations trying to express himself verbally. He also has perfect pitch. I've seen this trait in many other musicians, including Yehudi Menuhin and Isaac Stern.

Besides, the only conclusion that I drew was that Lars was incoherent and circular in his interview, and I didn't need an fMRI for that.

Re:Grammar

[delmoi]

Let me just say that, after today, I will never ever criticize any of the slashdot authors again for grammar / linguistic errors.

You have never done that before, ether.

Re:Wow. That was a fucking cool interview.

[delmoi]

[NetPD] pulled a number out of their collective asses..

That would make him ignorent.

Re:Is Napster really good for unsigned artists?

[delmoi]

Thank you Lars for backing up my suspicions with hard data.

That, is about the farthest thing from hard data I've ever heard. How was metallica able to 'monitor' everything that happened on napster. It wouldn't be hard for them to find the people serving their data, but, monitoring all communications, unless napster gave them specific access, would be impossible.

Of Course Scale Makes it wrong

[delmoi]

If I stole an empty pop-can from your house to get the rebate on it, would you care.

If hacked the bank and transfered one million dolars from you, would you care?

Where do you draw the line? I don't, but obviously you can draw it somewhere

Re:Of Course Scale Makes it wrong

[Sir Joltalot]

Hehe.. if I had a million dollars in a plain old bank account, I probably wouldn't care because I'd have a lot more in other places.

I know what you're trying to say though.. it's a good point. But.. I think a slight fallacy does lie in the fact that people who have a lot of stuff to be stolen don't need it as much. If I stole a pop can from a homeless person who needed the 5 cents to buy a cup of coffee, would he care?

So in the case of Metallica, I think it's just crappy that they're doing this. Lars admits it's really of no concern to them and it's costing them more to fight it. If he's so worried about it then he should be helping the unsigned artists sell those other 550 CDs he mentions...

And of course, there's another argument there because unsigned artists need the distribution, but that's another issue entirely...

Re:No understanding of OSS *or* the internet

[delmoi]

Gnutella has some holes that would allow Metallica to find out who's pirating their mp3s (I don't know if Gnutella has any such holes, I'm just speaking hypothetically)

Searching through Gnutella goes through 'gnutellanet', however, filetransfers are a direct connection, so it isn't hard to find out who your sending a file to, or receving from.

Re:Score3Insightful

[j_d]

Time used to be that you could put score foo:bartastic in the subject, and it'd treat it like the real score.
Stripping it out was the 'answer'

Re:Wow. That was a fucking dumb interview.

[plunge]

This just in- some guy from Romulus has opinion! He wont tell anyone what it is though, because no one can measure up to his standards. But damn- he sure thought the interview was stupid!

Respect and Advertising

[quux26]

Lars spake:
But record companies will never be completely extinct, for one reason and one reason only, that there will always be a need to develop younger artists, and record companies will always be able to play a big part of that, because this whole thing about "I'm a young band, I'm an upstart band, I'm going to put my music on Napster, and then I'm going to become successful?" Fantasy. The only way you you will become successful is by having a publicity and promotion campaign behind you that elevates what you're doing above what your competition is doing.

While I've gained much respect for Lars with this interview (much of it lost with the infamous "commodity" statement), I have to wonder if he's lost sight of what music should be. If labels want to mitigate their exposure to bands that never go anywhere, let them look at tools like mp3.com, Napster or Gnutella, see who is being traded heavily (how many people come back to get more from the same artist might be a good barometer) and then sign that band.

At least Lars is being a man about this, sticking up for a cause he believes in and admits when he's wrong (again, the commodity comment). But I'm not sure he realizes what he's up against. The road isn't steep, it's untraversable. I don't much like his genre, but they're legendary. Let him take the lead in where this debate is going. He certaintly has the floor.

My .02
Quux26

Re:Groan

[alkali]

I could only get through question #2, so if the interview improves after that, I'm sorry for basing my thoughts on a short review.

I know what you mean. The other day my doctor was going on and on about how I have a something-or-other deficit disorder, and I tried to listen for a while, but then I got bored and just looked out the window.

Re:It is the quality and the scale??????????

[Spatch]

Sure, 1.4 million copyright infringements in 48 hours is different than one fellow trading tapes with his school chums.

But surely Lars isn't trying to say that one person's MP3 of "Enter Sandman" on Napster equals 1.4 million 'copyright infringements'. And surely Lars isn't insinuating that only one person in 48 hours has home-taped a song for their buddies.

I respect Lars for being able to openly and honestly speak his mind about the events with Napster without using a PR shill or, worse yet, a lawyer, for his voice. However, this whole thing now smacks to me about as hypocritical as Rosie O'Donnell's being at the moment -- the tireless anti-gun crusader's son's bodyguard is applying for a concealed weapons permit. It's bad for other people, but not bad given personal circumstances. I guess I was most shocked to see Lars still exhorting bootlegging, really.

I sure hope this gets quoted around (wired/NYT/..)

[MarcoAtWork]

It's refreshing to finally hear something from the horse's mouth so to speak. I'm sure that a lot of people will pick on some inaccuracies in this interview (mp3s are much lower quality than a digital master, especially if they have been encoded at 128) but let's not forget the big picture.

Before I read this interview, I have to say I was not very impressed by Metallica's behaviour in this whole affair, and now I wonder how much of that impression was caused by the fact that nobody really seemed interested in what they had to say, but rather in the 300,000 names etc.

Like Lars said, the issue here is not the money the artists are losing (which he admitted is peanuts *right now*) but Intellectual Property itself. Or, why should somebody have the right to make an mp3 of Metallica and share it with everybody without the consent of Metallica themselves.

It would now be nice to see what can be done about this issue: one interesting experiment would be, for example, for Metallica to put up a page at, say, mp3.com with mp3s created from bootlegs and see how many people download them and, most important, what kind of comments people have.

I am sure that a significant part of Napster users use Napster just to avoid paying for the music they listen to (come on, be honest) but I am also sure that others have different reasons. For example, if you are an immigrant, sometimes it's *REALLY* hard to find music from your own country (ask me, I had to dig around for 4 *MONTHS* to be able to buy a CD I wanted) and it's just easier to fire up napster and see if you're going to be so lucky as to find what you were looking for to tie you over while the damn CD crosses the Atlantic strapped to a whale's back ;)

I am really interested to see in what the /. population will say about this interview, and I hope that they will forget their preconceived opinions, and keep an open mind. From the tone of this interview, it looks fairly apparent that Lars is being honest, so please try to keep this mature ok ?

Re:Wow. That was a fucking cool interview.

[Ranger Nik]

And you aren't the least bit suspicious that that number is cooked up?
i was, in fact, wondering about this: how could he possibly know? is there a filter for "unsigned artists"?

unfortunately, you are missing his whole point. the point is that you are not going to get the numbers without advertising, which is what the record companies do for you. in addition, this was not his reason for going after napster.

i think the analogy with the book of the month was just excellent. no-one asked metallica. metallica has no say about whether people can copy their material or not - that's, quite understandably, their problem with it.

this interview is totally consistent with metallica songs, so i have all the respect in the world for this man and this band.

Stolen CD's? I believe it's different than that.

[nosegoblin]

Stealing CD's does actual damage to the record company, they make a product with their money and get nothing back when it's stolen. Making/Downloading MP3's is more like stealing the plans in the Suburban example. The record doesn't lose money, instead they miss the money they could have earned.

-NG

Re:Scale makes it wrong?

[drunen]

The difference between the two is your barrier to entry. Creating a large music collection via taping is MANY orders of magnitude more difficult than doing it with mp3 and Napster. You even mention it, assuming you had a million dollars...

In an ideal world both methods are wrong, but from a practical perspective (the perspective I believe Lars is coming from), cracking down on taping just isn't worth the hassle.

Re:Wow. That was a fucking dumb interview.

[RomulusNR]

Metallica didn't *legally* go after the users.

I'd say that's only because they couldn't, or didn't know how.

Napster did state that Metallica would have to give them the id's of the users if they wanted this stopped... so Metallica did.

I don't think even Lars is clueless enough to think that Napster is directly responsible for their songs being listed. I mean... do they not realize that each ID they turned in is an actual person?

Metallica also gave fans permission to make bootleg tapes of concerts, they didn't give the fans permission to trade mpeg's of the cd's.

Which is an issue they have with the "fans" who have the MP3's, not anyone else.

There is a distinct difference between actions of differing magnitudes.

Still, a matter of muddled perspective. Say the average trader offering Metallica MP3's has an album worth of them taken say once or twice a day. That's a resonable quota for a kid in high school sharing his Metallica CD with friends who make a copy of it.

If I'm in high school and I tell my whole class that I have the new Metallica CD, and they can borrow it from me if they want, aren't I comitting the same crime at the same magnitude as the average MP3 trader?

This what they don't get. Despite their perception that the crime done via MP3 is somehow more damaging, it's not the case.


"Right now Metallica is just policing Napster's users for them."
Because Napster refused to do it themselves (according to Lars, that is).

I have a hard time believing that Metallica thinks the 'controllers' of a society are responsible for the actions of that society's members. This is heavy metal we're talking about. It would be like Metallica taking responsibility for the guy in the mosh pit who lands on his head.
--

Re:Out of the mouths of drummers

[RomulusNR]

You didn't really think Lars was going to magically get a clue, recant, and say "Jeez, we were really acting like a bunch of fuckin' assholes, weren't we?". Did you?

No. But the pulled-out-of-his-ass banter that passed for an interview here wasn't the only way they could have answered this.

You seem to use the term "get a clue" to mean the same as "recant", which isn't necessarily true. They could be perfectly clueful, and still remain on their crusade.

If Lars had said "well, this is the first battle before we tackle the real big problems" such as gnutella networks and Joe's FTP L33ch S1te, that would show cluefulness.

Or, if he had said "well, I guess the real thing we need to attack is the public opinion of album dubbing", that would also show cluefulness.

But he doesn't show anything close to a clue. He basically says "now we're suing Napster, and soon, when those Gnutella and Freenet companies get big enough, we'll sue them too". He doesn't get it, and he's in for a shock if he's involved in this circus long enough to see it that far.

That's my first point. My second point is that he basically puts his own foot in his mouth by trying to defend live concert bootlegging and home recording while attacking MP3 trading. He goes so far as to advocate duplication of unowned albums and then tries to cop out out of the contradiction by saying its a different issue because its done on a smaller scale than Napster. (I don't doubt that the root of that conundrum comes from Lars' having taped friends' records while never having downloaded an MP3 himself).

I point these things out because bad musicians and others like the one that posted the beginning of this thread are going "yeah Lars, rock on! (party time! excellent!)" and declaring their undying support for his cause, when this article should be a reason for them to step back and realize the flaws in those arguments before they bark up the same wrong tree as Metallica.
--

Re:Wow. That was a fucking dumb interview.

[RomulusNR]

Well, at least he gave REASONS for his beliefs on this issue. If you did that, instead of just attacking this Lars guy without any apparent justification, then I might take you half as seriously as I took him.

Well, I don't take you seriously, since you didn't do that, either. (Neener neener.)

I'm not here to argue my views on Napster with Lars. For the record, they're rather Stallmanian, and I doubt they would go over well.

But in any case, I'm not going to try and engage in a point/counterpoint with Lars on the issue, because I'm positive he's not around to hear it.

My response was directed at Slashdot readers, not Lars.

--

Re:Wow. That was a fucking dumb interview.

[RomulusNR]

wholesale distribution of their music by an unauthorized corporate entity is wrong

I just said to another poster that, if I were to look at this situation through the confused, not quite-getting-it eyes of Lars, I might feel much more sympathetic towards Metallica. (But, I'd pity myself for being clueless about what I was dealing with.)

So, once again, this view of things is through the muddy eyes that equate Napster with an underground pressing plant. An operation that deliberately acquires a copy of a particular artist's music product, then deliberately copies it themselves, and then deliberately sells those copies themselves, and pockets a direct profit from each individual sale of a copy. Unfortunately for Metallica's position, Napster does none of these things.

to prohibit a company like Napster from reaping the rewards of Metallica's hard work

It's pretty arbitrary. Again, Lars doesn't get it because he's been encouraged to believe that Napster is simply just like that underground pressing plant. And he's lost as to why it's not a clear-cut case of copyright infringement.

Lars seems to want to think that Napster's profit equals some pre-existing K plus (individual transfers of Metallica songs) x (price per song). Of course, that's not at all true.

If Record Town decided to open up a bunch of Metallica CD's in their store and allow anyone who purchased blank tapes to tape them in the store without paying, ...I'm sure the band would take action.

That's an interesting scenario. My question is who would Metallica take action against? The Record Town or the people making the copies?

As a matter of fact, if I walk into Tower Records with a live tape recorder while they are playing the latest Metallica album -- assuming we agree that that would be a copyright violation -- who would be responsible?

They are attacking the corporation facilitating mass copyright violation.

That's the big hole here. "Facilitating".

Let's go back to the Jagermeister analogy I used. I said that if its OK to sue Napster for the phenomena of MP3 trading, it should be OK to sue alcohol companies for incurring headache, dizziness, and nausea. Not to mention various cases of rape and vehicular homicide; and even less to mention loss of money, productivity, reputation, virginity....

There's also the gun companies, which through the sale of their products have "facilitated" murder, armed robbery, assault, and less obvious crimes like treason, insurance fraud, poaching....

And the tobacco companies. Incidentally the list of crimes "facilitated" by the sale of tobacco is pretty low. It pretty much stops at lung cancer and sale of contraband to minors. That's the only industry that's been hit with anything close to the broad arrow of "facilitating".

So... going back to your Record Town scenario, what about the companies who make audiocassette tapes? Or CD-R's? And the tape decks and the CD-R drives? Those companies are also "facilitating" the illegal duplication of music. Shouldn't Metallica sue them, too? Shouldn't they prevent the people who copy Metallica albums from buying cassette tapes? (Uh, somehow?)

One of my points in previous threads was that Napster is just an arbitrary target, and what they thought would be an easy one. There's no evidence to show that Napster has somehow done more damage than audio media sellers or makers of recording devices. There's no reason for anyone to believe that Napster is somehow more responsible for what is going on than the users who are doing the trading. If anyone is "facilitating" the trade of Metallica's music, its the users, and only the users. Without the users doing the trading (far longer than Napster has been around!), there would be no Napster.

No, Napster is a high-profile target, and one that is easy to attack in the popular media, and attacking them is just meant to make a stink. There's no principle involved. Like I said, they just want to pick a fight, and Napster is it.
--

Re:Wow. That was a fucking dumb interview.

[RomulusNR]

we make up superfluous excuses about being pinched by record companies,...

...who, incidentally, were cited by the government for illegally inflating CD prices...

but I suspect we'd still bitch if music was all you can listen for $1.

Music is already all-you-can-listen, for $0. Remember radio?

And according to the RIAA's own ads for the 1999 Grammy Awards, "the music belongs to all of us."

what happens next? we get crappy content. ...a good portion of people who are motivated by the riches of content making won't produce anymore.

If you ask me, as it stands now, the riches of content making seems to motivate people to make some pretty crappy content. I really think you should look in to that radio thing to see what I mean.

If you're defending the existence of major music companies... personally I think that the music being put out by most of these companies is so bad that, if the popularity of their music coupled with the ease of illicit downloading via Napster is going to demotivate those companies to stop producing the crap they sell, I'm not the least bit upset.
--

Re: waveamerica.org not .com [o/t]

[RomulusNR]

Thank you for catching that. I'm glad someone has seen it, and liked it.

(moders: I'd normally reply via email, but he has none.)
--

Re:Wow. That was a fucking dumb interview.

[RomulusNR]

That was only part of his beef. The other was that Napster was potentially profiting from this. The bootleggers of old generally were not.

Perhaps, but this would lead me to think that, okay, Lars doesn't mind users of Napster trading the songs off their CDs any more than he would mind kids in the old neighborhood trading copies of his garage tapes.

But, he does, because he just got 600,000 of them banned from Napster for doing it.

Metallica did try to sue Napster, and found out (or decided [or their lawyers did]) that they wouldn't be able to pull it off. So now they are trying to weaken them by handing them big stacks of paper.

But the trading phenomena isn't going to go away. Granted, they don't know that yet. So... if I look at the argument through the confused view of the Internet that Lars has, then maybe I can see some merit to what he's doing. But since I know what is really going to come out of all this, I think I would change tack if I were him.

At the very least, they are being non-hypocritical by *not* going after the individual mp3-traders (ie. the bootleggers in your example), but after the Napster corporation.

How do you conclude that they aren't going after the traders, if they are trying to get them banned? I mean sure, they are basically trying to ping-flood Napster with lots of paper, but... it's not just an attempt to waste Napster Inc.'s resources, but an attempt to wear them down until they become "responsible" and manage to prevent the users from trading their (i.e. Metallica's) music.

But banning users who trade Metallica songs wouldn't affect Napster even if they got say $10/mo. per user with no possibility of re-registering with a new name. The effect is to deter users from trading Metallica songs. The message is if you trade Metallica songs, you'll get banned; if not, you won't. Right now Metallica is just policing Napster's users for them. And it's a waste of their effort, when they could be writing new songs instead.
--

Get a real Job

[TheMunk]

I think some musicians get too comfortable, not having to work. Mabey something that is fun to do like make music will become less of means of making a livelyhood and more of a hobby because it is fun, kind of like coding for a lot of OSS developers. I like the idea of musicians or anybody making ends meet by working (providing a service, even touring could be considered the work part) and then giving the fun stuff back to the community. It is always going to be hard to enforce these copyrights over intelectual property that is in the pulic's hands. You might as well get paid to do the tedious stuff like: writing Tax Software or Keeping systems up, and make the world better by sharing the fun code or music that you would do anyway. I hope I dont come across as a communist, because i do believe you have a right to do whatever you want with your one material, sometimes it justs makes more sense not to horde it.

my 2 cents

[downerad]

Well, I notice most of the comments here have purely been grammatical critiques, rather than discussion of anything Lars said. I guess that means a lot of people are having trouble refuting his points. I love grammatically-perfect articles as much as the next guy, but I had very little trouble reading the interview, and understanding what Lars had to say. Perhaps the people who disagree with Lars could stoop to name-calling once the grammar police get through with him. -aj

Re:Journalistic ethics

[Wah]

or a ragin' horde of geeks to mirror it.

You can encode voice at 8kbs (vs 128kbs for music) and it still comes over fine. This story alone for me is a 300K+ DL. I don't think the audio portion would be too much larger than that, and I'd only dl it once, versus the 5 or six times I will for this story.(or they could just put it on Napster, and let the people shoulder the massive bandwidth costs :)


--

Re:Wow. That was a fucking dumb interview.

[Wah]

yet, we don't want to pay for content. we make up superfluos excuses about being pinched by record companies, but I suspect we'd still bitch if music was all you can listen for $1.

so we won't pay for content anymore. what happens next?

Where do you get the idea that we shouldn't pay for content? We should just pay something that's a bit closer to the actual price.

content will never go away but a good portion of people who are motivated by the riches of content making (this is still a capitalist world, right) won't produce anymore. we all lose out. for what?

Hmm, I have the general feeling that those who produce content solely for the value they expect to gain in return are producing content that I probably don't want anyway. I'd rather support and consume content created for content's sake.

let's let the artists control their content, ok?

How EXACTLY do you propost to do that? And it's not the artists' content, it's the copyright holders, a big diff IMHO.

--

Re:Journalistic ethics

[Wah]

Guess what? It isn't supposed to be! :)

Thank all that's good and holy for that one. Keep going with the nitty gritty so-much-info-only-a-geek-would-like-it coverage. It would also be cool (if possible) for the verbal interviews to include a link to an MP3(!) of the interview and not just the text version. Good work, keep it up! :)
--

Re:Ignore Lars at your Peril?

[scabpicker]

Yes, the issue really is that your friend down the street does not write down your name ( or in this case your nickname ) and what songs you taped off of the misfits album. And it does seem that they have shut down noone, just did a search for metallica on BWap, 100 mp3's returned. Real effective use of those manager's time eh? Last i'll worry about this story till they go after napster proper, who afaik hasn't actually broken any laws themselves.

Re:OK for me, but not for you.

[The Wookie]

Tape copies degrade in quality very quickly as you go down successive generations. By the time you get to 1.4 million copies, you might as well have recorded static on the tape.

I think Lars' point is that digital copies don't ever degrade, so 1.4 million digital copies are just as good as the original.

Wow. That was a fucking cool post...

[fReNeTiK]

...And it is extremely frustrating to see it at level 1 where it doesn't belong. The moderation system is broken (whine, whine).

This is only a "me too" post but I'd like you to know that I share your opinion and you expressed it far more eloquently than I could ever have. I'd like to thank you for that.

But information really wants to be free, and here's your nickel :)

Obviously.

[wdr1]

Is it me, or does Lars *really* like the word 'obviously'?

Geez, a quick perl script shows he used it more than metallica.

-Bill

Re:Get the users leave Napster Alone

[tecnodude]

True but that would also drop queries for Metallica parodies, live proformances, or even this interview if it was in MP3 format. All it would force people to do is rename and change the ID tag to read "Mtallica" or some other variation. If they banned stuff with certain checksums, just encode a second of silence. Its not easy to mess with something so open, you'd add way more overhead to Napster.

Re:Is Napster really good for unsigned artists?

[tecnodude]

Napster is primarily a search engine, meaning that people already now what they are looking for when they use Napster.

So you've never done a search for "comedy", "punk", "alternative", "techno" ...etc and looked at what turned up? Wow I am suprised. I just introduced one of my non computer savy friends to napster. The first thing he did was go out and download his favorite songs from from CDs that had been stolen from him. Ever since then he's done searches for "techno" and other generes.

Sorry

[tecnodude]

Damned submit button right next to preview, I was going to clean that up a bit more, oh well, at least the italics worked

He types like he talks

[ripcrd]

Is it me or is Lars the most illiterate, confusing person to listen to or read? Damn man, complete a thought or at least a sentence once in a while. He can't be the one writing music, because his thoughts just seem to go everywhere at once.
Hey, maybe he's on crank or coke.
Anyway, he just confirms what I've thought about him for a long time: He's the one that made his head get so big. Have you ever seen such a large noggin' on a person?
I personally would just like him to shut the F@#$ up.
I doubt anyone will see this post but here it is.

Re:I Expected Lars To Be More Of A Dumbass

[Znork]

No, in fact, music or literature or other works of art _arent_ _yours_. Copyright and intellectual property are late inventions in law, and they are _only_ there because it was thought to benefit the consumer if the reward for creating such works ensured that more were created.

Intellectual property is very very different from physical property. You cannot have the physical property you covet without depriving someone else of it; you _can_ have the intellectual property you covet without depriving someone else of it. Theft includes someone losing the property, copying doesnt (except for the copyright holder, but the copyright holder does not lose anything he originally 'owned' except through a legal construct; Lars can still play his songs, no matter how many copies there are, so he definitely has not been deprived of his property).

So, does the original reason for introducing intellectual property still hold? Does the consumer benefit through valuable art being created that would _not_ have been created otherwise? Would Lars write music if there was no copyright? Does he have something he wants to say to the world, or does he just want money? I dont know... but if I turn on the TV I dont see many worthwhile things.

Quality and scale, hmmm...

[eriks]

Well, if the whole argument here is about a principle concerning intellectual property being stolen... Well to use Lars' argument about cars that are too expensive, if you steal ONE copy of a copyrighted album by making a tape or cd of it: then that's totally OK? But more than one is NOT OK? So if you teal ONE car that costs $47,000 that is OK... you just can't steal MORE than one car?

Sounds like a pretty shaky argument to me.

Re:english major?

[nastro]

Hey, cut the guy a little slack. English is his second language, after all, being a Dane.

Re: Just more intellectual property

[deacent]

Would I like to see something like Napster make it easier for me to make a living? Yes. But I'd like them to do it by *ASKING MY PERMISSION* before letting people distribute my work.

This whole thing reminds me of ftp archives that let anyone upload software. It was always up to the maintainer of a reputable archive to make sure that the software was legit. I think Napster's best bet to continue survival is to review submissions before posting them. Any recording that doesn't have the owner's permission to be in the public domain is rejected. At first, there would probably be a huge number of rejections, but people would get the message quickly. Of course, unless popular artists (or the record companies) give permission for some of their work, this would mean a huge loss of subscribers.

-Jennifer

Definitely

[jpowers]

There's definitely degradation in the sound. By that argument, would it be OK with Lars if people made their mp3s at the lowest sample rate? That low-end mono shit's got to be as bad as cheap cassette.

-jpowers

You Know You've Been Watching Too Much Ranma 1/2 When...

Re:Definitely

[schtum]

If people could only make their mp3s at the lowest sampling rate, would anybody bother making mp3s at all? I think not. So, yes, this does prove Lars correct. The quality and the scale make all the difference.

Re:Definitely

[t0m f00l]

The point here, however, is that there is not much audible difference between the two. I've listened to CD tracks right before listening to the mp3 version which I ripped right off the CD, at 192kbps and have noticed almost nill difference. Of course, the stereo system I have hooked up to my computer is only 1000 dollars, so I might not have the "right" equipment to hear these major differences.

Right

[jpowers]

Right. Both our ears and "analog" devices (notice the quotes used in my first post) use waves which can only be considered "continuous" when compared to electronically-digitized audio, in reality they are limited to whatever their smallest part is: therefore it is possible to estimate a "sample rate" and "reproduction rate" for the purpose of analysis.

In this case, "analog" devices reproduce sound at a rate 80-90% of what the human ear can sample, due to the wave reproduction/reception mechanisms (record player and ear) being made up of molecules, which are not infinitely small, and the transmission of data from needle-speaker/ear drum-brain being made up of electrons, smaller but not infinitely so. CD audio is more like 50%, as it is an arbitrary sample rate set by interoperability standards. By doubling the sample/reproduction rate of Digital CD audio, you get a sound which, at best, is as good as the human ear can possibly discern: no loss at the high or low end of human hearing and a "sample rate" slightly superior to vinyl.

-jpowers

You Know You've Been Watching Too Much Ranma 1/2 When...

Re:Right

[jpowers]

Is there a good reference work on this stuff that could be absorbed in a weekend? I.e. as easy to read as your post, but with some math? I'm not a physicist either, my stepfather was a hard-core stereophile. I think there's an episode of NOVA about it, though. IANAPhysicist, but it seems to me that the facts that a) the particles are oscillating, and b) the volumes occupied by individual oscillating particles may overlap, allow the waveform to be defined with a point resolution something less than the diameter(?) of the particle. This may be possible in a lab setting, and it would sure sound good. If the particles at that scale oscillate at random, though, how would you reproduce sounds that precise with any accuracy? Anything smaller than needle-tip steel molecule to pressed-vinyl molecule is going to be in motion, and therefore could probably not be called a "reproduction" of the original sound.



-jpowers

You Know You've Been Watching Too Much Ranma 1/2 When...

Re:Right

[0x0000]

Simple oscillators demonstrate that the waveshape is not dependant upon the size of the particles of the medium.

Think of a chain of ping-pong balls, or beads, or something, all connected into a rope or chain. Now, grab one end of it, and flip it so that a waveshape propagates up the chain. Note that the sinusoidal shape of the wave described by the movement of the objects is not dependant on the size of the balls or beads.

The simplest case of this principle is the arc described by a pendulum.

"Sound" is the movement of the medium, (usually air). The movement of the molecules of the medium is described by waves-shapes. The compression and rarefecation of these waves is not dependant on the size of the particles that make up the medium, it is dependant on their position.

Likewise, the eardrum is moved by the wave-shaped motion of the air. The change in position of the eardrum's surface is "continuous", and does not depend upon the size of the molecules from which the eardrum is composed.

I don't know whether the signal from ear to brain varies by current or potential, but either way, I see no real reason to believe that the level is not continuously variable. Perhaps the brain "digitizes" the electrical signal, but that goes against my understanding of the way the brain works; i.e. that it is an "analog computer".

Thanks for getting me to think about this.

Re:Right

[0x0000]

Thanks for the informed responses, both the AC with the quantum states point and jpowers. From what you have said, I believe I understand the refrence the original poster made to the ear sampling at a slightly higer rate than the "analog" audio equipment.

At the risk of being moderated down for being OT, I'd like to take this one more step; Isn't it true that the resolution of a wave is not necesarily limited to a step size equal to the size of the particles of the medium?

IANAPhysicist, but it seems to me that the facts that a) the particles are oscillating, and b) the volumes occupied by individual oscillating particles may overlap, allow the waveform to be defined with a point resolution something less than the diameter(?) of the particle. The discrete analysis seems to work well for a static waveshape, but seems incomplete when one considers that the wave one perceives as sound is in fact being reshaped dynamicly as it propagates....

I'm operating entirely from memory (~10yrs) and "intuition" here. Is there a good reference work on this stuff that could be absorbed in a weekend? I.e. as easy to read as your post, but with some math?

Re:Right

[0x0000]

Wow. Thanks, guys.I sure am relieved. I thought I was the only person in the world who thought MP3 quality was second rate. I haven't really understood the Naptster ruckus well, since I couldn't imagine how anyone could think of MP3 as a substitute for owning the CD, anyway, but there's no accounting for taste, I suppose.

There was one thing about your post that did bother me, tho, and this is OT I know. Sorry...

our ears sample at about the same rate or slightly higher than standard "analog" media reproduces (tape master, vinyl record), which is like 40% more samples per sec than standard digital media reproduces (CD, DAT).

I'm not trying to be confrontational, here, but: Ears don't sample. They are analog devices. Also, analog media don't use the concept of a sample rate. Sampling is purely a digital thing.

Analog reproduction means that the wave form produced by from the vinyl (for instance) is actually the same continuous waveform produced by the instrument/band/voice/whatever. The analog recording process took the sound wave, converted it to an electrical signal (waveshape), then converted the electrical shape and converted it to a groove in a the vinyl. Vinyl is mechanical storage. I.e. the shape of the groove in vinyl contains an imprint of the audio waveform.

By contrast, digital recording approximates the audio wave by sampling it at some rate. The mimimum useful sample rate is a function of the maximum frequencycomponent of the signal being being sampled. IIRC, it's something like 2 * Fmax. Say 40kHz for audio.

This is an oversimplification, but the idea is that analog deals with signals that are continuous waveshapes, and digital deals with discrete samples of that wave shape. It is the difference between a sine wave (analog), and a square or triangular wave (digital). The ear smooths the digital signal into the perception of a continuous wave (assuming the sample rate is high enough), by virtue of a phenomenon of retention (can't recall the technical term for it, but it's a bit like capacitance of neurons, or something) in much the same way the eye percieves frames of a film to be a continuous moving picture...

Points exist on the analog signal that are not saved in the digitized signal, but the threory is that no one will notice. Also, electronics can be used to estimate those points for the digital to analog conversion that occurs before the output to the speakers. Latencies in the speakers will also provide a certain amount of smoothing on the signal; speakers are analog devices.

Anyway, I always thought audio was a pretty lame application for digitization. Sound is an analog phenomenon. In fact, I don't think there are any naturally occuring physical digital (discrete signal) phenomena. Music can only be listened to in an "analog" (continuous waveform) fashion, but I suppose that will change too, given time.

Re:Right

[mfnickster]

You're pretty close on the sampling-rate question, but your notions about the ear "smoothing out" a digital audio signal are just not realistic.

If the sampling rate is 2x or higher than the highest frequency in the signal, there will be no "aliasing," or loss of signal information. When you run it through a D/A converter, you get back all of the original signal (plus high-end noise from the sample signal, which is then filtered).

The signal that comes out of the D/A converter is analog - that's the point of the conversion. Even if they invented a "digital" speaker cone, the action of producing the sound waves makes them analog. Your ear never receives anything other than a continuous analog sound wave.

Just nitpicking!
- MFN

Right

[jpowers]

Both the high and low ends are clipped slightly, just like with vinyl, but I was talking about the sample rate. Your ears sample at about the same rate or slightly higher than standard "analog" media reproduces (tape master, vinyl record), which is like 40% more samples per sec than standard digital media reproduces (CD, DAT). The digital media normally has higher highs and lower lows, though, so it's a trade off at the consumer end.

Mp3's have both limitations, I think. They have similar range to analog, but a pretty low sample rate like digital. That rate is variable, so at a low sample setting (same song, smaller file), and if you take non-insulated signal transfer inside the machines (sensitive ears can often pick up mouse clicks on PC speakers) into account, the reproduction can be awful.

What I'm suggesting is that Napster or whoever put in place a sniffer that looks at the mp3 and checks the sample rate. If it's higher than the lowest two settings (mono 32, 44?), then it gets blocked. That way you get the coffee-can sound of dubbed tape for free, but you have to go to the local record store and pay $ for the CD quality sound.

A business model like this would be useful for the record industry (and they know how much we want to help them), that way they could just throw out the low-res crap on the internet for people to kick around and see what catches on. Then they can double the sample rate on CDs to get the most precise sound your ear can hear (any more would be a waste), and charge whatever people will pay.

-jpowers

You Know You've Been Watching Too Much Ranma 1/2 When...

Remember...

[jpowers]

They're not really journalists. That's not a shot or anything, it's just they make more of a point to try to get the tech right, which is why most of us are here anyway.

-jpowers

You Know You've Been Watching Too Much Ranma 1/2 When...

He didn't complete the answer about money!

[hardaker]

Sigh... I really wanted him to describe how the money was split up between his 4 point line that he described. How much do they get from that $16???

Re:He didn't complete the answer about money!

[Rico_Suave]

Considering they're a consistent multi-platinum seller, but still on the same contract they've had for several years, probably a buck or two per CD.

--

Re:Articulation

[Molly]

>Be realistic pal. This was a phone interview
>from a rock and roll star, not a public speaker.

Not just a rock and roll star, but a drummer too! I thought he came across pretty well, considering.

(The internet is rich source of great drummer jokes... Q: What has three legs & a c**t? A: A drum stool. etc.)

Seriously though, the interview was a bit difficult to read, but I thought he made his case rather well. I have a lot more respect for Lars and Metallica than I used to have. I might even buy a CD. Recommendations anyone?

Molly.

Re:Scale makes it wrong?

[Molly]

>>The quality of mp3's is a great deal better than
>>tape.
>
>No it is not. A good quality tape reproduction
>of a CD is far superior...

It's the quantity of that quality that makes the difference. The lossy nature of analogue recordings means that you can't make more than a few generations of copies before you have to go back to the master (or CD, or whatever) and start again. Nobody is claiming that digital is perfect, MP3 isn't, even 16/44 PCM isn't. What you do get with digital is all the loss up-front, once only, and perfect copies thereafter.

Molly.

Re:Wow. That was a fucking cool interview.

[sugarman]

Well, then you may be right, but the artists you're looking for, while Japanese, are not really unsigned then, are they?

While the "not available on CD" comment of the previous poster != unsigned, it is a close enough approximation. Hard to get or obscure != unsigned *anywhere*.

So the number of downloads of an unsigned artist who is just throwing his stuff out there may well be have been one during that 48 hour period. No need to get suspicious.

Tell him what to do?!

[BLKMGK]

I don't think someone who "knows what's going on" should sit down and tell him anything - that would be just as bad as his lawyer doing so. In fact, so far as he's concerned this might have already happened - we just might not like what he was told!

What needs to happen is for someone to show Lars what Napster is, sans commentary, and let him spend some time himself looking for music, listening to what he downloads, and generally getting to know the product a bit more.

Despite some of the comments to the contrary, Lars struck me as someone who can actually think on his own a little bit. However he's obviously NOT spent much time on the 'net, doesn't completely understand Napster (or MP3 maybe), and has so far refused to educate himself about it all.

If you take a step back and realize that not everyone spends 12+ hours a day on the 'net then you can understand how this might have occured (smile). Lars has probably got the average Joe's level of knowledge about the 'net - or at least the average Congresscritters level of knowledge. This is particularly scary when someone like Lars who has money (or power) decides that something on the 'net he's "heard about" is "bad" and decides to sue - ala Napster. It doesn't take but a brief read of some of the proposed legislation being put through the United States legislatures (sp?) to realize that Lars is far from the only one who's a bit ignorant as to how this "stuff all works" (ahem).

Personally, before educating someone like Lars about the 'net I think we need to educate our lawmakers. Let Lars sue all he wants but God help us when the ignorant lawmakers decide we should ban file all sharing to save us from the Kiddie P0rn! Or maybe ban reverse engineering because exposing security holes is bad - unless it's a federal team that strolls into your office ala Reno (lol).

Other people's opinions

[Dexx]

"On one hand, I'm concerned that the rampant downloading of my copyright-protected material over the Internet is severely eating into my album sales and having a decidedly adverse effect on my career. On the other hand, I can get all the Metallica songs I want for FREE! WOW!!!!! "
-Wierd Al from www.wierdal.com, faq page

"What is Chumbawamba's opinion on mp3's?"
"I need to buy an mp3 player, they're coming down in price so I think I'll get a Mac-compatible one soon. Thanks for reminding me."
-Chumbawamba from www.chumba.com, faq page

Re:And the Misfits owned their music too...

[CComp]

And it's very obvious that you didn't get *my* point at all.

Read carefully:
If they're going to claim they're in the right because they OWN THE SONGS AND REQUIRE THAT PEOPLE OBTAIN PERMISSION TO COPY THEM, (and they HAVE DONE THAT, their lost income is NOT THEIR ONLY COMPLAINT HERE) then they need to stop being so cavalier when talking about the copying that they've done in the past without permission.

They've shown that they don't respect other musicians' copyrights. That makes it very hard to respect theirs, and very hard to take them seriously when they start whining about people not having their permission to copy their songs.

And the Misfits owned their music too...

[CComp]

But for some odd reason Metallica didn't pay for their copy of that album.

Quality be damned. If they're going to bust a hissy about ownership and permission, they can't excuse their own actions by trying to claim that the copy was a shitty tape and therefore it was ok to illegally copy it and not pay the rightful owner of the music.

Metallica needs to get a little bit less hypocritical - people might start listening to what they're saying.

Re:And the Misfits owned their music too...

[Cannonball]

Lars didn't say he had a problem with people copying on the small scale (i.e. taping your friends record so you could listen in the car), he did have a problem with the digital nature of napster's theft, and the fact that napster allowed for everyone to grab a copy of their recordings at fast download times. I don't think you could find a soul out there who hasn't violated copyright at least once in their lives, Lars was being honest. No less, no more.

Re:And the Misfits owned their music too...

[Cannonball]

Don't you get it? Third generation scratchy-ass recordings is different from a perfect digital copy you'd get on Napster in MP3 format. THAT's his point. That and the scale of it. He's willing to say, yah some people copied this stuff in the past, but they did it and took a quality hit. Now, with Napster, they can do it millions of times a second AND without a quality hit. It's become easy to do what in the past was time-consuming and pointless to do.

Re:And the Misfits owned their music too...

[t0m f00l]

Copy protection isn't based on moral enlightenment. Copy protection is based on technical and legal mechanisms. This is why large copyrighted images are not on the internet. This is why easily copied books are not on the internet. This is why ...

Re:The point is: How do they get paid?

[nanotech]

What IS at issue is exactly how the artists will be recompensed for their time and effort. Well produced albums take time and money to produce. Freeloading (those that don't buy the CD) mp3 addicts use the product without paying anything back to the artist.

Why not treat Napster like a radio station?

I'm sure this has been proposed already, but what about a tariff paid to RIAA from Napster, a certain percentage of their revenue. Sort of like how radio stations work (or used to work). Back in the 30's radio stations paid 5% of their revenue to ASCAP. I'm sure there is still a similar system in place, but don't know the specifics.

Now, 5% is pretty low, especially for a company like Napster which could quite likely never show any significant revenue, but the theory is sound. The problem is that the RIAA would not accept 5%, they'll want 100%, so they'll just squash Napster and (eventually) do it themselves.

It would certainly be nice if the RIAA or the individual labels would start a distribution system like this (after all, the 'net is supposed to eliminate the need for a middleman) but that isn't gonna happen for a while with the recording industry's Polish duke decision process. Maybe this would be a sufficient solution in the interim.

Another take on Metallica v$. Napster

[el_chicano]

METALLICA: "NAPSTER - BAD!"
--
You think being a MIB is all voodoo mind control? You should see the paperwork!

Re:Another take on Metallica v$. Napster

[Edax Rarem]

ROTFLMAO

Re:He wasn't writing. It was a phone call.

[timothy]

The one to thank for getting the interview is actually emmett;) I got the fun job of talking with Lars, and the less fun one of transcribing his words.

Didn't mean to be snappy in my response before -- most of our interviews, as you say, *are* by email. We were hoping this one could be as well, but it worked out otherwise. The advantage of it is that I don't think we would have gotten answers as comprehensive or unstudied by email, and also with email we really wouldn't know whether the answers had been vetted or approved the way we can in talking to the guy.

All he knew beforehand was the *number* of questions, not their content.

timothy

umms and uhhs?

[timothy]

Where?

actually, I did tend to remove 3rd repetitions of words (like when he said "very very very" for emphasis) and if Lars started a sentence, then retracted and re-started it, I respected that. However, his answers were unstudied and genuine -- what would you have liked me to do? If you think I was trying to be spiteful by preserving his words, please believe me when I deny it. In fact, I thought he was quite articulate in his vocabulary and argument -- I felt it would it would have been phony for me to promise him "unvarnished" and then try to clean everything up. Added to which, I basically side with Lars on the particular issue here, especially after hearing him talk about it.

Of course people don't talk the way they would write -- that's the point! :)

Sincerely,

timothy

timothy typed, Lars spoke freely

[timothy]

How many sentences do you complete when you speak on the phone? Some, probably, but perhaps fewer than you realize.

Imagine that this was someone you admired speaking and you were a friendly audience member; if anything he sounded sort of tired rather than on any kind of stimulant.

timothy

I've sent him the URL via his agent

[timothy]

as I told him I would when I spoke with him.

Hopefully he'll get a chance to post a few comments as well :)

timothy

Re:Articulation: how do you speak on the phone?

[timothy]

Actually, for a phone conversation, he really spoke quite well.

I didn't leave in the "you knows" etc to make Lars look bad -- quite the contrary, I wanted to capture his words accurately. I did in fact cut out stutters and instantly-rephrased sentences in a few spots. But the words are his; I'm glad that he wasn't uncomfortable and put on the spot to speak formally. Off the cuff, off the cuff.

timothy

He wasn't writing, he was speaking on the phone

[timothy]

You'd be surprized how different they are when you read a transcript :)

When you speak to another person, there are all sorts of cues which don't necessarily translate well; pauses and emphasis can help make something sensible that might read oddly in a letter.

timothy

the bootlegging rules

[timothy]

I think the distinction he draws is between live performances (which they do encourage everyone to "bootleg the fuck out of") and studio-released songs.

That difference is arbitrary, but its one which makes sense given points he makes, which is that the artist should be allowed to decide how their music is used. So they can give permission or deny permission for someone else to record based on whatever criteria they choose.

Studio recordings can also be distinguished from live performance technically: you can get a great live recording of a concert, but it's different (value neutral -- could be worse or better depending on your mindset) from a studio recording. Metallica, like many bands, is famous for being meticulous in capturing the sound they want on an album. They record the same track many times, hire expensive studio engineers, rent and buy fantastically expensive recording and playback equipment ... you don't have to agree with their aesthetics (I don't generally listen to metallica voluntarily ;) ) but there's something to be said for the independent artistic worth of a master recording which has been edited / tweaked by its creators.

just a thought,

timothy

He wasn't writing. It was a phone call.

[timothy]

he answered off-the-cuff. Would you prefer prepared statements?!

Lars speaks better English than most Americans I have met, and has a greater vocabulary to boot.

Though they might have gotten roasted for it here on slashdot, Metallica was under no obligation to agree to an interview. They did agree, and they did eventually deliver on the promise.

"Enlish" isn't a word. Would you like people to moderate you down for spelling? : ) I'd never survive with that rule!

timothy

Re:He wasn't writing. It was a phone call.

[mrBoB]

Wow, a reply from the poster... thats cool ;-) It figured; I got that feeling. I guess it's cool that someone actually "spoke" with Lars. In the past it seemed that other "interviews" had been performed via email. I assumed that the Lars interview would be the same. I'd also have assumed that Lars would have read the questions before-hand. I suppose with him being not so "internet savvy," as he likes to call it :-), I shouldn't have expected that either. Just the same I thank you guys, /., for getting the interview.

Bob

Am I the only one?

[kekoap]

Am I the only one here who thinks that what Metallica is doing is right? Am I the only one who completely agrees with Lars' point of view? I'm sure there are others also, but they seem far and few between.

I am not an artist, I am not an author, nor am I a movie director. But I do write code, like maybe 99% of the other of the readers of this site, and I do consider the results of my work to be artistic, creative intellectual property that I have the right to control: I have the right to say who does what with my work, I have the right to say my software should be open source, I have the right to say you can only make copies of it under such-and-such circumstances, I have the right to sell my software or give it away.

How different are we from Lars? He considers his music to be the intellectual property of his band, and likewise he has the right to say who can make copies of it, who can distribute it, and in what manner.

I don't know Lars personally, but from reading his responses to the interview questions, it comes across, to me at least, that he is very intelligent and worthy of everybody's respect, despite what his headbanger appearance might seem to suggest: he makes all the right points; his underlying arguments are clear and simple, though maybe somewhat hidden in the long-windedness of conversation; and he has the guts to stand up and fight for what for what he believes in, even if that leaves him a lone hero fighting what seems to be an impossible battle.

Re:Am I the only one?

[mrBoB]

Dude, the issue here is simple. I'd agree with Lars if he was going after the right person/group. A person who creates anything of value, be it art, code, Jolt, should have the right to hawk it on the Internet at their terms. Lars/Metallica (where's the rest of the band in all these interviews, eh?) and Dre are pissed, and for good reason, that the Masters of un-released music was made available to the World! However, their beef should be with the lowlife scum who brought out these "work's in progess." And Eminems (or however th f*** he spells it) comment last night on "Grand Theft Audio" about kickin Napster's ass should be more (effectively) directed at the asshole who leaked his sh*t.

What Lars et al and Dre are asking is for file-sharing to be deemed illegal, because someone _may_ use it to trade music/art/computer games illegally. Sun, Novell, Micro$oft provide file-sharing services. That could/would put us all out of business. No more Sun, Novell, Microsoft, IBM, blah, blah, blah. What else are you going to do with a computer if you can't share information? Piracy _WILL_NOT_ isn't going to stop based on a new lawsuit; duh. Suing Napster is like suing Novell; Novell doesn't know what I use my servers for and they shouldn't be responsible if I use them for an illegal purpose. That's _MY_ responsibilty; _I_ am the one taking the risk.

Anyway, Metallica and every other band in the industry need to get their proverbial heads out of their asses because the RIAA and the labels are about to stick it to 'em some more. Remember the article about the new law screwing Artists out of their copyrights? Check these links out, as I cannot remember if we saw a posting on slash originally...

http://www.theswindle.com /article.php3?sid=20000510085939
http://wallofsound.go.c om/news/stories/donhenley050900.html

Tell everyone you know. I am actually surprised no question was posted to Lars about this news.

my 0.02
Bob

Re:How about RealAudio/mp3 instead of transcriptio

[jeddz]

Why don't we just share an MP3 transcript of the interview through Napster? :-)

--jeddz

Lars is a putz

[geethree]

Correction.... All of the members of Metalica are putzes.

They are money grubbing a**holes that deserve to wither and fade away from the music scene.

I, for one, will never buy anything they record again. Period.

g3

Followup?

[CorwinOfAmber]

Any chance of a followup interview? Lars made some very good points here, and he also raised a lot of new questions, in my mind anyway. While I can now see where he's coming from on some of these issues, I still think that he doesn't fully grasp the situation. For instance, there is no way Napster could filter out Metallica's music. If, as he says, Metallica really wants to increase public awareness and encourage debates, wouldn't /. be a good forum?

Bootlegging is okay?

[Kronos.]

So let me get this straight. He's all for bootlegging (As long as the quality is crap)

By that rationale, when they were really poor and were eating a slice of green bologne a day if they where lucky that if the chance to get their music widely spread and so it sounds just like when they first played it that THEN, and only then it would be okay to distibute it??

Sorry, but I still see this as being all about money and a nuch of kids squabling over it like they found dollar bill on the street.

Ok, i have to say it

[Kronos.]

All this crap about buying a new Suburban and just because a person thinks they are selling it for too much doesn't give them the right to steal it well, It also doesn't give the manufacturer to go after the dealer. The person that steals the suburban is the thief, so the pigs go after them and not "Hey car dealer, someone stole one of your vehicles, I'm gonna arrest you".

Metallica really are showing some stupidity here, their mistake is right infront of their face and they can't see it.

MP3 not nearly perfect

[Nik Picker]

Um It should be pointed out that whilst MP3 may be a 1st Generation copy. Its a Lossy Copy. Its Compressed to such a state that if you are to compare it to a CD or Audio tape you HEAR the differences in Bass and Treble. So we should throw out the ITS A PERFECT COPY arguement. Its not. Now if we were not to compress the music at all and to smaple it at a full rate then maybe I might agree. But who wants to share my 44Mb All Along the Watchtower single ?

Re:Actually his weakest point.

[Malcontent]

"I think he was surprisingly articulate".

Really? he seemed to have a bit of difficulty with the english language and an obvious ignorance of the technology involved. He is a dinosaur in a dinosaur band. He is going axtinct and he doesn't even know it yet.

Re:OK for me, but not for you.

[Sun Tzu]

Exactly. I think he's just pandering with the claim that friend-to-friend copying is ok. He just knows that it's less efficient than the Internet copying model and is, therefore, a thing of the past.

Re:How Does This Guy Make Any Money

[arthurs_sidekick]

Have you ever really listened to the way *most* people talk? Often, we seem to employ some sort of semantic filter that distills the information contained in the utterance rather than commit the actual noises to memory. (that's a pop-psychological analysis ... I claim no research behind the proposed mechanism, but the phenomenon is clear enough)

"Verbatim" transcripts often never are. There are tons of pauses and "um"s and so forth that get filtered out in the transcribing process.

What emerges here is that Mr. Ulrich wasn't prepped, he's not a trained / seasoned public speaker, and this is how he sounds. Does it sound dorky when you write it down and think of how it would have been said? Yes, I suppose it does, but I bet you wouldn't notice it *as much* in a face-to-face conversation.

I actually thought he was reasonably articulate. I now know what happened and why, and what his position is.

Mr. Ironic Example, at your service

[arthurs_sidekick]

"often never are" ... whoa, that sucks, especially in a discussion about sentence construction =)

Re:Mr. Ironic Example, at your service

[t0m f00l]

Oh yes, king wanker. Oh yes. Oh yes.

Re:Wow. That was a fucking cool interview.

[EEEthan]

It's funny-I'm a musician too, and I do make music. I've played, I've recorded a bit. The idea of someone asking your permission to redistribute is nice, but...as an artist, you can't control the audience. In any way. You can try-you can affect them a bit maybe...but somehow, this issue of transmission of songs doesn't surprise me. It's incredibly hard to make people satrt listening to your songs-and it's incredibly hard to make them stop. Music is one of those things, a near-magical entity which is hard to understand and impossible to control. Maybe it doesn't seem like this means anything, but look at the way music has been a social issue in the past and the way it is now. In the 60's a lot of music was concerned with issues of equality, peace, freedom, etc-there have more recently been anti-nuclear events and things like farm aid. But the big news now is an abstract public forum/conflict over IP and the ownership/transferrance of music itself? A couple of things: this is really depressing in a way. Is modern music just a big moneymaking scheme? Has it always been this way? I for one honestly believe that record companies in their current configuration exert a powerful negative influence on the artistic and technical quality of music.
The other thing is this: it seems that this really had to happen eventually. Music 'piracy' has been going on for awhile-it's been a big part of the tech for a while now, and it's a great feature for people. I think mix tapes and such things are one of the few ways that people reclaim their connection to music. In a world where music is not considered a necessary part of education, it's one of the few ways many people can be involved. If this sort of thing is every effectively banned, it would really be sad for everyone.
The issues just cut so deep-the ownership of music is probably an unresolvable issue. In classical music, composers would routinely rip off one another's music-Chopin's nocturnes are completely ripped from some English guy(whose name I don't remember)'s Nocturnes-but we listen to Chopin's (more) because they're better. A lot of that went on, because classical, i.e. written music is an inherently 'open' standard-written music is the 'source' what you hear is the 'program.' It seems to me that this is a good thing, even if we don't remember that English guy's name.
So what to do? Well, in order to stop Napster-esque stuff, it will basically be necessary to monitor all information transfer on the web. I hope that this is impossible, but it seems to me that a totalitarian information state is on the remote outskirts of society. Issues like this (ok IP issues) are disturbing for some people: the people that own the IP. But I just don't think that the rules for information 'ownership' should be the same as the rules for ownership of physical goods. They aren't now, of course, but the way that IP works now is this: if you 'buy' a piece of info, software, music, etc, you're really only buying a license to use it in certain prescribed ways. But you have no actual ownership, and you're forbidden from manipulating the info in any but the prescribed ways, which is a vastly smaller subset than what is possible with technology these days. So you 'buy' a cd-but you don't own it. It's not 'yours,' as in to deconstruct, give away, copy, scramble, etc, it's a contract in which you can listen to it on your cd player and nothing else. Software too... So right now, they're selling things to you that you don't own. Now, add to this that they're selling it to you at very high prices. Next, add in quality concerns-Britney Spears, win98. What do you get? An alienated public? Not really. We realize that we DO own this stuff-we can freely distribute or whatever it because we, the public, exist on such a massive scale. Imagine this as the U.S. revolution, but instead of the Boston Tea Party, it's a Tea Party all the time in every harbor, and England can't do shit but ship more tea because if they don't, they'll disappear. There are obvious problems with this analogy, the biggest one being that people were willing to fight and die for that cause, and I would imagine a much smaller subset of the .mp3 using public is willing to do that for this one. I'm sure there are a few, though. And England can't win this time either, which they'll realize in a few years. What is going to happen is that companies are going to adapt-free stuff is a huge, confusing mess(only compared to money stuff of course). The way companies are going to make money is to make everything available, and in an understandable way. And there will always be a market for repackaged pop crap, just because people like young, attractive people. I think that the reason the only hot pop music is total transparent pop shovelware is that people have already realized what the industry has to sell. And soon, the industry will realize. It's just a shame that bands like Metallica have to victimize themselves by showing how little they understand the situation. Also, their recent albums kind of blow, but that pretty much happens to every good band(insert the other rambling invective against the recording industry here.) So people should just chill. The good thing is that, as the interview shows, Metallica is already chilling.

47K for a Suburban or 8K for a box car

[WillAffleck]

You can tell how out of touch Metallica is by the drummer's quote about "you don't go out and steal a $47,000 Suburban". I mean, how many college kids can afford something like that. They're lucky if they can afford even $8,000 for a boxy car.

Wake up and smell the class warfare, Metallica! You're the ones on the other side of the revolution ...

[note - yeah, I've got the bucks - but most people don't]

Re:Kudos to Lars...

[jimiZ]

i AGREEE, that was a good article. It was interesting to hear their side of the issue. I think Lars did a good job on actually answering all the questions, in some kind of way.

Apparently he doesn't grasp the issues - at all.

[Chandon Seldon]

First he admits that he knows jack about computers and the internet, then he goes on to display a complete lack of understanding of the questions.

He would have been able to give significantly better answers if someone had *explained* to him some of the technological issues involved.

He doesn't even seem to grasp that Napster is an issue of peer to peer file trading. He completely misses that Napster is no more offering unauthorized Metallica music than Network Solutions is offering books through Amazon.com!

I especially liked this following bit:

Now, are we aware of the Gnutellas and all these other things? Of course we are, but you can only take it one step at a time. And I believe, and the people that we talk to about this, we believe, that the minute some of these companies become active, when they basically come to a point that they become fully funcitonal, we believe that there will be technology and a way to go after them in the way they can invent this technology and make it untraceable.

Yea, that's it, you go after the "companies" that make software such as Gnutella. And when that doesn't work, come try to use your magic methods to break strong cryptography and distributed anonymizing networks... I'll happily continue trading files unbothered... that's whatever files I want to trade, be it Metallica's new hit album or the DeCSS code or my new master plan to take over tofu production in Eastern Europe.

Re:OK for me, but not for you.

[crt]

I think the most telling part of the last answer was "So it's the quality, the quality and the scale."

So Metallica does not believe in RIGHT and WRONG. There is no black and white. Just shades of gray. I guess Napster is a little darker than they would like.

How many downloads were actually illegal?

[The Babushka]

One point that seems to get overlooked here...

OK fine, there were 1.4 million downloads of songs from artists who had record contracts. How many people already owned the CD with the song they were downloading? How many already had the CD and were downloading a copy for personal use? That's the real crime, and I think even Lars would agree with that.

Many people are too stupid to make MP3s themselves, so they download them from other people. I have seen it. Don't believe there is that many idiots on the planet?... check AOL's current subscriber count.

Re:OK for me, but not for you.

[M-G]

Minidiscs use SCMS (Serial Copy Management System) to prevent direct digital copies. There are a number of devices that will strip the SCMS info from the bitstream, plus pro-grade MD players/recorders can be set to ignore the SCMS data.

The record labels have been fighting tooth and nail to add things like SCMS to every new technology that comes out. They even managed to get an extra charge attached to blank DAT media to compensate the labels for their predicted losses to pirating.

And attempted suits over enabling copyright infringement have a long history. Universal and Disney sued Sony in 1976 because the Betamax allowed people to tape TV broadcasts. Take a look at http://www.hrrc.org/history.html for more details.

Where are the unsigned artists?

[cyanoacrylate]

Napster isn't designed to help you find something that is in a genre that you might like, so you'd never know that there is this great band there because the search engine is too precise. One needs a co-existing service to work with napster to help you find 'something that sounds like'.

Cyano

An interesting interview

[joeytsai]

I thought this was a good interview. Because this was actually closer to a live interview, Lars' answers definitely contrasted against, say, John Carmack's crisp, consise and focused answers. But I think it's a good thing, because it makes this interview more real and, more importantly, it makes us realize that Lars is just another person.

He's not a suit, another Seattle corporation, not a Storm Trooper, but just a guy who happens to be very affected by rapidly emerging technology. He's a person like us, honest about his mistakes but who can't help but be concerned about his situation. I, for one, am glad that he's filing this lawsuit, not because I think he's taking the right actions, but because eventually all of us will be part of technology we're apprehensive of.

And he makes some good points, such as, "I support Napster's right to exist, OK? But I want them to support my right to not be part of it." I can imagine scenarios in which I can see some people saying the same thing about Freenet. What happens if that "special" movie you made with you girlfriend gets uploaded on the internet? I'm sure that's the plot of of more than one Hollywood film, but the fact is I'm sure you can think of things you don't want publicly traded.

I like Lars, and know trading MP3 to albums you do not own (aside from bootleg recordings) is illegal. However, MP3 is here to stay, along with the rampant trading, and the music industry and probably some laws are going to have to deal and adapt to it.

But Lars is also right about another thing, the music industry isn't going to be alone. DeCSS is just the tip of the iceberg with Hollywood.

So watch carefully as Metallic tries to defend itself from its unwanted inclusion in new technology, because it's probably going to be a larger and larger issue sooner or later. And I think this is going to be an interesting ride.

Re:Wow. That was a fucking dumb interview.

[Eric the .5b]

I think Lars proved he does understand the basic issues involved. Sadly, everyone here is denouncing the guy, first of all, because he came across as a bit inarticulate in a verbatim transcript of what looks like a phone call (which is incredibly stupid - have you ever paid attention to a conversation and listened to how people trip over phrases and wander around to get to the gist of an idea? - especially in light of just how badly some slashdot posts come across, when the writers have editing and preview capability). Second of all, everyone's trashing him for the simple reason that he disagrees with Slashdot Wisdom. Ergo, because he disagrees with Slashdotters, he's a fool, QED.

Lars has done his research enough to know what's going on. I was actually impressed; I did not expect him to have any real understanding. He just doesn't buy the self-serving arguments of MP3 pirates and Napster, and he presented reasonably well why he doesn't, particularly in the tricky rhetorical areas of "isn't this just like tape-trading?" and "this will free artists from record companies!"

And, for the record, I suspect that the number of 1 unsigned artist's MP3 DLed in a 48 hour period is very close to the actual number. Even the people here talking about "unsigned" artists whose MP3s they have found will tell you about owning that artist's CDs. Hello, people! Indie record companies ARE record companies! Someone signed up with such a company is by definition NOT an "unsigned artist"! Napster is a tool used something like 99% of the time to illegally distribute music of published artists.

Re:Scale makes it wrong?

[crm0922]

He also said that it was about QUALITY of music, The quality of mp3's is a great deal better than tape. I can understand their aurgument ...

No it is not. A good quality tape reproduction of a CD is far superior to warbly dynamically compressed MP3's. Napster is a way to hear a particular song when you want to hear it without paying $16 for 10 crappy songs and the song you like. (not that metallica has one song anyone should like) It is the equivalent of making mix tapes from all your friends much more easily than with real tapes.

So what, who's gonna stop the millions made from tireless promoting of standard video and audio mediums. Certainly not MP3. I have and never will pay for a poor quality MP3 version of any song by any band.

Chris

Hmmmm

[noweb4u]

I wonder if Lars has ever personally heard an MP3....
He keeps stating they are lossless copies of the masters, but they are technically low bitrate lossily compressed copies of the CD. I don't think he could be more wrong. I have some MP3s that are shittier than FM Radio, Cassette tape, etc etc etc.
Plus, how does he know that people who are downloading the Metallica songs don't have a copy of the CD? Or they did and it was destroyed, badly scrached, or they have a slow ass computer that makes ripping a joke? I had a 166 that took 15 minutes just to compress a song. When I got my 350, it takes about that much to rip the whole damn CD.
It's all relative. They don't know the motive of the downloader.
Plus, how can they be removed? I could call an MP3 N0Th1n6 3l53 MaTt3r5 - M3tall1ca and they couldn't block it unless they filtered out "L33t 5p3ak" terms too. Good luck, Metallica.
They did convince me they aren't as much of assholes as I thought, but they are truly clueless about the whole thing.
My $0.02 :-)

Re:Hmmmm

[Mojojojo Monkey Inc.]

Sure you could name the track N0Th1n6 3l53 MaTt3r5 - M3tall1ca , but how would anyone else find it?

Re:Hmmmm

[Junior J. Junior III]

He keeps stating they are lossless copies of the masters, but they are technically low bitrate lossily compressed copies of the CD. I don't think he could be more wrong. I have some MP3s that are shittier than FM Radio, Cassette tape,etc etc etc.

True, .mp3 files are not as good quality as a CD, however an MP3 is still a digital format, and successive generations of copies can be made without degradation of the original signal with each successive generration. The initial sound quality of a .mp3 may not be CD-quality, but a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of that .mp3 file does still sound as good as the first copy of the .mp3. With analog media such as your antiquated vinyl or audio tape, the signal degrades and becomes weaker with each successive generation of a copy. In fact, tapes and LPs degrade with each successive playback.

The thing is, if the band relies on crappy analog media limitations in order to generate sales (either by forcing fans to re-purchase replacements for worn-out copies of tapes or vinyl LPs, or by thwarting piracy by virtue of the fact that exponential growth of source media is stunted by the degradation of the signal with each generation) they're never going to be able to compete in the age of digital media.

Which is (duh!) where we are now. Sorry guys, the new technology doesn't work this way. The game has changed. There's still a way to make money, you just have to figure out the new rules.

Re:Wow. That was a fucking cool interview.

[GnrcMan]

Monitor all titles and artists, log them to a file. Get a file of known artist (or maybe just top 40)

Lar's said: "we came up with the 1.4 million downloads of Metallica music, there was one, one downloading -- one! of an unsigned artist the whole time."

You've given me an extremely inaccurate way of finding titles available for download. You really think that by filtering through their list of known artists they would come up with one artist? And you call me ignorant? Hmmm...

--GnrcMan--

Re:Wow. That was a fucking cool interview.

[GnrcMan]

Not especially suspicious. I've certainly never met anyone who used napster to get music that they couldn't have bought on CD.
WEll congratulations...you have now.

It's easy to say he's "not the brightest man I've ever run across". Would you come out any better in a verbatim phone interview?
That statement had little to do with this interview. I've never been particularly stricken by his intelligence. And he excerbates the problem by not knowing when to shut up.

And I certainly don't think he's lying. Too far out of character.
So you think that a member of Metallica, the epitome of corporate rock, would have any qualms whatsoever about lying to protect their pocketbook? What about their popularity?


--GnrcMan--

Re:Wow. That was a fucking cool interview.

[GnrcMan]

since about the only big name band on there is TMBG.

To go off on that tangent, TMBG have always been incredibly enlightened about this sort of thing...ever since dial-a-song (which, last I checked, is still connected) I'd like to hear specifically what they think about Napster and the like.

--GnrcMan--

Re:Wow. That was a fucking cool interview.

[GnrcMan]

That's sort of what I meant by "ignorant"...not informed enough to know when he's being told what he wants to hear.

--GnrcMan--

Re:the brightest man

[GnrcMan]

Well..my intellect is a discussion best left alone. :)

--GnrcMan--

Re:Wow. That was a fucking cool interview.

[GnrcMan]

Well, I've changed it... Too bad you're an AC. You'll probably never know.

--GnrcMan--

Re:Scale makes it wrong?

[Kwil]

The scale it becomes unethical at is when you're giving tapes out to people you don't know and won't get to know. As long as its restricted to your circle of friends, there is a limit as to how far its going to go, and there also is more of a sense of responsibility - your friend gave this to you. You know it's not legit, there's no way you can pretend its legit, and there's that slight moral wiggle in there that may one day encourage you to actually buy one of the albums. If not this one, then maybe the next one - if for no other reason than so you can return the favor to your friend.

You get the song from some anonymous source be it Napster or some incredibly rich guy with a poor sense of values, there's less of a moral connection. "Hey, he was giving it to everybody. It's not just me.." and hence less compunction to eventually purchase. "I'll just wait til the rich guy gets it..."

Re:Help!

[Kwil]

Sure there is, it's called SDMI

Unfortunately, it seems right now that nobody in charge of developing SDMI has an eye out for anything beyond profitability.

The big worry they have developing a reasonable SDMI is controlling redistribution.

Personally, I think if they simply started charging reasonable prices per song (85 cents a song? 25 cents per minute of music?) and worked out a convenient way to implement the charge - their worries about redistribution would fade to the level of bootlegs, if not smaller.

(Here that, RIAA? Lobby for micropayment legislation, not DMCA - it's a win-win situation for you)

KWiL

Re:Scale makes it wrong?

[meadowsp]

I can't agree with you there. Suppose you got an email that looked like spam. Would you respond if you thought that it had only been sent to you? What does it matter who else has been sent it?

Re:How do they know it's infrigement?

[wolf-]

You have opened a great line of thought.
May I also add to this by noting that through the DMCA, the MPAA and RIAA are trying to redefine what "fair use" actually entails. Up until now, most copyright infringement cases have hinged on the "fair use" of the end user.

Star Trek Replicator.

[PanDuh]

Star Trek had it all wrong with its replicator technology.

If things continue this way, the company that invents and creates the replicator would be sued to oblivion before its potential could be fully realized.

By banning this world-changing technology, companies will be able to continue with the status-quo. After all... change is bad.

Imagine being able to replicate a TV, a computer, or a Lamborghini. Boy, would big companies be pissed off at that.

(P.S. By the way, I think Holodecks would also cause a real big stink amongst the big corporations).

Of course he's pandering!

[The Queen]

But using phrases like "Napster operations manual" sort-of cancel out any techie butt-kissing. ;-)
I was a bit impressed with some of the points he made, but not to the Gnutella/etc. question. I can respect their wishes to control their music, but they really have no grasp on how futile an endevour that is.

The Divine Creatrix in a Mortal Shell that stays Crunchy in Milk

Lars thinks there is competition driving prices?

[Shadok8]

Lars compares buying a Suburban to buying a Metallica CD. He says we are in a capitalist society and fair compeition dictates prices. That is true. The problem is there is no price competition in the music industry. It is a true cartel consisting of large corporations working to protect their lucrative monopolies.

If I want to buy a Metallica CD, I have to buy it from Time Warner. There is a single source. Since there is no competition, Time Warner is free to dictate whatever price they choose.

Since there is no fair competition, it becomes an issue of cost and value. The perceived value of CD's is much less than the cost so a black market has arisen. It is human nature.

The high cost of purchasing music has created this black market. It is the music industries fault. There are really only two solutions I see:

1.) Law enforcement can try to eliminate the black market. We all know that is not going to happen. Black markets are rarely eliminated - "the war on MP3s" would be even less succesful than the "war on drugs". The music industry could run into extreme public backlash if they took this route.
2.) View the black market as what it is: competition against a cartel's illegally fixed prices. How do you respond to competition? Increase your value. In the case of the music industry it means lowering prices.

The music industry cannot stop the trading of digital music. People don't like to steal or break the law. They also don't like being unfairly taken advantage of buy high prices. The music industry needs to appeal to people's sense of right and wrong AND significantly drop prices.

I wonder if the music industry has ever thought of sliding scale prices? The first three months a CD is $16, Next three months it is $12, then it drops down to $5.00. Customers that really want the CD will buy it right away. The rest of us will wait for it to hit the discount rack. A similar model is working in the computer game industry. Popular titles released at $49.95 often appear among the top ten sellers 6 months after initial release when they drop to $19.95.

On a personal note: I don't by many CDs because they cost to much - $16 to get the one song I want makes little sense. So maybe - theoretically - I download an MP3 for free. I can make the argument that the record company and recording artist are not losing money because I was not going to buy the CD in any event. Sure it would be theft - but truly there has been no monetary harm. If the MP3 was not available, I just would never have listened to the song.

I know this argument has no legal justification - but it doesn't change the validity of the argument.

MP3s are the only reason I am buying CDs. There was a good 5 year stretch when I bought almost no CDs, except for a few bands I love - like the Gresttful Dead. Then I discovered Japanese Anime sound tracks. I love that music genre. I don't speak or read Japanese. I have to download MP3's to identify Albums I want to purchase.

And all because of MP3's I've bought 20+ CD's I would never have purchased otherwise. I will being buying more.

Re:Articulation

[Djaak]

I have a lot more respect for Lars and Metallica than I used to have. I might even buy a CD. Recommendations anyone?

&ltirony&gt
Yes : there's this great new service called Napster on the Internet. Just use that to download some MP3s and make up your mind.
&lt/irony&gt

As an ex-Metallica fan, I might as well also make some *real* recommendations... "Master of Puppets" has always been my favorite. The instrumental "Orion" on that LP is still one of the best songs I've ever heard. Anything pre-Black Album will do, after that it's just the average crap you get to hear on the radio.

Although I admit that Lars makes some good points, I still find it sad that what I first jokingly suggested is illegal.

why aren't record companies backing up Metallica ?

[Djaak]

I find Lars's statement that Metallica isn't really supported by their record company in this both interesting and surprising. On previous Metallica stories, many posters assumed that in this case, the "masters" RIAA were pulling the strings of the Metallica puppet. The single facts that Lars answered the interwiew and insisted on having his answers published unedited proves that wrong (though the latter doesn't really help to make these answers understandable :))) ) ; had the label had any say in this, the responses would have gotten through heavy editing by an army of lawyers.

Now this is really surprising, since this lawsuit seems at first glance to perfectly fit the RIAA's goal to kill the online distribution of music. Why aren't they backing up then ? Some possible answers :

1) They don't think Metallic has a valid case in court. This'd be really great news , but unfortunately it is very unlikely given the current state of copyright laws.

2) Since the band has taken it upon themselves to tackle the issue, they've decided to stay out of it and watch for the outcome. They're happily using the action as a test case with somebody else taking the risks. This makes much sense when you know that...

3)...the overwhelming majority of musicians give up the IP of their works to the major when they get signed. On the contrary, Metallica owns the copyrights to their music. So there's less to win/lose in this than there'd have been if it were another band with a more "conventional" contract that were acting. The lablel's lawyers may be considering the case along the lines of : if you lose the battle, well, too bad, maybe you'd like to consider giving up your copyrights to us so that we can better defend your interests; if you win, cool, this clearly shows that it works, now let's have some fun doing the same with artists we really *own*.

Obviously Metallica isn't RIAA's puppet in this story. But they could be their crash-test dummy, and I find that to be much more frightening.

Re:What about GNU?

[Djaak]

Like many others you seem to be implying that copyright is a Good Thing(tm) because there would be no GPL without it ; this is nonsense. The GPL is a hack so that we can have free software in a world of copyright (and patents).The author of this license has several times stated that it would be much easier to write free software if there was no copyright law ; RMS, to name the man, is clearly against the current implementation of copyright.

Of course you can use and love the GPL without agreeing with RMS (I wonder where would the free software community be today if you couldn't :))) ). But please respect the philosophy behind that free license, and don't use it to justify a system whose ideas are completely different.

Re:Help!

[lemmett]

How is it that we can use this to our(Lars, artists, and consumers all) advantage? Is there a way to *work* with the artists, like Lars, rather than against them?

I obviously can't speak for Lars, but here's how I think he'd answer that question based on an interview with him that I saw a week ago.

In the interview Lars was equating Napster with the labels. From his point of view there is no difference -- both are making money by ripping off the artist. Actually, from his point of view Napster is worse than the labels because at least the labels put up money to get the band started.

Even in the current Slashdot interview he called out what he sees as the four players: artist, label, retailer and consumer. If you create a commercial service that makes money by taking a fee when the artist's music is made available to the consumer, then all you've really managed to do is combine the label and the retailer under a different name. Every incentive the service has points to increasing the price of the download without giving any more money to the band until people stop downloading the music or the band refuses to sign with them. That's how we got $16 CDs and labels getting rich off of bands.

One possibility might be to allow any site that wishes to distribute your music so that there is competition (in which case you've somehow got to figure out a way to collect from all the sites that distribute your music without paying you).

Another option might be for a non-profit portal set up by a group of artists that takes only enough of a cut for infrastructure that uses a micropayment approach to charging the fans a very small amount to download the song, making it not worth their time to rip the CD and pirate the music in the first place.

Lars talks about CD prices being set by the free market, and that if the price gets too high people can push back. In my opinion, that's exactly what's happening. The push-back in this case is to go around the system.

Re:good point

[MrEd]

>Since by definition an unknown artist is, well, unknown, who the hell is ever going to find their songs?

That's a good point. However, you can use the "browse user" feature and browse other songs a particular person is sharing, and stumble across stuff this way.

Except that the vast majority of people only share the songs which they themselves have downloaded off Napster... leaving their main collection elsewhere to stave off bandwidth-sucking users. Selfish? Yes. It happens.

Re:Ok, time for a compromise.

[MrEd]

If a LEGAL alternative exists that falls within reason, most people will use that instead, simply because it is legal and moral.

Good post. However, I take a less optimistic view of human nature. I think that in cases such as this, where you're hurting something Big and Faceless (or even small and faceless), that people act much less morally. Your average user will use whatever medium is most convenient, even if it's the difference between Classic Napster, Gnutella, and the "RIAA approved Napster" of which you speak. If you're going to take peoples money, it had better be done conveniently. Too bad Amazon holds that patent on One-Click-Shopping. :)

Re:Either/Or

[MrEd]

Give the guy a break, he's a rock star. Obviously this was done over the phone, and Lars was probably rolling a joint on the table at the same time.

What about GNU?

[keefer]

Does this mean that the Gnu Public License, and everyone that uses it, actually DOESN'T have a right to prevent me from distributing binaries without source, whether I'm making money off of it or not? Just wondering where exactly you want the line in the sand drawn here.

Re:What about GNU?

[Andrew Cady]

Not a *right*. I've said before that while I don't see this as a *major* problem with the GPL, as I doubt many people have interest in sharing derivative binaries they can't copyright, I *would* have a problem with someone using it to harass people who shared sourceless binaries. (I don't know if removing the source clause would create a loophole... if it did, I would of course favor patching that loophole somehow. This is in anticipation of someone pointing out some way the GPL would lose some other power without the source clause). But I'm not against using copyright to prevent other people from restricting copying. It's really pretty ingenious, actually.

Anyway, don't get the idea that I'm wholesale against the idea of violating peoples' rights. There are essential rights and non-essential rights, and both the non-essential and even the essential ones can be violated under special circumstances (taxes as an example of the former, killing in self-defense as an example of the latter).

I *am* against copyright, but not against rewarding public goods, even if it means violating some rights. Copyright does some good by encouraging the creation of information, but it also does some harm by reducing the number of people who can access information, and the ways they can access it. They also do harm by restricting the creation of derivative works, and thus resulting in needless duplication of works (the GPL has this same problem, or at least fails to solve it). In my opinion, the harm outweighs the good often enough that another system could be much better overall.

Anyway, apologists of "intellectual property" (not to mention taxes) have absolutely no place appealing to rights. There are decent arguments for copyright, but that is one of them. Free sharing of music is as much a right as is not paying taxes is, if not more so.

Re:What about GNU?

[Andrew Cady]

> Copyright does not limit who can access information

I don't think you understood my meaning. When copyright is in place, fewer people will be able to access any given piece of information than would if copyright were not in place.

> You cannot walk into a court of law for a copyright violation and say to the judge, "Artists don't have that right!".

I never said you couldn't, but it's not relevant. You couldn't walk into a court of law 300 years ago as a slave and say "but slave-owners don't have that right!" either, but it doesn't mean the argument is invalid. The judge's opinion is of no more value than the opinion of anyone else.

So, to sum it up, who should we listen to about rights? You, who wants to plant your garden and then make a much-failed copyright example out of it, or the law, under which the rest of our social organization lives and functions? I'll listen the law .. not to a IP thief.

First of all, if you want to listen to the law, at least listen to it correctly -- copyright infringement is not considered theft by law.

You cannot appeal to the law in a debate about what the law should be, i.e. you cannot appeal to the status quo. If copyright is to be considered a right only because it is a law, then it makes no sense to say that copyright should be a law because it is a right. That is circular, and its validity leads to the conclusion that no law should ever be changed. Your definition of "right" is clearly not what was meant by the previous people who defended copyright -- at least if we interpret their arguments in a way that makes them coherent.

And please, don't just say my analogy is "much-failed". You haven't explained *why* it is a failure. What if I said nothing about your post except that your argument was "much-failed"? What could that demonstrate? Even if I had a valid criticism, how could you respond to that blanket statement?

Re:What about GNU?

[Hrunting]

I *am* against copyright, but not against rewarding public goods, even if it means violating some rights. Copyright does some good by encouraging the creation of information, but it also does some harm by reducing the number of people who can access information, and the ways they can access it. They also do harm by restricting the creation of derivative works, and thus resulting in needless duplication of works (the GPL has this same problem, or at least fails to solve it). In my opinion, the harm outweighs the good often enough that another system could be much better overall.

Copyright does not limit who can access information; it limits who can distribute said information. There's a big difference. The whole point of copyright is that it only applies to published works, published meaning accessible. You can't copyright something that no one can view publicly. I know this because I just went through the copyright procedures for our web site, and our lawyers wouldn't let us include anything that was a) a derivative work and b) code that wasn't visible (eg. code that generated code, SSIs, etc.). Copyright is only viewed as limiting when people can't access it the way they want, but copyrighted information is always accessible. It has to be, or it can't be copyrighted.

And while we're at it, there's two different types of rights. There's rights which are deemed 'inalienable' in that they exist because of existence. These include life, speech, individual liberty, decision, and several others. Then there are rights which exist because of laws. These include the right to vote (yes, voting is right for those countries that assign it), copyright (which is a right given to someone to distribute works), right to bear arms, right to privacy, etc. Just because you don't think the law shouldn't make it a right doesn't mean that it's not. Anarchists may not believe in laws, but that doesn't mean that they still don't live under them. You cannot walk into a court of law for a copyright violation and say to the judge, "Artists don't have that right!". The judge will look at you, laugh, slap you with a fine and tell you you have a law-given right to appeal. Then you can exercise your God-given right to decide whether or not to exercise that right.

So, to sum it up, who should we listen to about rights? You, who wants to plant your garden and then make a much-failed copyright example out of it, or the law, under which the rest of our social organization lives and functions? I'll listen the law .. not to a IP thief.

Re:The point is: How do they get paid?

[Hnice]

Figuring out how they get paid isn't my problem -- it's something that everybody in an information-selling industry is trying to figure out -- magazines, books, music, movies.

So Metallica 'isn't quite there yet'? Not my fault they (and everybody else, save for chuck d) are dragging their feet. Given the number of people who have gotten rich selling what appeared at first to be next-to-nothing online in the last ten years, am i really supposed to sit here until Lars gets around to learning Perl?

F this. An industry which becomes obselete because it hasn't even *tried* to keep up does *not* have any economic rights. No one has a right to make money through a particular devliery platform -- if in fact metallica owns the music and not the platform, they should be trying to get the music out via every available channel. the fact that they haven't shows that Lars is being disingenuous -- they aren't just lazy, they're in bed with the people who *do* need cds to hang around.

Metallica, Britney Spears, Milli Vanilli. Enjoy it while it lasts.

Post the sound file!

[Gorimek]

So they demanded and got a verbatim transcript. Fine.

But is there anything stopping slashdot from putting up the interview as a sound file so we can hear it? I think it would be easier to follow if heard.

You don't have to make it an .mp3 file.

Number of unsigned artists not clear.

[Kowh]

Note that he said "of an", not "all".

This may just be unclarity, but perhaps they picked one unsigned artist and then monitored just that artists songs. This means they can pick a crappy band, which no one will download except by mistake, and then draw their "one" number for greater emphasis. Not that I'm accusing them of doing just that, but there is probably no "average" unsigned band that they could monitor just like there is no "average" person.

Monitoring just one artist seems a lot more realistic than all unsigned bands. Does anyone know how hard it would be to find out if 1000*n bands are signed or not? I'm assuming it's rather hard, and that finding out if just one band is signed or not is a lot easier.

Re:Good Lord, no wonder he's the drummer.

[mrBoB]

hehe... oops, sorry. I misspelled "english." Damn me.

Good Lord, no wonder he's the drummer.

[mrBoB]

I can't even make it through the first two questions. He doesn't write clear, concise answers. It's very tough to read a well thought out question, and then read a response that is extremely long and says nothing at all. Damnit. I guess it just goes to show that having multi-millions of dollars doesn't do a damn thing about a lack of education. I hate speaking to people who can't speak Enlish well.

flames can go to /dev/null
Bob

Re:Good Lord, no wonder he's the drummer.

[mrBoB]

No I didn't. That's amazing. However, it comes back to my stauch American beleif that if you come to my country, you learn my language. It's kinda the same way that most Frech beleive. Anyway dude, me and Timothy already resolved the issue, what with the interview being over the phone and all.

Bob

Re:Ignore Lars at your Peril?

[cantherius]

Personally - I understood him just fine. I enjoyed this article much more with no editing than I would have with it. Lars seems well spoken and smart ,and even though he did ramble some, I think that anyone who says they didnt understand a word he said etc. was either just trying to find a last bit of insulting power or is just illiterate (i consider the latter unusual in a /. reader)
so give the guy a friggin' break. Metallica did make a mistake by directly attacking the fans, but Lars makes a good point, and I think his rights and the rights of Metallica should be considered. Just because he makes music for you doesnt mean you own him ok?
just my $.02

What else could Napster have done?

[Dust Puppy]

Lars said that he would have liked Metallica to have been asked to be included in Napster's lists. What doesn't seem to occur to him is that Napster doesn't work like this. Maybe he's ignorant of the this fact, or maybe he just doesn't have any ideas of how it could be done.

Sure, Napster could have just disallowed sharing of any MP3s which have filenames/ID3 tags mentioning any signed bands/artists, but this wouldn't have helped one bit - people would just rename things until they worked. All this does is make things slightly more inconvient (hands up those many people who have downloaded an MP3 from a website and had to change the extension from ".zip" to ".mp3"? I thought so).

Besides which, why should they? It would be impossible to check that MP3s named as such really were illegal to distribute - perhaps that MP3 is a rare bootleg (which Lars says we can distribute all we want!)

Habitual bootlegging or Piracy?

[runswithd6s]

Lars' last point was the quantity of Napster. This is just silly. Ok, Lars, why don't you tell us exactly what the cut-off on copied tapes is? If one is ok, is 10? Can I copy 20 of my friend's records? 100?

This statement is purely argumentative and misses the point that Lars is hinting toward, but not outright stating. Reproduction of media has time, cost, and scope of influence to consider when making this argument. Tapes are cumbersome, outdated, expensive, and is certainly limited-life media format. MP3's living in Internet space are sleek, extremely mobile, easily reproducable, and almost eternal. If you really take the time to add it all up, MP3's and the Internet have won the distribution contest hands down.

So, it turns out that Lars does have a point hidden in this ad hoc-ish style interview. Computers and the Internet -- not simply Napster -- have changed the rules. Subsequently, so have the definitions of bootlegging, which Metallica supports, and piracy, the unauthorized mass distribution of copyright protected materials.

The fact that Metallica went after Napster is simply an ends to a mean. They disagree with the forum/environment/service/whathaveyou Napster provides and the manner in which it provides it. This discussion isn't really about what constitutes a legal media or distribution path, or the business practices of record companies, rather how to protect copyright holders in this new technological environment.

Look outside the box at the larger picture.

On a side note, I'll take Lars' implied advice. Bootleg all you want (tape, mp3, whatever), just don't make a professional habit of it.

Re:Legal/Illegal does not equal Right/Wrong

[dboyles]

Legally things are either legal or illegal, but in the real world people constantly are making decisions in the "shades of gray" areas. I feel perfectly at easy doing 75 in a 65mph zone, I habitually break drug laws, and I'll download MP3's till I'm blue in the face.

I think your logic is off on this one. Of course there are times when laws should be ignored. Speed laws on our highways are a perfect example. On a two-lane road with a 55 mph speed limit, if I want to pass someone who is going 52 mph, you had better believe that I'm going to break the speed limit when passing them. I'll get around them in a hurry and then slow back down to my previous speed. NHTSA's "speed kills" campaign is responsible for those people who merge onto busy freeways at 20 mph below the speed of traffic.

If you want to sit in your house and smoke pot, believe me, I have absolutely no problem with that. None whatsoever. To me, this meets the definition of a victimless crime.

Taking for free what you would otherwise have to pay for is a different story. I'm not going to lie to you, I've been to a party and watched a boxing match through a descrambler. Regardless, stealing is still wrong. Maybe I can justifying it by saying that I wouldn't have paid X dollars for the good/service anyway, but it's still wrong.

It amazes me to see some of the posts in response to Lars' example about not wanting to pay $47,000 for a Suburban. It's as if all of the sudden people are seeing that just because something seems to be unfairly priced, it actually is wrong to take it without paying. I didn't need someone famous to tell me that, my parents taught me long ago.

Re:mp3 quality

[dboyles]

I hate this argument... its technically lossy, but most people I've seen saying the quality is bad have good stereos and lousy computer speakers. I've been eager, for a long time, to set up a fair, human-based quality test. Maybee I'll do it this summer.

I did a test about 8 months ago. I ripped a track from a CD to wav, made a copy of it, and compressed one of them. I did this for three different tracks of different musical material. I burned all 6 tracks, and although the test was not scientific (I knew what was playing at what times), it was extremely easy to discern the difference, even at high bitrates for the MP3s.

My computer setup consists of a pair of Altec speakers + sub. It was the mid-level speaker arrangement when I got my Dell in '98. My stereo is an integrated tube amplifier, Marantz CD player, and MSB d/a converter. To put it in perspective, my speaker cables (each are 8' long) retail for $250 (the dealer threw them in with the speakers).

a different view in the past

[dboyles]

I thought this might be of interest to some folks. Lots of people have talked about Metallica selling out, changing who they are, etc. Back in 1991 or '92, when I was a sixth grader, some friends of mine went to a Metallica concert and thought it was the greatest thing. The one story that sticks out in my head is this conversation (paraphrased) that took place between Metallica's lead singer (his name escapes me) and a ticketholder in the front row:

Singer: "Have you got the new album yet?"

Fan: "No, I can't afford it!"

Singer: "Well then steal it!"

Oh, the irony.

Re:Tapes? MP3's!

[TheGeek]

Man, excellent idea!

I have no doubt it would be a major download. Maybe we can ask him for permission to put it on mp3.com too!

TheGeek

OT: 1st 1,000th post?

[plankton14]

just out of curiosity, has slashdot ever had a story with over 1000 posts to it? I only remember the microsoft vs. andover story scoring 800 or so before the dos attack.

You can keep quality up w/ 64kb/s. .

[Bastian]

By encoding in mono - which is the only way I can record stuff, anyway, so it doesn't make sense to double the size of your file by making 2 copies of the same track.

Re:Two points: transcript and monitoring Napster

[Porag_Spliffing]

I don't know about Napster but certainly if you use Gnapster (GNOME napster client) and set maximum uploads to zero you have a client which will not let people upload from you.

Re:He speak english right?

[jhittner]

Duh... I didn't realize at first that it was transcribed from a phone interview. My aplogies Lars.

Lars defined the best path for Napster

[Nachtfellen]

I believe that he only scratched the surface, but really, he stated the only possible path for Napster to continue, as a profitable entity.

Essentially, it comes down Napster as the New Radio (tm). The best way for anyone to have music on demand is a distributed file system, but ultimately, in issues of IP, the owner should get to decide the method of its distribution. Accepting this as fact, while at the same time, accepting that sharing files increases sales, and is a good avenue for smaller bands to gain noteriety, owners of IP will most likely in the future choose to release some of their titles to public distribution. In turn, they will choose to keep the rights to the rest of their titles to themselves, and distribution of which will be handled through whatever methods prevail (cd, secure mp3 download, etc.)

I believe this is the best way for Napster, et al, to flourish, with their services standing to profit from advertising, and becoming labels for their up-and-coming bands.

Re:All Recorded Songs are Copyrighted

[icebike]

In US lay, a copyright only exists if asserted. You have to claim it, by simply stating that it is copyrighted it becomes so.

Re:Lars: (an MP3 == master (?!?)) = problem

[matthead]

Bull.

You don't get liner notes with an MP3, nor do you get the master PCM audio data. What you get is a med. to high. quality reproduction of the audio that is good enough to enjoy listening to.

There's still added value in a CD.

Re:Is Napster really good for unsigned artists?

[Paranoid Diatribe]

I think most anyone will agree that, without publishing the methodology (and maybe the raw data), the NetPD report cannot be taken at face value. As such, any conclusions based on the report cannot be taken seriously, including the one made by Lars.

Well, yeah okay...

[GoblinWizard]

I pretty much agree with Lars. While I haven't read the whole interview yet, I feel compelled to reply now anyway.

Their main quarrel with Napster is the volume and quality of the material available. This is valid. When they were taping vinyl it was low quality, so they wanted to go get the records or tapes or whatever. With Napster, it's nearly cd quality and with cd recorders and all, where's the incentive to go support the bands by buying the cds? Aside from liner notes and just doing the right thing, there's none. I download stuff from Napster. Most of the mp3s I have (from Napster or otherwise) are legal. I own the cd or the tape or bought them on the net or whatever. My point is, I use Napster the way it should be used, and I do the same thing with it that they (Metallica) esentially did when they were trading tapes, I do go buy cds that are worth buying, which turns out to be not very many. I support the bands worth supporting, and the rest of them (that suck) can burn.

And let's not forget that nobody on the internet is there to lose money. Napster has some way of making money down the road, and without anybody who deserves it (like artists) ever seeing any.

I know people who have said they will never buy another cd again. I'm sure there are lots of people out there like this. While I can understand them not wanting to support the evil empire (record industry) they are also not supporting the artists. How do they think the artists get the money to continue making records? I mean Metallica is certainly not running out of money anytime soon but some other bands could. The Goo Goo Dolls, early in their career had a multi platinum album and were broke. They were playing shows FOR THE MONEY. What if everybody had downloaded their stuff instead of buying it? There may have been no more Goo Goo Dolls. Maybe there are other bands like them who were not so lucky that we have lost forever because of services like Napster. (Maybe not?)

See, it's stuff like this that makes me understand why artists are pissed at Napster. Like I have said at length, I use Napster (and others) the way it should be used. Lots of people don't.

All just fuel for thought. Gimmie fuel gimmie fire...

Suggestion for Lars and Napster/MP3.com

[fwr]

Here's a suggestion that, while probably not what the majority of Napster users would want, seems to satisfy both Metallica's concern for pirated music on a large scale and indemnifies Napster from future legal problems.

The suggestion is simple (IMHO). Simply change the Napster protocol so that it verifies a user has a legally purchased CD before allowing a download. They could do this by simply selecting random locations on a CD and creating a hash that would uniquely identify the CD. Random locations are selected so that users could not pass around "hash lists" and get around the protocol. They would also have to somehow verify what exact song or CD a user was offering. (Perhaps this is more applicable to MP3.com which supposedly has full CD's that they own and tried to allow downloads for, unlike Napster who seems to depend on it's users to offer the music.)

This would seem to do two things. It would prevent Napster/MP3.com from distributing copyrighted songs without making a good-faith effort to determine that a consumer is legally entitled to the song. This should protect them from any future law suites.

It would also seem to address Lars' concern about "sharing" music on a vastly larger scale than was done in the past. While it would be possible for someone to loan me their CD so that I could download the song it does not appear that this type of "loaning" would result in any larger illegal disrtibution of music than in the past. In fact, if someone loaned me their CD, then I could easily rip the CD and encode it myself. After all, that does seem to be the main benefit of Napster and MP3.com, to provide pre-ripped and encoded songs that I already own. In exchange for marketing information that I provide, by virtue of what songs I download and already have purchased, they are giving me the service of providing pre-ripped/encoded files.

This would put a stop to these sites, but not technologies such as gnutella.

What do you think?

Re:Either/Or

[satanic bunny]

Hey: hold your horses!!! There _are_ ethical journos out here and half the work they do is sparing the public those endless "and...uh" or "as I said last time, uh...yeah" and so on...whilst preserving the voice they heard, the views someone is striving to articulate and the sense that the reader/viewer is meeting the same person that they did.

Nothing pisses good reporters off more than the idea that it's either one or the other: either an interview one presents has to be bumbling and full off repetitive noises to be "authentic" OR it's ipso facto a prettified - to use Roblimo's term - re-written press release (or similar corporate diktat).

Good journalists are not so numerous - they never have been. The Net has made their arduous task a lot tougher simply because - not to do a Lars on ya, but it's true !!! - the proliferation of news, magazine, "entertainment" and "media" sites has led to a near-desperation scramble for "content". This, in turn, has spawned a plague of virtual plagiarism. (Not to mention miles of boilerplate bad writing and "reporting").

Any reputable scribe (plenty of them write for the Web) will tell you this. Doing good journalistic work has never been easy and it doesn't help to have a cranky /. staffer, of all people, implying such work is worthless.

Commendations to /. for persevering in getting Lars to answer their ?s. That, too, ain't quite so easy.

Grammar Check

[yetisalmon]

Ok Lars.....here's how you did.

"There has been no [support] from the record companies; they never instigated anything, so we took it upon ourselves, there was never really much in term of support. There's been the occasional pat on the back, the occasional call, but I would say that I'm quite, I'd say, more than surprised, I'm quite stunned at the lack of communication and input from the record company"
Run-on sentence, Lars!

"So it's the quality, the quality and the scale."
You've got repetition there, Lars!

Re:Grammar Check Revisited. Here's how *you* did.

[yetisalmon]

You got me. But, you also have a fragment.

"Fragment." is a fragment in itself.

Interesting...

[jmccay]

I found that quite interesting. It's alright for them to break copywrite laws but no alright for anyone else?

One question I would have like to see answered would be "Do you realise the scale of which you could gain new fans through this channel as it now stands? For example, college kids don't have a lot of money (imagine that). Some kid gets an MP3 from a friend of a good Metallica song. They decide they like the group, and they decide to get the cd. They have a chance to expand their market to people they may have never reached before. I know plenty of people who "discovered" artist this way."

Also, Lars, if you actually read this, spend more time in the studio instead of with the lawyers. The song for MI2 sucks! Focus on you "art" instead of everything else. The song shows it lack musical talent.

Re:There is a difference

[nocent]

Sure, Napster trading isn't causing our income to go down, but it's the principle of the thing --

They are doing this because of the potential in the future for it to become a huge financial problem if it isn't one already. Home tapers they feel will never hurt their sales as much because of the reduction in quality of their tapes and because you could only trade with a few people at a time. It's the potential of millions of perfect digital copies available to millions that scares them. He said:

"Understand one thing: this is not about a lot of money right now, because the money that's being lost right now is really pocket change, ok? It's about the priciple of the thing and it's about what could happen if this kind of thing is allowed to exist and run as rampant and out of control for the next 5 years as it has been for the last 6 months. Then it can become a money issue. Right now it's not a money issue."

You wrote: unless the trading is on a smaller scale, like the guy down the street with the Iron Maiden record; that's a different principle I guess.

Perhaps the "principle" Lars is talking about is the principle to be able to say "No, I don't want to be a part of it". He said,

"What it ultimately comes down to, and this is really the simplest way of saying it, is 'Who controls it?' And I want the right to control what is mine. And if I decide to give -- I respect the next guy, who wants to put his music on Napster, but I want him to respect the fact that maybe I don't. It's that simple. It's really the point. This is what the whole point of this country is, you have the right to make your own choices in this country, and we were not given that right. People take for granted that our music should be out there and be traded. What if we don't advocate that? They shouldn't argue with that. Napster has the right to exist. I support Napster's right to exist, OK? But I want them to support my right to not be part of it."

Re:Not a two-faced liar ... just changed his mind.

[nocent]

Give the guy a right to learn more about the issues and change his mind. Isn't that what we want? Aren't we trying to convince him that his actions are futile?

He said:

"Yeah, I would say that I have certainly through the course of this in the last month, absorbed what I've learned, and listened to other people and respected other people's opinons, and I have come to actually change my position from, I believe that if it's not Napster, then a type of service like Napster has the right to exist, on the condition that the only thing being traded through that service is music by people, artists and owners who have given that service permission. So that obviously changes the thrust of what he was saying."

Give him credit for having the guts to admit he thought something else and later changed his mind. Most people just stick stubbornly to whatever it is they initially believed even after they are given arguments to believe otherwise. And give credit to the people who calmly and respectfully explained a different perspective to Lars so that he could understand exactly what's going on.

Re:Hom much money do you get from the sale?

[nocent]

This was (I think) an interview conducted over the phone. The person who posed the question packed 2 questions into his post. It's easy to answer the second part and forget what the first part was. I would be more shocked if the interviewer asked the two parts separately, gave Lars a chance to answer one part first before asking the second and Lars responded with "no comment".

What difference does it make if you know exactly how small the sum he is making? How does it negate all the other points he made in the interview? He's still making something. He has to get the money to pay those lawyers from somewhere. :) Plus, 10 cents from every record sold times millions of records is still hundreds of thousands of dollars. Napster is giving him nothing. He earns nothing from what people are downloading off napster. You may argue that there is a side benefit in that people will sample his music, see if they like it and then make a purchase based on that download but there is no concrete proof that this is happening and there is a counterstudy that in the record stores closest to colleges, there's been a decline in record sales the past couple of years.

Re:Something else to ponder.

[nocent]

Now I find myself kicked off of Napster for downloading Metallica songs legally.

1. The person you downloaded the songs from is in effect distributing Metallica's music which is illegal whether or not you own the song yourself. See my.mp3.com lawsuit. Like it or not, that's the way the law is in this country.

2. Napster is the one that said, "if you can give us the list of names, we'll ban them." Lars just asked that Metallica have the freedom to not participate in napster and rather than providing a solution to that problem, napster chose to ban the users.

Re:Journalistic ethics

[kirwin]

It is now a documented fact that Lars has communication problems. Chastising the interviewer for not cleaning up the dialogue is completely trivial. Had Barbara Walters done this interview on TV, no one would question her integrity whilst Lars is swinging his heaad around and cursing. I wouldn't give Matt Lauer hell if Lars forgot to shower. It is Lars responsibility to not make an ass of himself.

Re:Oh dear

[plague3106]

Ya really. Does he understand the semantics of the english language at all? I guess he doesn't speak very well unless its all be rehersed and written out for him while taping a show for vh1. Was he always like this? Or is he senial? Or was he so at a loss to answer these questions he got really confused. It seems to me from the answer to his first question and part of the second, that he really has no clue whatsoever about what the internet is, let alone napster. Please guys, just retire right now. Gracefully..

Re:OK for me, but not for you.

[plague3106]

OK, tell me, why would i want to pay for an artist i didn't listen to in the first place that i never cared about? Or more to the point; why should i pay for the label's bad investments?

Re:R&D Means nothing w/ out Advertizing

[plague3106]

Advertising...ya whatever. I rarely ever hear of a band anymore b/c of advertising (ie buying slots on mtv or the radio). I very rarely listen to the radio anymore b/c its become such a barren wasteland of utter shit. The only way i hear of bands now are via napster or my friends; don't know where they hear of it, but usually i find out about a band before they are ever played on the radio.

Re:OK for me, but not for you.

[plague3106]

Intel is hardly a monopoly. They have AMD to worry about, and lately they've been worrying alot. In fact the only monopoly in the computer industry seems to be on DVD and by microsoft. And believe me, i would love to change the way this country does business...

Re:Definitely (not)

[plague3106]

Odd, i think the mp3s sound just like the cd when at 44khz and 128bits.

Re:That's where you are mistaken...

[plague3106]

If it sounds just like the cd its cd quality. I don't care if it doesn't record the note i don't hear anyway.

Re:OK for me, but not for you.

[plague3106]

Seems to be then there is a problem there. Just b/c one form of 'stealing' isn't as effect as another makes one ok and the other not? Thats pretty shakey moral ground right there....not to meantion the fact that there is no loss in this 'theft.'

Re:Wow. That was... /signed but not big artists

[Otus]

Personally, I often use Napster to check out signed artists who aren't well known - I run across a review, or hear a friend mention them, but I don't want to spend $16 on a CD I've never heard - and if I like it then I'll be buying a CD I wouldn't have otherwise.

I think it's that situation that really benefits artists (and record companies).

Re:One major point...

[daVinci1980]

Arthur, Arthur, Arthur. What the hell are you talking about?

But even that isn't true bit-to-bit, since many CD-R drives make a few mistakes everytime the burn a copy (so after a dozen or so copies the quality quickly decreases).

This is one hundred percent incorrect! If a CD-Burner makes even a single bit error, the CD will not verify. Most CD-Burners have a failure rate of 1E-30 bit-error rates. This means that approximately 1 out of every 2^90 (!) bits will be miswritten, but in this case the CD will FAIL when verified. Note that 2^90 is a billion billion billion bytes.

The changing of even a single bit during burning changes the byte which the bit belongs to, and is very easily identifiable.

Corruption in copying or downloading them? Do you know what TCP/IP is? Do you know what it does? TCP/IP promises you almost the same failure rate as Hard Disk Drives and copy algorithms (1E-33 in IBM HDDs case). TCP/IP virtually guarentees that what you download is the same as what you started with. It does so using redundant checksums and resends. This is why TCP/IP is not used for games, because it has a high overhead.

Crappy quality in MP3s is 99.99999% of the time a result of someone using a shitty encoder, not the result of download or copy errors.

PS: To illustrate this point, let me offer this. The average MP3 is 4 megs. On average, 1/10 MP3s that I download will be in crappy condition. By this measure, I should NEVER be able to download software in the size of >50 megs, because I should be guarenteed that at least one bit somewhere will be screwed up. On that note, I tell you that I've download Redhat ISO images (size >630 Megs) with a success rate of about 99.9%. In fact I've never downloaded an image and had it not verify to the original on the server.

In the future, please check your facts before posting........
--
"A mind is a horrible thing to waste. But a mime...
It feels wonderful wasting those fsckers."

Change of view

[CMU_Nort]

I used to think that this cartoon was a hilarious and accurate reflection of Metallica and their actions against Napster. Now though I'm actually seeing it a little more clearly and not through the info-anarchists eyes.

Re:One major point...

[penguinicide]

Actually from my experience, (and I have tried it) 128kbps is roughly the same quality as a brand new store bought audio tape of an album. (Slightly different problems, but the same end quality)

256kbps (what I use for all my recordings) is almost a cd quality, but still has noticable problems once in a while.

The biggest reason noone notices is that most people don't have their mp3 player hooked up to a high quality stereo. (Apex AD600A / component system / etc...).

Re:Art vs Commodity

[Intrinsic]

I think you need to give him a break, he did a good job concidering what he knew before all this, and what he knows now.

Piracy IS the correct response

[verin]

Right now, music publishing companies are artificially maintaining higher prices. To clearly illustrate this, consider a car made by toyota and one made by hand by a good mechanic. Companies are designed to mass produce things more efficiently, yet I can buy a CD from an unsigned artists for 50-60% of one from a music store.

Now, because of this use of an effective monopoly, there really is no alternative but to buy product from them, this makes boycotting impossible. The music industry works together as a whole, there really is no other source of Metallica CD's. If I like the color blue, I can go boycott one brand of paint and buy another, but no consortium is trying to fix the price of blue paint.

This exact situation happened when vhs tapes started selling, at really high prices. Piracy exploded, but this time with no easy to find company to blame (and there WERE great distribution networks for these). The prices came down, and the piracy subsided.

Now, the music and movie industries are trying to get around this problem, by upping the copy difficulty (the other means of preventing duplication of something of value), through use of technology and law. But historicly, these have severe limitations over time as well. (laws get changed, or invalidated, newer technology comes along).

And frankly, metallica is as much the victim here as the consumers, because it is trying to fight something it mistakenly sees as wrong.

Re:Wow. That was a fucking cool interview.

[DGregory]

There IS a place that you can put your own mp3's on... www.mp3.com. On there, they ONLY have mp3s that the person with the rights to have let them put them on there. You might want to think about doing it with yours. I've come across some bands that are pretty good on mp3.com that no one else has heard of, since about the only big name band on there is TMBG.

Re:Help!

[Garth Vader]

Well what you really need is basically a huge music server where you can pay 50 cents or a dollar for a song. They could have two copies of each song, one with dimished quality which would be free to allow you to sample without buying. The other would be in impeccible quality which would be the pay song.

Would people use something like this? I probably would. One thing I don't like about Napster is that the selection changes constantly, sometimes a file is mislabled or sounds like it was recorded through somebodys ass. I would certinly pay to get quality, but I hate paying $16 for two songs that I like and 10 songs I never want to hear again.

I don't have the time, resources or energy to try and set something like this up but I do think it wouldn't be that hard as long as you could get a bunch of artists together.

Re:Wow. That was a fucking cool interview.

[knugfjunk]

A band I was in a few years ago posted a couple of mp3's and wavs and we actually got a few random orders for our cd and got some small gigs for it.

Lars seems convinced that if you are in a band, you automattically are doing it for a living. I'd be willing to bet that the great majority of bands are just "normal" working people or teenagers in high school just messing around in their basements or garages jamming away.

Re:Missing the point?

[Tiger Smile]

Yes, he did say that. Later he said it was about 'control' and not about stealing.

odd.

-- James Dornan

Lars might have missed the point.

[Tiger Smile]

He explains that this whole thing makes them look like assholes. I think that in an age where the new digital airwaves carry sound perfectly, that yes he, the band, his lawyers, and people they hire to gather names do look like assholes. I think it's important that they understand that we are digital air breathers and listeners. What makes them asshole? The fast that they blame the air for their over-the-top attacks on fans.

Lars, please to shaking a fist at us, or the new digital air we breath. You'll lose our respect, self respect, money, fans, and more. Work with the digital airwaves and be a hero.

-- James Dornan

Re:Either/Or

[Keepiru]

Adding value isn't too difficult, help me find new bands/songs that I like. So... you like Def Leppard and Chicago (don't spam me for my music taste.) well here is a new band you might like to hear...

Taping in a garage vs. Napster

[TheKodiak]

I appreciate his argument that the quality of Napster is superior to the quality of audiotape dubs from vinyl. However, I have difficulty paying attention to his argument that the scale is any different - when I think back on my High School days, I can't think of anyone I knew who owned as many honest records, CDs and tapes as they did dubs except me, and that's because I was a vinyl fiend. I still had the dubs, I just had so much vinyl it outstripped it. Nowadays, I'm a CD fiend, so it's pretty much the same. I think it still works out to a tonne of people, maybe not a million in 48 hours, but still hundreds of thousands of people dubbing tapes over the weekend.

Re:I Expected Lars To Be More Of A Dumbass

[cotopaxi]

If Johnny were downloading, say, Beethoven or Mozart

Wait, hold on a second here. Yes, Beethoven and Mozart are dead and can receive no more royalties, but the performers certainly do. Actually piracy would hurt classical musicians much more than bands like Metallica because a successful classical cd rarely sells more than a few thousand copies.

Also keep in mind that in an orchestral performance there are 50+ musicians to be paid.

Please do not pirate classical music! Help support the arts by letting musicians make a living.

Re:Napster == worse quality than tape

[ptbrown]

If there is still anyone out there who hasn't read the technical synopsis of MP3 encoders that was on ArsTechnica a while back, I highly recommend it. You don't even have to understand what it all means to see that even the best MP3-encoded files don't quite match the quality of the original source. MP3s are low-fidelity, and Lars's liberal tossing around of the phrase "1st generation, perfect digital copies of master recordings" is incredibly misleading. It is also a blatant disregard for basic recording fundamentals and I can't believe that Lars doesn't know what a master really is; he does, so he was exaggerating on purpose.

And considering that (speculating) most of the MP3s you download have been ripped using a 15-month old version of Xing, I'd compare the average quality of internet MP3s to that of a second-generation analog copy. Sure, it won't degrade any further as you copy it, but that's a long way from "near-perfect" copies from a "master".

So Lars, don't admit to blatant ignorance of computers and then try to justify your assessment of technology by claiming you learned it all from advisors and press-releases.

Also, how come no one has yet to mention Hotline? Oh, oops... guess I just did.

Re:Bleh

[odysseus_complex]

He also did not state the context in which he copied. Could be one of several reasons:

• Got a nice vinyl, don't want to scratch it so make a copy and listen to that.
  
• Got a tape but don't want to keep it in the car where it would get trashed so make a copy and use that.
  
• Don't have a cd/record player in the car but have a tape deck, so make a tape.
  
• Just want to keep the originals in prime condition.
  

All of these are valid contexts, but without knowing why he did it, we cannot pass judgement.

I now duck behind the podium to avoid any rotten fruit thrown my way...

Lars Has It right!!!

[neowintermute]

He's right! We should boycott!!!

"If there is a full-on consumer boycott of a product, whether it's toothpaste or Suburbans or CDs, sooner or later the people whose livelihood depends -- not the artists, but the companies who are selling these toothpaste or CDs or whatever, will take note."

I am not going to buy another CD until they take note.

now, back to napster...


___________________________
Michael Cardenas
http://www.fiu.edu/~mcarde02
http://www.deneba.com/linux

Re:Wow. That was a fucking cool interview.

[neowintermute]

Here's an accurate translation of this article:

Money Good!
Napster Bad!

http://www.joecartoon.com/buddies/chaos/index.ht ml

:))))))))))))

yeah...


___________________________
Michael Cardenas
http://www.fiu.edu/~mcarde02
http://www.deneba.com/linux

Another one

[WiartonWilly]

UF Toon

the brightest man

[wfrp01]

Lars isn't "the brightest man I've even run across" or "ever run across"?

Don't you just hate it when the spell-checker doesn't give your intellect a big enough boost?

Re:You missed the point...

[leo.p]

Isnt fair to the company? What's fair to the company? That they embrace their control over yet another communication channel? There already are copyright laws in the books. I should be able to do with my internet connection as I see fit. The consequences of my actions will be mine to deal with alone.

The problem with your position is that you cannot enforce "permission" without violating presumed innocence and imposing draconian restrictions on everyone and their grandmother.

This is about who gets to control the new media and the lucrative possibilites it offers. Nothing more, nothing less. You cant broadcast radio signals; now they want to tell you that you cant broadcast ip.

And, irony of ironies, the issue of control is precisely where Lars' head is at.

Re:Either/Or

[leo.p]

The cartoon channel. If they could also deliver a box of Fruit Loops every Saturday morning, I wouldnt have to get out of my pyjamas.

Re:mp3 quality

[leo.p]

Lossy compression is just part of it.

The other thing that Lars et al are ignoring is that people are downloading mp3s to listen on demand. Cable and DSL allows that. Lars spoke about 1,000,000+ downloads over the course of a weekend but what he fails to realize is that almost all of those downloads will eventually be wiped from their owners disks in favor of some other jingle or image files or whatever. I mean, its just bits, free electrons, right? At least that appears to be the tacit assumption.

No one is getting their panties in a knot over the fact that Celine Dion was played 10,000,000 times on the radio last week. (Too bad, really .)

Mp3s are hurting radio more than anything else, as far as I can guess. I dont listen to music stations any longer but I do seem to be buying more cds.

Im sorry but any way you cut it, be it from a business or an ethical point of view, mp3s *and* napster justify their own existence. Lars is just going to have to accept this and be grateful that his "loss of control" will translate into something a bit more tangible and bankable. Cry me a river. Oh, and a net gain in my control which is none too shabby either.

The interview has demonstrated that Lars is a poster boy for reactionary thinking. Its a legitimate form of thinking, but its legitimacy is not an exclusive property over other points of view in this matter.

Re:You missed the point...

[leo.p]

Following up on my own post. Someone has to :-)

There's a reason why pirate radio stations are pirate. If anyone could broadcast, what are the chances that Milli Vanilli (whatever, you dig) are going to get airplay, aka the marketing muscle necessary to buy your taste and ears?

None. Well, you cant take none to the bank, can you? Better hire some lobbiests, show up on capitol hill with a few hookers, get some favorable laws written.

Hey, the ether is as much mine as yours. It hardly seems fair that you alone should be able to fill it with emr to advance your bottom line. Ether, internet. Same difference.

Make no mistake about it, where napster fails, the recording industry steps in and takes complete control. Game over. Your little internet experiment was interesting while it lasted, its unfortunate it had to be coopted by the recording industry. To paraphrase Lars: it is our *privilege* to buy the shit the recording industry has a *right* to sell at a price we dont agree with.

Whatever.

Maybe the next revolution will end up more favorably.

-- Have given up impersonating the guy impersonating Woston and have resumed waiting for the great leap forward.

Re:Either/Or

[leo.p]

Tell it to Donny and Marie and spare us the trite politically correct knee jerk reactions.

Reality Lost

[$nyper]

"Lars: Yeah, I mean I think we answered that before. Of course we have, ok? And of course it's a valid point. The bottom line is the size of it. The size of it and the quality of it. When we go in, and check Napster out, we come up with 1.4 million copyright infringements in 48 hours, this is a different thing than trading cassette tapes with your buddy at school. I mean, 48 hours! So it's the quality, the quality and the scale.

Jesus, I like Lars and the band but he reminds me of Hitler saying, "kill a thousand people and they call you a murder, kill a million and they call you a conqeuror."

I mean damn where do you draw the line on right and wrong. The law reads the same way the print appears in the books and that is black and white. Either you are following the law or you are breaking the law, there is no middle ground or gray. The gray we speak of is a figment of our imagination that we have created in order to allow our self to cope with breaking the law. I mean I am not going to say I have not skated theat imaginary gray line but come on, right and wrong is clearly defined in that black and white text. I don't believe he has any right to say that it is wrong for us to do exactly what he has done in the past. It really sounds almost as he is advocating for us to find a new meida type, "if you can find a way to compress a physical LP into a digital data file then its okay, but this MP3 shit is bad news." Sorry Lars but until we gain Star Trek replcator technology we can't really accomidate.

I am sorry but people are offen scared of that in which they do not fully understand and this seems to be Metalica's issue.

Re:Wow. That was a fucking cool interview.

[ArtDent]

Ok, but how did you here of these artists? Through Napster? I think not. There is AFAIK (I don't use it a lot) NO browsing function within Napster, you need to run a search, the search is obviously some band/song that you know and want a copy of their music. So how does this promote independant artists? You still have to have heard of them in order to get their music.

Not true. There are channels (actually, I think they call them "rooms" -- it's been a while since I've used the official client) for various music styles. You can enter a room, chat with others, and browse their collections (by user).

Re:INCONSISTANCY: Did you read THIS carefully?

[Rares Marian]

God take a joke and chew on it.

Re:Ignore Lars at your Peril?

[Borealis]

I loved his casual assumption that "tracking" would keep up with piracy. He doesn't seem to realize that Napster made their job easy. Try tracking a file distribution through freenet even with anon FTPs from warez sites.

Oh well, he never needs to worry about being too informed.

Does anyone here believe in an artist's rights?

[Broken Bottle]

Let me preface this by making it clear thatI am NOT a fan of Metallica. BUT, I can see that they are generally pretty good to their fans. Their fan club gives out backstage passes and first dibs on rare CDs and things like that. They've even tried to meet people half way by allowing taping at their concerts and allowing *trading* of THOSE tapes. They're not even against trading MP3s of those concert tapes. They've just drawn the line between the concert recordings and their legitimate releases. Is that unreasonable? Due to the way Napster is put together, I realize that pulling JUST Metallica songs off the Napster networks is impossible, but does anyone out there anyone out there that honestly feel that Metallica DOESN'T have the right to say "Please don't give away our legitimately released musics"? You can already have all the live versions of any of their songs that you could ever want... A lot of bands have run their relations with fans in a similar fashion: the Grateful Dead, Phish, and a bunch of other improv rock bands leap to mind. Their fans predominately understand what is and isn't an acceptable use of their music because the bands do a very good job of consistantly communicating The cool thing is that the bands don't have to get inmvolved with the policing issues all that much because the fans (by and large) respect the band's wish and their music. Back in the day, rec.music.gdead debated these sort of distribution issues until we were all sick to death of it :) BUT, at the end of the discussion, the people in the wrong new where that line was drawn and the people who were previously unaware of the band's policy knew how it worked. Self maintanence of a community is a wonderful thing to see in action. My feelings about Napster have been going back and forth for a while. On the one hand, it's exhilerating to see a new technology with so many posabilities emerge and catch fire. It's like being on the sidelines witnessing the big bang :) On the other hand, the way it's run right now, I can't see anyway that Napster could be used for anything other than the massive exchange of MP3s of legitimately released songs. As a fan of music, I have a moral problem with that. I've been thinking about it quite a bit and I can't arrive at any conclusion other than the feelign that Napster is too free for it's own good. I don't buy the "we just provide the venue, we don't tell people how to use it" arguement. Even the handgun industry now understands that they're going to be in big trouble if they don't start making trigger locks and other sorts of safety devices for their products. I'm not sure that I totally buy Lars's figures of 48billion Metallica copywrite violations (or what ever it was) vs. ONE unsigned band download. You could stumble across more unsigned band MP3s than that by accident on a Napster search. Napster's biggest problem is that you can't find music unless you know a title or artist name. This makes it impossible for them to use Napster as a forum for unsigned bands. By nature, an independant band is unknown to the masses and therefore nearly impossible to find on Napster. My feeling is that Napster needs to institute some restrictions and get things organized by genre or whatever. This would make it easier to police for copywrite violations and open up the service to unsigned bands a la MP3.com. Maybe MP3.COM should buy Napster and provide some organizational (and legally defendable) structure for the software. Chris

Re:Hmmm [is right]

[Broken Bottle]

Yeah, and Fugazi runs their own record label and distribution system. Which is INCREDIBLY tough for a band to do AND still make money. Ask the guys in Fugazi how long they've been touring in a van, sleeping in roach motels and living on corndogs. I feel that they're nearly masocistic in their ideals, but that's fine for them. Some bands like to eat. Chris

Re:How Does This Guy Make Any Money

[Darby]

>>(What do you think the /. preview button is for!?!)

I think it's mostly something to be used in the abstract. e.g. If I had previewed maybe I would have remembered to close my italic tag.

(of course the sad part here is that I previewed to make sure that this "feature" hadn't been fixed ;-)


---CONFLICT!!---

Re:He was talking on the phone, dummy.

[Darby]

I generally try to speak in complete, grammatically correct sentences. ;-)
---CONFLICT!!---

Re:The point is: How do they get paid?

[Matt Gleeson]

Maybe the point is: you won't get rich making an album of 8 songs every 2 years anymore. Those days are over now.

Though I'm talking out of my ass here, I think it's possible that a lot of musicians were hurt, not helped, by the invention of the phonograph. How many live acts lost work because they were replaced by jukeboxes and radios at diners and saloons? Didn't those musicians have a right to get paid?

No, there's no right to get paid for what you do: if you need money, you do something people are willing to pay for. And sometimes technology comes along and shakes up your business, and like the buggy-whip makers and big-band musicians, you have to figure out some other way to make money.

I would like to get paid to drink beer, but that isn't really possible for me. So I do something else that pays me money (writing software) and drink beer as a hobby.

another point

[Cyno]

If all of these napster users stopped breaking copyrights and just copied music from people who freely shared their mp3s I bet the recording industry would feel left out. They wouldn't get all the exposure they are getting now with napster. Napster should check for copyrighted work and stop letting people serve it, boot copyright offenders as soon as they are noticed and put up a web page stating that any RIAA affiliated / copyrighted 'art' can not be traded on their site.

Its doubtful that users would be smart enough to do this, but I'd sure like to see the surprise on Lar's face in a few years if some internet musician was making more than he was, simply through open-source methods of distribution.

Research, research

[Cyno]

I think Lars needs to do a little more research, it doesn't sound like he fully understand gnutella or the other technology out there for distributing files. Does anyone go after ftp sites with mp3s on them anymore?

Anyway, I am a musician and I have put out a couple mp3s. I enjoy recording and playing music and I have a real job, so I don't really need the money. I could understand how someone would want some money for the music they create if that's all they do in life, but I can't understand this damned copyright shit and how it relates to music. People used to dance around fires and play music and talk and share with their friends. Now people are sharing through the internet. But big bands like Metallica (one I used to idle when I was a kid) are whining cuz they aren't getting enough $$ out of it? Or is it just the fear of millions upon millions of copies of their music being traded? Does it matter? I got enough money to eat, and I'm sure Metallica does too. Why can't they share?

I might have wanted to get picked up by a record label and publicized a few years ago, but thanks to /. and what's left of free speech across the internet I've been taught that I should share. When I was a kid my parents told me I should share, but now those same parents seem to be upset and a bit confused over this whole napster and 'evil' internet that has been created. Is it evil or do they simply not understand it?

Re:You missed the point...

[joepeg]

You all may wish to peek at this, the Audio Home Recording Act (AHRA) which states:

No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.

as linked from here, The Free Music Philosophy (which is also very informative).

Regardless. People, people, you are failing to realize what it is we are discussing. Music. Many /.ers are very logical and rational thinkers. We understand the world mantains seemingly infinite complexities, broken down to the simplest of parts. With this in mind, is it not safe to say music already exists around you. It is an natural thing, a being, in a sense, which we are merely manipulating to appease the emotional aspect of our sense of hearing. Music is not tangible thing.

If so far this is too liberal in content for you, you may as well stop reading as it only gets worse from here.

As expressed very nicely in The Music Philosophy (linked above), all musicians of today are blatantly stealing from their predecessors. This is not an ethical unpleasantry, rather a wonderful progression of this phenomenon which we arbitarily claim to be 'music'. If we agree that we take from those we favor, (who have in fact taking from those they admired ad infinitum) and implement it into our own 'art' as lars claims his music to be, then why does he not give rolaties to each of those before him who have influenced his style of playing in that lars did not 'invent' any of his drumming patterns, but claims they are his own, with impregnable certainty.

Music is a natural therapy, one which requires definition from all of those who enjoy it. It is not a posession. It's not a television for fucks sake.

It is very apparent that lars has lost, or never had, any true love for his expression of music. If he did, he would find any means possible to share it with anyone and everyone willing to explore it.

Instead, he has put entire focus on the abolition of a very powerful, medium, a medium which has overwhelmingly spread the music, for an obvious, and very disturbing reason, he wishes to shelter.

Sure, the media has exploited Metallica, raping the the public with their conformist ideals (trivial) so we all have metallica shoved down our throats already, but this is another issue.

Why has music become a matter of money? Why is it so important to lars that their hard work be BOUGHT AND SOLD for outrageous expenses on one medium.

This is a horrible thing. We must return to our roots. We must cherish those cultures of today who have no price on music. Those who beat their drums with passion and uncontrollable enthusiasm while dancing wildy around eachother. It is a love of music, not the disgusting thing we have made it out to be.

I say fuck metallica. I say fuck the radio, mtv, labels, and the entire industry.

I am a musician, a musical scientist. I play to feed my own desires and explore this unexplainable natural high. When others get as much satisfaction as, or possibly more than, myself, then I know I have done a good thing. I continue to explore and benefit those who revel in it. I DON'T do any of this to be a fucking rock star and lose all visibilty of the reason why there is such a thing as a rock star.

It is because music is natural. We fiend for it like a drug and go to unreasonble measures to get our next fix. We are human.

The industry is the dirty dealer, giving you a mere taste to get you hooked, and laugh as you do these unreasonable things to get more. Napster and the likes are our sources of freedom, in more ways than you realize.

Die lars.

CDR Tax (was: Re:OK for me, but not for you.)

[Col. Forbin]

Remember there is a tariff paid to the recording industry for every blank tape and recorder sold. See earlier articles about tacking this same tarif on blank CDR's, and the uproar at the suggestion.

This tax already exists for "Audio" CDRs that you use in those Phillips home burners. That's why they are typically about $1 more per disc.

Although I don't doubt that the RIAA would love to have the tax apply to data discs as well.

Re:One major point...

[twjordan]

I don't believe this for a second.

Sure I have gotten bad MP3s but how many people seriously download bad mp3s because they are faster. 3 megs ain't that large for a song (think bac to the days of the wavs) and everyone I know, even people on 56K or slower, aims for quality not quantity. It isn't any good if you can't listen to it.

Just my 2 cents.

A song is not a Suburban

[shaper]

The vast difference in cost-of-duplication makes the two cases so non-parallel that they are nearly orthogonal.

If I walk into a dealership and drive off with a Suburban, the dealer has lost some real tangible thing that cannot be restored without a large amount of effort (manufacturing). With the thing gone, there is no possibility for making revenue without getting back the stolen item. That is not the case when I "steal" a song. The original owner still has the song.

The singer is selling access to the product, either through ticket sales or physical media. The auto dealer is selling the product itself. The two are engaged in totally different transactions. The loss that the original owner experiences is financial gain from transactions associated with the song through loss of control of access to the song.

Control of access (distribution) is currently the only way for content creators to extract revenue from the creation. We need to stop fighting for control of the distribution and figure out how to make money regardless of distribution. If we address the latter issue then the former need for control goes away.

How do we preserve the ability of content creators to gain from content associated exchanges while letting the content roam free? I have no idea :-) But that's the central issue of the conflict.

Re:Wow. That was a fucking dumb interview.

[Adam Selene]

I particularly liked where he called Gnutella and Freenet "Companies" that can be stopped - The guy is clueless.

Going after the COMPANY napster

[aliens]

I think the point that Lars made that hit me hardest was that they were going after the company Napster. Not the fans. He said he felt bad that the fans were being drawn into this becuase it wasn't their intention to do so. They simply see Napster making money off of copyrighted works, and I'd have to agree. The scary thing is they do want to go after Gnutella etc.. which are file systems. If they become monitored or outlawed(both equally horrible)... it's time to move servers to Russia, and then when they finally get around to regulating the servers in Russia, we'll just have to take the moon, it's our only hope to remain "free".

Re:streaming audio vs. transcription

[jcs]

"complications of serving many thousands of simultaneous connections"

... uh, didn't that move to Exodus give your servers some more bandwidth to and computational power to play with? or was it just to provide more defense against DDoS attacks?

"The recording is not great quality; analog cassette recording through a radio shack linda trip special, of a phone call is really not easy listening material"

... neither is listening to you dorks on Geeks In Space, but people stream it anyway.

Re:Scale makes it wrong?

[marcushnk]

He also said that it was about QUALITY of music, The quality of mp3's is a great deal better than tape. I can understand their aurgument when said that the sheer QUANTITY of the songs sent batched with the quality of the rip... Fair enough.. but I dissagree with their view in general.

Re:Food for thought: unsigned bands

[mcrandello]

So you're saying that you could get on napster, I do a search for "unsigned" and I'll find your music?

Wow, I guess that answers the questions above about how to find unsigned music. Just search for unsigned. That's almost too easy. Now if my Uni hadn't banned napster and weren't sniffing my machine (I work here, Hello upstairs!) I might be able to try this out...

What about fair use?

[soboroff]

To my mind, the whole question of Napster is, where is the line between fair use and copyright violation? I hoped Lars would give his opinion on the question:

If I buy a Metallica CD, what is it that I own? What do I have a right to do with that piece of plastic?

Can I play it for all my friends? Can I blast it from my car in the mall parking lot? What if someone there had a tape recorder and recorded my noise? So there, Metallica doesn't care because the quality is so degraded. Where is that quality line drawn? Could Napster insert random noise into some tiny fraction of the bitstream, such that you download the equivalent of an audio dub of an MP3?

Shit fucking a yeah like you know what I mean, and

[Rogain]

Oh man, I like really have this idea in my head about how all of these geeky, nerdy kids are like totally taking the bread from the face of metallica and Mr. Lars, knows whats up and He's done the research, so watch out. Mr. Napster, we'll get you and all your minions at Napters Inc. You're globally ringed network cann't stop the power of Lars. Metallica RULLESZZZZZ. The thing you never think of is how that all hurts the little record company executives, I mean, do you know how much work they put into each of these totally crappy bands just to get one Metallica? Like 4 in 1, I mean, just how many crappy Megadeth's did our cool record exec's have to put up with until we bootlegged our way to the top and stuff. Don't take food from the tray of the record guys, they're like our best friends and fucking crap like that. They get top picks of the chicks after lars, the rest of the guys, then the roadies, and the bouncers, then the exec's man, just a little payback if you know what I mean, and I know you do! but you'd better be like a wolf in the forest because the chickens are roosting, and what not, because Metallica knows when you are sleeping and when you're downloading napster, so you'll go to jail, geek-boy, the nerd-ward of the big-house. You'll end up pulling cable, but it won't be cat5 that's for sure, mannnn! hahahaha. Wow!

Maybe they served their music themselves...

[HoriZoNe]

Maybe Metallica or whoever run the tests for them actually put out a lot of Metallica MP3 in a regular Napster client(s) and added some unknown home-made stuff. All this on a VERY fat connection and then just counted all the hits... Whereas the unknown music just got one download attempt. Would they do that just to get the figures? (maybe they modified a napsterclient to abort all transfer attempts so they did'nt release their own music. It would make the 1.4 million hit possible on a nice connection)

Re:Wow. That was a fucking cool interview.

[doodaddy]

Don't forget that Napster fundamentally works by the NAME of a song or artist!

"What was the name of that artist I've never heard of again?" (-:

So theoretically, to find even ONE artist by name when you have never heard of his name is a very high hit rate. (-:

Now using MP3.com or some similar service, I believe several unknown artists, searched via LIST instead of name, get 10s of thousands of hits! But don't quote me on that. I'm just trying to remember and I'm too lazy to look.

The number doesn't matter...

[TopShelf]

The point is that Napster is a search-based tool, and an unknown artist is going to remain pretty much unknown. Nobody is going to search for "Billy Bob and the Meat Beaters" unless they've actually heard of them before - thus established acts like Metallica, et al, dominate the network traffic. While the Internet offers interesting possibilities for independent bands to bypass record labels, Napster doesn't do anything in particular to assist in that process.

As to the last question

[Tayknight]

My mom used to have a saying about the pot calling the kettle black. I doens't seem right for the pot to say it isn't like the kettle just because the kettle is bigger. The pot is still black. Just like the band members are just as guilty of stealing for making copies of tapes. My $.02

Re:Wow. That was a fucking cool interview.

[zeedotcom]

I used to spend a lot of time on mp3.com looking for good stuff, even ordered a few cds. Back in the day when I actually shared files by default, before I realized that a 56k modem was not meant for this, I noticed that about half of the stuff that started downloading was no-names from mp3.com.
I never saw any metallica come off of my computer because there wasn't any there. Something called the imperial March which I was told was a spoof.
Unknowns are helped by this. I am pretty sure that the people who downloaded from me were just randomly surfing for music, not looking for it, because they downloaded stuff from a local band, that sold like maybe 100 total CDs and didn't sell them on mp3.com. Think about that.

Re:How Does This Guy Make Any Money (An apology)

[quakeaddict]

Woops...I didn't realize this guy was talking and this was a transcript.

I thought he was sent the questions and then he wrote his replies.

My apologies to Lars.

How Does This Guy Make Any Money

[quakeaddict]

I think Lars has been drumming for toooooo long.

He could barely write a complete sentence.

An example:

"But the bottom line is, whenever somebody -- whenever somebody, whenever we feel that somebody -- I don't want to sound too combative here, but you know, when somebody fucks with what we do, we go after them"

It just goes to show that uh, you know, you don't have to uh go to um you know school, to make alot of uh...money.

Re:How Does This Guy Make Any Money

[Gunther Dull]

He could barely write a complete sentence.

It was a PHONE interview. You've never rambled on the phone? I know I do all the time. Ramble, get distracted, forget to finish sentences. Typed communications, on the other hand, can be sliced, diced, thrown away, re-done, etc. before they are put out for digestion. (What do you think the /. preview button is for!?!)

I thought that: a)It was very kind of Lars to take time to answer our questions and b)It was good to hear that the band IS open to suggestion and NOT locked into one mindset. It takes a pretty big (intellectually) person to understand that some issues are bigger than you first realized and that it is NOT a weinie thing to do to change one's mind.

After reading this interview, I can't really fault Metallica at all for the position they have taken.

Re:How Does This Guy Make Any Money

[AnarchoFreak_00]

think Lars has been drumming for toooooo long. He could barely write a complete sentence.

Uh... Maybe you should read a bit more carefully -- It was a phone interview.

Re:How Does This Guy Make Any Money

[JMZorko]

There is a big difference between speaking and writing. It's evident Lars was speaking, and this was transcribed. It is no reflection of the intelligence of the speaker.

So, while I disagree with Metallica on this whole thing (i'm more in agreement with Chuck D's position), I also disagree with labelling people. The Big Guy labelling the Little Guy as a 'nerd' or 'thief' is bad. The Little Guy labelling the Big Guy as 'ignorant' or 'stupid' is just as bad.

Life is Bigger than the Internet.

Regards, John

Re:How Does This Guy Make Any Money

[t0m f00l]

Considering he's trying to grasp the subject, is a little angry about it, and he had no idea what the questions were going to be, I have no problem with his use of the English language.

Re:How Does This Guy Make Any Money

[hockeygeek]

From the way he talks, I'd be surprised if he knows how to write...

Re:How Does This Guy Make Any Money

[mindstrm]

What did you expect? Do you have some illusion that all big 'artists' are highly educated, perfectly articulate public speakers?

Most people I know would speak about the same way.

I'm quite HAPPY that we didn't get an edited-by-five-publicists review.... we got it from Lars' mouth.

And he has a point. Regardless of where future technology is, napster is making money by helping people pirate music. Plain and simple.

Re:Lars: (an MP3 == master (?!?)) = problem

[Zimm]

MP3's can be close enough to CD quality so that there is little value added from buying the CD. This is the important concept to consider, since this is part of the process someone goes through when the deceide to steal or buy a song.

What is the damage, here?

[wind]

I guess Lars made some interesting points, but what I keep coming back to is the idea that creators of intellectual property are supposedly harmed somehow when copies are made of their work without their knowledge.

No one is *plagarizing* Metallica by trading copies of their work. That is, no one is claiming that THEY produced, recorded or in any way created that work - so it's not as if Metallica is being deprived of thier proper credit for the work. I also haven't heard about distortions of the work (such as parody, or resampling into a new work) being a problem, either.

If money is not a problem, as Lars says, and they are not being plagarized, then what is the problem? I, like probably everybody reading this, create a certain amount of intellectual property myself in various forms. As long as people acknowldge that I created it, why should I care who reads/uses it? If people think my intellectual property is useful or interesting enough, perhaps I might see some compensation for it in the form of some fantastic new job. In the meanwhile, my current job will do. :>

Also (and probably like everyone else) I have trouble agreeing that there is a qualitative difference between bootlegs and MP3s. Either you want to have absolute control over your work, or you don't. This in-between state that Metallica is striving for is doomed to failure, I think.

Wind

Re:can we now have a chuck d interview...

[TheReverand]

No because Chuck D is about a gazillion times more intelligent than Lars and will make him look terrible.
We should be fair after all and get someone who is at a similar level. Anyone know if Carrot Top is in favor of Napster?

You're misinterpreting the unsigned artist thing

[glasser]

> One of the -- when we monitored Napster for 48
> hours three weekends ago, we came up with the
> 1.4 million downloads of Metallica music,
> there was one, one downloading -- one! of
> an unsigned artist the whole time.

Note how Lars said "an" unsigned artist. I assume he meant "we picked one unsigned artist and there was only one download of that artist during that time". Obviously meaning "any unsigned artist" is ludicrous.

(I'm still curious about where these stats came from in the first place.)

How the artist(s) get paid for their work

[CSG_SurferDude]

For those who wonder how the author/artist can get paid for their work in this age of "Instant" copies....

• Accept the fact that perfect copies can and will be made that you will get NO compensation for.
• Only release the work after a certain number of pre-orders have been made. These can be either for hard-copies of the work (Book, cd, painting, etc.), or pre-donations for the Internet friendly version.
• Once that number of purchases/donations have been made, then release the item in hard copy and electronic copy versions.

The joy here is that the artist is guaranteed a pay check for his work. The publishers still are needed to publicize and distribute the work, as well as to raise "new talent". And all those folks who can not afford the latest CD, can still download it.

Popular artists (Stephen King, Metallica (?), Jimmy Buffett) will automatically have enough pre-orders to make this work. (How many millions of copies of Kings last book sold?)

Publishers then can use their profits like they do now, raising new artists, and still losing money on 9 out of 10 of them. They make their money back when that 10th artist goes triple platinum (Just like they do now).



There is a web site detailing this plan, but I couldn't find it at google or altavista. (I guess I just couldn't think of the right search terms.)

Re:Two points: transcript and monitoring Napster

[FunkMonkey#9]

NetPD didn't give the details about how they got those names because it's very likely that they did it illegally.

Oh, come on.

Do you honestly expect NetPD would undertake criminal activity in gathering information for legal action, knowing full well that it may be used as evidence during a trial?

And don't get on about the fifth amendment. Canadians always wonder why you're asking our Parliament to sit at least twice a year. *g*

Re:Whose vision is Utopian?

[FunkMonkey#9]

Not to be redundant, but I think Mr. Ulrich[1] addressed this quite well when he talked about the difference between a centralised and decentralised method of distribution.

[1]It always bothered me, calling people I don't know by their first names.

Re:lssy cmprssn

[Legion303]

This stinky bitch is just upset that MP3 files of his 'art' make him sound like his drum set is filled with cigarette ash.

No, that's how the original sounds. Lars can't play his way out of a wet paper bag (ObAlt.flameReference).

Incidentally, Lars seems to be endorsing "low-quality" tape piracy, so don't forget to do your part.

-Legion

tracability

[markus o'farkus]

It can all be traced.

To some people IP matters... to others maybe not so much. I have an internal dhcp address behind a firewall doing NAT. I happen to know the dhcp server doesn't keep logs. So what do I have to worry about?

I bet a lot of dhcp servers don't log. Maybe ISPs do for legal reasons but I don't think we're alone here in terms of not logging.

The only potential issue I see is that my IP address, in practice, rarely changes... but hey all it takes is a release and renew and boom, you're not 'where' you were.

Oh and please, if I am dead wrong, flame away and set me straight, I don't mind.

Re:A very interesting question

[awol]

Artists made a living by being patronised by those who had money (and by patronised I mean those with the cash kept them in food and shelter ie sustainence) Mozart was fated by the Vienese toffs whilst Beethoven would have to write a bit of party music from time to time to make ends meet (there was some reference to his scottish agent in a SciAm Connections article recently IIRC).

The same principal can return us to a more just regime of paying for reproduceable art (ie not paying) since once the art is made we dont gotta spend more social surplus (ie money) on spreading it around other than the cost of actually getting it around.

If the artists starve then the music stops and so if you like the sound then you better start patronising the artists (just like the vienese toffs). In the 21st C we can use a million peoples dollar rather than a single millionares dollars to keep a million dollars woth of artists in sustainence.

Re:m00f

[thc69]

m00f? y0u pirated my catchphrase!

There needs to be a judgement.

[Above]

Our system of laws is built on the interpretation
of those rules. Indeed, most of the fine points
of our laws are not in the laws themselves, but
in the decisions passed on over time.

The internet has outrun these descisions. Past
ideas don't apply, and there are no new ideas
tested in court. We need a way to get the courts
caught up with the internet.

As much as I hate to suggest we need more lawsuits, I think an accelarated system of
issuing judgements by internet clueed lawyers
would help us all understand what limits
exist. We need the court systems to apply the
laws and issue judgements at the same speed
that the internet moves, and with a lifetime
proportional to internet time. That would allow
everyone to know if they are on the right or
wrong side of the law.

Hypocracy?

[Christianfreak]

So we have the right to copy on to tape as much as we want but not to MP3s? This is a stupid issue! A couple of points:

First of all I must say that Metallica is right about copy infringment. I'm a writer and I would be very upset if someone took my work sold it for their own profit. Metallica isn't thinking very straight here and I don't think they really understand the technology.
These people on Napster are not making profit by trading songs and how many of them are actually downloading entire albums. If I want an album I spend 5 minutes to go in buy it, not several hours downloading it over my modem! That doesn't make any sense.

So my second point is that Metallica is effectively cutting off their own right arm! In the long run people trading their songs are going to cause more people to buy their albums. They should endorse such a practice. Its never going to cut into their profits!

And thirdly they don't want to look like ***holes well they already do making hypocritical statements about "the principle of people stealing music" and then turn around and say its okay to tape stuff and give it to a friend. If its not about money doesn't that fall under the same so called "principle"?

With ignorance comes stupidity

Re:how am I supposed to find them?

[godlee]

http://artist.napster.com/search.php

hypocracy

[DaoAcid]

I seem to remember (read: I remember distictly), Lars saying that "It's the principle...", and that essentially, this lawsuit has nothing to do with the profit cuts that Napster "will be causing." However, as an answer to question #9, Mr. Ulrich states that "Of course we have[traded illegally reproduced copyrighted audio recordings], ok?" He goes on to list statistics of the dramatic size and scope of copyright infringement on Napster, making it quite clear that this is an issue of profits. $16 for a CD! FSCK!

Re:Street Performer Protocol

[superkorn]

If you had read the article a bit closer, it takes this into account. The authors suggest that the work could be held in some sort of escrow by a trusted third party to avoid creators ripping off their fans. Even if there is no third party involved, any creator who reneges on their agreement will have killed their own career, as no one will donate money to them the next time they want to release something.

Ohhhh... I get it!

[MVoelker]

So, basically, we're allowed to have copies of Metallica songs, but only if they sound like absolute shit, and are from concerts... See, 'cause the shitty booleg live tapes are already paid for. People had to buy tickets for that concert. Metallica's already been paid for that music. Gotcha. Thanks for the clarification.

-M

Re:Ohhhh... I get it!

[TinoGirl]

Yeah.. so our next giant leap in technology is to create software that converts CDs into .suk files. After conversion, the tapes will sound like old vinyls that have seen better days that were recorded onto tapes that had been left out in the sun for a few days. Then everyone will be happy :oP

Lowest rating ever for Metallica Video

[pauldale]

We just put up a Metallica Video on our site. Within hours it already has over 100 negative reviews. Metallica Video on MediaTrip.com I was a little surprised that the napster backlash extended even to a site like ours (which is entirely entertainment orriented). As of this posting there have been 108 votes cast with an average rating of 1.26 (1.0 is the lowest possible).

Re:Wow. That was a fucking cool interview.

[haystor]

That would make him ignorent.

I might choose to use the word "misinformed" instead of "ignorent". If only to avoid the hostile tone of someone that may occasionally make a mistake.

Re:Ignore Lars at your Peril?

[uqbar]

Well I understood him just fine. I'd say you don't grasp any of what this involves either (in terms of the realities of the music industry.)

It's bad enough that all but a few lucky musicians are screwed by their labels, but now they're also being screwed by their so called fans...

More from Lars

[uqbar]

Read more about Why Napster is bad and about a proposed improvement to Napster.

Re:I Expected Lars To Be More Of A Dumbass

[Bakeneko]

Wow, what an incredibly strange arguement which I will now extend ad absurdum:

Do we then, have no right to prevent a person from "peacefully" (a rather strange use of the word again) setting up some means to videotape everything we do in our bathrooms or bedrooms and then selling or freely giving it away to our friends, co-workers, bosses, etc etc etc.?

Or here's another one: Say we invent a completely non-intrusive method that is "peaceful" to read other peoples thoughts? Then they could distribute this to whoever they feel like?

If you say yes, this is fine, at least I know you are so extreme on the issue that I don't have to listen to you anymore or take you seriously.

Wow. What a dystopian world that would be. Thank goodness you aren't setting policy.


Tim Gaastra

Free Market

[PaxTech]

Lars contends that $16 cd prices are determined by the market, and that 'stealing' music is not the way to fight $16 cd prices. I beg to differ. The market has changed. Napster, and technologies like it, are the new reality. You can try to fight it, but for every Napster you slay, three clones will pop up to take its place. You can't destroy the demand by destroying the provider, another will take its place. When the record companies see internet music trading draining their profits, and realize that legal battles are only draining them of more money without having a significant effect on the volume of music trading, they will be forced to lower their prices to an equilibrium point at which people are more willing to pay X dollars for a cd than go to the hassle of downloading the songs from the net. It's basic economics, baby! Supply and demand! Downloading songs from Napster is exactly the way to fight $16 cd prices. Goddamnit, what other weapons do we have? Finally, the consumer has the power to screw the record companies, instead of the other way around!

Pax

Copyright - Individual choice

[Builder]

I've seen a lot of people here saying that Metallica don't get it. That we're just peacefully sharing information. While I agree that there is an important aspect that they don't get, this isn't it. We're not sharing information. We're sharing the fruits of their labour and they're seeing _NOTHING_ in return. To get this out the way fast, I believe that they don't understand the advertising potential of mp3's. My CD collection has almost doubled in the last 8 months. I hear a song on the radio, download a couple of mp3's from the artist, then buy some of their cd's if I like them. And if I don't like them, I have more cd money to spend on a band that I do like, and the mp3's get binned.

On every other point, I believe they are right. I've never seen anyone here advocating that we rush out and copy (pir8) MS Software. I see people advocating that we choose alternatives to MS software. Why is that? Because copying the software would be wrong! Plain and simple! MS chose that they want us to pay for their software. Linus Torvalds said we could have his for free. As did RMS. So we use Linus's and RMS's software and we leave MS's alone. If you have a problem with buying Metallica's music, then you have no right to it. Same way you have no right to Microsoft's software. Choose an alternative, or dig out your wallet. But don't steal.

If you love something, set it free...

[Nicholas Vining]

... then glop some ads up, with the artists receiving a portion, if not all, of the revenues. You could even cut out the recording agencies here, so your profit margin couldn't hurt much.

Welcome to one of the founding principles of "making money off of the Internet": Free services with advertising.

Nicholas Vining

Re:That's where you are mistaken...

[tps12]

Yeah, if you compare it to a CD being played out of my asshole.

His Answers

[RoninM]

Were they generated by a travesty taking input from the drug and alcohol induced ravings of Iggy Pop and Alice Cooper?!

Is Napster really good for unsigned artists?

[Carnage4Life]

It's very very simple. One of the -- when we monitored Napster for 48 hours three weekends ago, we came up with the 1.4 million downloads of Metallica music, there was one, one downloading -- one! of an unsigned artist the whole time. You can sit there and talk about how this is great for up and coming artists or for unsigned bands, but a big counterargument that nobody gets is, me and you could form a band together, and we could like, make a demo and then we could put it up on Napster. Who is going to give a fuck? Nobody's going to care, because they don't know anything about what sets my and your band out from the gardener and the guy who cleans my pool's band.

Thank you Lars for backing up my suspicions with hard data. For a while now on Slashdot I have heard people justify Napster by saying that it is a way for unsigned artists to get recognition and it has always seemed like B.S. to me. Napster is primarily a search engine, meaning that people already now what they are looking for when they use Napster. People who maintain that Napster will somehow free the unsigned artist fail to realize that there already is a service that does this and as at yet it has not created any house hold names nor spawned any artists who have quit their day jobs to pursue music fulltime with the revenue from MP3 sales. It is abundantly clear now that besides good music, an artist needs good promotion, music videos, radio airplay, etc. or else the artist will wallow in obscurity despite being extremely talented and having their song on the internet either via Napster or MP3.com.

The upshot of this is that record companies will probably never really fade away and instead will always be necessary maybe in a different form but ever present. Good knows that without record companies all of the really successful bands today would be much less successful (especially the Britney's, Backstreets and N'syncs of this world).

Re:Scale makes it wrong?

[clgoh]

Fair use could be considered half way, and big scale trading is obviously not.

shareware, sharemusic

[jwise]

Someone said something about the crowd obediantly absorbing Linus' opnions. I know I have.

Disclaimer: These are just some thoughts from someone who probably doesn't understand the real issues.

It is difficult to argue that piracy is not wrong. It is illegal, first, but it also goes against the wish of the author, and, unless you not only disbelieve in intellectual property, but also have a thorough disregard for the desires of others, I think that it is hard to justify.

Software piracy has been around and possible in large volumes for a long time. Developers have put various forms of copy protection on their software, but I think (and correct me if I am wrong--I haven't used anything but free software in a long time) that with at best rare exception do those copy protection prove unbreakable. However, and, again, correct me if I am wrong, I have never heard of a software company's going out of business because everyone copied its software and no one purchased it.

I think shareware is the most beautiful form of software distribution conceived. Try this, if you like it, send me some money. It has been complicated recently, but at its core it is a simple, easily abused system founded entirely on faith in the consumer. Plenty of people just use the software and never consider registering (especially if it is not crippled), but there will always be some suckers who are willing to pay for something they can get for free.

Call me an idealist, but I like to believe that the suckers outnumber the others, and I like to think of myself as a sucker. I think that the enormous success some shareware authors have achieved should testify to the large numbers of suckers out there.

This relates to Napster, somehow. I believe the record companies are evil. Lars points out that besides overcharging their customers and offering minimal royalties to the artists, they do provide their clients with publicity. This "service" amounts to ensuring that the music we hear on the radio is the music they want us to hear. They tell us what music to like and then they sell it to us.

Wouldn't it be better if we could decide for ourselves what music we like, download it, and pay the artists directly? I believe that shareware is the Right Way to distribute anything electronically, including music. Why not eliminate the middleman?

Remember paylars.com? It may be a joke, but I think the idea is right.

Choose a side now

[thePsychotron]

The growing number of illeagally traded MP3's is evidence of a much larger problem. The people who do this aren't "Internet Extreamists", they are just ordinary people who have realized that paying $16 for one CD is rediculous. They are not trying to "fuck with you", they just want to listen to music without throwing away this week's paycheck.

This is a rebellion, not against the artists (as most of the traders are fans of the bands whose music they are trading), but against the recording industry. Wake up. The RIAA is a monopoly. There is no free enerprise or competintion in the music industry. A band can't make it without signing with a label that is a memeber of the RIAA, and people can't buy music from anyone but those affiliated with the RIAA. You, yourselves are slaves to the RIAA until your contract runs out.

Now, do people have the right to trade illegal MP3's? Probably not. And you are probably justified in this particular case in wanting to stop these illegal distributors, but I advise you to be more careful in the future. As more and more people get computers and become wise to MP3's, Napster, and gnutella, the rebellion will only get stronger. You say you like to act independantly from the industry; that is a good thing. But unfortunately, you appear to the public to be acting on behalf of the industry. If I were you, I would work now to begin seperating yourslef, at least in the minds of your fans, from the industry.

It is time to chose sides. Are you for the empowerment of both the artist and the consumer, or are you going to defend the RIAA and the profits they are making from your music?

People are just now waking up to the fact that they are being screwed by the industry. More and more of them are realizing that if they don't want the situation to continue, they have two choices: an all out boycott that would be very diffucult to organize, or resorting to trading illegal MP3's on the internet. They usually chose the latter. They have no other alternatives; there is no compertitor. The artist can not sell his music to anyone but the person he signed with. What is needed is for someone, preferably someone with power and influence, to take a stand against the industry and cut out the greedy middle-man. Seriously, if CD's were sold for $5 instead of $15 dollars, I'm sure most people would drop thier MP3 collections in a hearbeat.

You do make a valid point in that many bands need the record labels to just get off the ground and into the public eye, but I would much rather see it in the form of smaller talent-hunting agencies than huge corporations that seem to have a stranglehold on popular culture. I really am tired of the MTV phenomenon where they seem to have the power to tell you what is good, popular, and what you should listen too. I think we would all benifit form a system that responds more to what the public really wants.*

Now, people will say that this whole MP3 problem would go away if the RIAA would just embrace the internet and start selling their music online. I don't agree; I think the problem would only get worse. I don't want the music industry, or for that matter the entire entertainment industry as it exists today, to try to move into the information age. For as they do, they will bring with them an increasing number of draconian copyright laws and the power with wich to enforce them. How would they go about implementing systems that authorize the use of their intellectual property? I really do fear futures like this one.

Also, I must ask that you do not refer to copyright infringement as "theft", "stealing", "piracy", etc. These were terms invented by the industry to help ailienate those who infringe upon their profits from the sympathy of the general public. You cannot equate those who trade illegal MP3's to common theifs, and I encourage you not to use terms that would suggest such a relationship. Removal of physical property that does not belong to you is not the same as unauthorized copying. I am not trying to justify the actions of illegal MP3 traders, but I do think that the label should fit the crime.

I belive many future battles will be fought against the recording industry, and it's power will sharply decline. But as they go down, they will take with them many bands who either depend on them or tried to defend them. Make sure that you are not one of them.

* Wouldn't it be neat if there were a website where unsigned artists could post demos and then the general public could invest in individual bands? But that's just another pipedream...


thePsychotron

Re:A very interesting question

[Commie]

The beginning of your post is trash. Why? Because like oh-so-many people, you speak as if you know everything when you don't know what you're talking about other than scrips and bits you've read here and there. I'll skip --

it won't take huge marketing budgets to promote artists

Someone, somehow, will be pushing a huge marketing budget to promote someone, regardless of the media/techology involved. These people will win over those without, period.

. More artists will produce merely because they want to

The notion of purity aside, I don't think you'll find any artist that doesn't fit this description.

Most artists will forego the expensive and lengthy editing which studios and book publishers have used to justify their huge take.

Your ignorance continues. Book Publishers? "Look Mr. King, you really need to try out this fancy font effect here and here". Studios are expensive because the hardware put in a pro-studio *costs a fortune*. Let me also explain, for someone who's obviously never attempted to record a song, that the endeavor is not a "here it is, let's cut it" process. With all kinds of new, very expensive, toys availible, experimentation begins. Some of my favorite albums cost a fortune to record because the artists spent a LOT of time playing around and attempting to really exploit what they had availible (My Bloody Valentine, Loveless, is a good example. 500k over quite some time to get it done, but I think you'll find the product wasn't finished in someones basement using some boss pedals and a 4 track).

Nowadays music is so heavily produced that bands are lucky to come out with one album a year. Is the music really that much better

The music? If it's a band bent on the purity of their live sound, maybe not. In all cases though, the quality of the recording has improved leaps and bounds. Buy a couple ADATs, a BRC, and whatever software you choose to record, edit, and master something. After spending that 10k, please attempt to record a band and make it sound half-way professional ("Dude, I ran Waves on this, but the levels still suck, whats the deal"). Once you've done that and you realize it sounds like shit, please consider the quote "Know of what you speak" may carry some weight when attempting to make a point.

Banning Songs?!

[escherIV]

In this interview Lars says how it would be entirely possible to ban Metallica songs, not users. Personally, I would like to know how he sees this as possible.

Let's think... If they're going to put a restriction on any mp3 that has "metall*" in it, people could just rename the mp3's to "me+allica" or something goofy like that. I realize it's an 31337 example, but it proves the point.

Also, one could not have mp3's of cover bands if they banned song names. Oh, and what about bands that have different songs but the same names? It's not like that doesn't happen.

If Lars thinks it's possible to do (according to what he's been told), let's have them code it and deal with all the problems that ensue.

I'm a 21st century digital boy.
I don't know how to read, but I got a lot of toys.

Re:Banning Songs?!

[RingTailedLemur]

Easy.

Have the *service* screen the songs they post. Like a library opening all the books they get and making sure the pages inside match the cover. Don't make it so that any user can post anything.

I know, I know...then you've got censorship issues, and what if the screener doesn't know the song, etc...but it can be done.

Statistics of Napster

[reginald]

Lars used his "1.4 million downloads" = 1.4 million copyright infringements statement quite a lot. The real question is when were they monitoring, before or after raising their concerns about napster. That 1.4 million downloads were probably all by metallica fans who were concerned about not being able to find metallica mp3's for a while, or by people trying to make a statement.

Re:Something else to ponder.

[SirWhoopass]

I believe that he does have a point about the quantity of MP3 piracy.

Obviously copying music from CD to tape is piracy just as CD to MP3, but how many illegal tapes can you make and distribute in one hour? How many copies of a MP3 could you distribute in one hour?

I find it ironic that the same people who argue that the internet is a new medium with new rules try to claim networked file sharing of digital music is the same as trading analog tapes.

Re:Actually his weakest point.

[scotch51]

• Really? he seemed to have a bit of difficulty with the english language

Ah Grasshopper, you have so much yet to learn.

That's the nature of transcribing spoken English. Read the legal transcripts of any court proceeding or legal wiretap and you'll see the same thing.

As humans, we only rarely speak as we write, and most of those times we're reading what was already written, as in giving a speech; or performing, as in a play.

• and an obvious ignorance of the technology involved.

Since he admitted early that he has a life and doesn't spend much time surfing, I hardly think this an important point.

The important point is that it's his intellectual property and therefore he should have some control over how it's used for someone else's profit.

The good part about this lawsuit is that it's going to focus attention on the issue. Lars and Co are also going to learn a lot in this process as will you, me and the IP industry.

Re:Wow. That was a fucking cool interview.

[scotch51]

This is a superb example of the power of slashdot and a a presentation of it's limitations.

What's great is, direct access to a major personality, and lively insightful discussion of the issues thereby raised.

What's soft is the verbatum transcription of that personality's words without editing, and the transient nature of /. postings. One poster said he seemed to have a bit of difficulty with the english language which is not at all true. What we see is an unedited transcription of spoken English. Read the court reporter's transcripts of any court proceeding and you'll see the same thing. We do not talk the way we write. Most interviews go through an editing process, but the urgency of /. makes a transcription like this the norm.

Another softness is that /. exists in internet time. My reply is a few days after the original posting so it will probably never be seen by more than a handful of readers.

That said, and mostly to please myself I extracted the points that Lars was making and did heavy editing. Please don't cancel my license to your CD's Lars. I just think this makes it easier for some to follow
________________________________________

• You have to remember that you're talking to somebody who advocates bootlegging, who has alwyas been pro-bootlegging. We have always let fans audio and video tape our shows. We've always had a thing for bootlegging live materials, for special appearances, for that type of stuff.

• We are not stupid. Of course we realize the future of getting music from Metlalica to the people who are interested in Metallica's music is through the Internet. But the question is, on whose conditions, and obviously we want it to be on our conditions. We do not condone, and do not want to be part of, illegal trading of our masters through sources we have not authorized, it's that simple.

  Why did napster bounce Metalica fans rather than simply prohibit Metallica songs from being distributed? It clearly looks like Napster was not dealing in good faith when you take that into consideration.

  The record company had nothing to do with the lawsuit. The band discussed it, did research and launched the project.

  Just because somebody feels that that CD is too expensive doesn't give them a right to steal it. When somebody fucks with what we do, we go after them.

  I can guarantee you it's costing us tenfold to fight it in lawyer's compensation, than it is for measly little pennies in royalties being lost. That's not what it's about.

  Understand one thing: this is not about a lot of money right now, because the money that's being lost right now is really pocket change. It's about the priciple of the thing and it's about what could happen if this kind of thing is allowed to exist and run as rampant and out of control for the next 5 years as it has been for the last 6 months. Then it can become a money issue.

  Where it can affect people, where it is about money, is for the band that sells 600 copies of their CD. If they all of a sudden go from selling 600 copies of their CD down to 50 copies, because the other 550 copies get downloaded for free, that's where it starts affecting real people with real money.

  Comparing home taping to going on the Internet and getting 1st generation, perfect digital copies of master recordings from all the over world, is just not a valid.

  • [
  • Making an audio cassette copy from record or CD results in a loss of quality with each "generation" of duplication. The copy itself degrades with time and temperature changes. This technological limitation on "bootleging" copyrighted performances, no longer applies to digital copies of those same performances. ]
  I support Napster's right to exist, OK? But I want them to support my right to not be part of it. The music world, is littered with the careers of people who did not pay enough attention to the business side of what they were doing and ended up getting majorly fucked.

  I don't use the Internet a lot in my daily life, personally, because I choose to pick up the phone rather than send somebody an email. It doesn't mean I despise the Internet. I respect it, I understand that it plays a major role in a lot of people's lives.

  I don't think the record labels have paid attention to this. I think that there's been a major, major wakeup call in the last couple of months.

  When we monitored Napster for 48 hours we came up with 1.4 million downloads of Metallica music. There was one downloading of an unsigned artist that whole time.

  You have to remember that for every one band that you hear about, [the record companies] lose their shirt on nine other ones you never hear about.

  I have come to actually change my position. I believe that if it's not Napster, then a type of service like Napster has the right to exist, on the condition that the only thing being traded through that service is music by artists and owners who have given that service permission.

  Why is this a music issue right now? Music is most easily transferrable with today's technology. We're probably not more than a year away from downloading Mission Impossible 3 the same day that it opens in the theatre. If you could download movies right now, Hollywood would come out swinging.

  One of the main things that needs to be worked on for the next year, is the public debate about it.

  The bottom line is the scale and the quality of it. When we check Napster out, we get 1.4 million copyright infringements in 48 hours. This is different than trading cassette tapes with your buddy at school.

  Again, it's the quality. The quality and the scale.

_________________________________________
Commentary:

I discovered Metalica late, with their self titled black album and now consider myself a fan owning several of their CD's.

Like others on /. I was dismayed by the lawsuit, but the residual goodwill I feel for the Band caused me to read the interview and form my own conclusions.

I don't mind if your conclusions are different than mine if you've also read the interview.

hardware vs. software

[kird]

nowhere have i seen anyone going after the companies that make the hardware that allows the copying of music. it seems that the issue is over the software being used to make the copies and not the CD-R itself. why is that?

metallica == republicans?

[earache]

Am I the only one that has lost complete respect for this band, not because they are suing napster, but because the people who wrote "master of puppets" are acting and talking like a bunch of conservative, white collar republicans?

How did they go from Fade to Black to:

And people who live in the United States live in a Western capitalist society, where most of these things become about marketplace and about fair competitionin the marketplace, and that's what ultimately dictates these prices.

It just strikes me as queer that a band who has sold themselves as crazy heavy metal crushers are basically suits.

His "quality" argument isn't very strong!

[Colossal-]

How in the world can he say that making a _near_ carbon copy of a cd in mp3 format is worse than him copying a tape to another tape, or a tape to a record? There is probably less quality loss copying tape to tape (or especially record to tape) than copying a 14H quality song from a cd to the 128kbps mp3 or even 192kbps or more!

you are absolutely wrong

[SethJohnson]

>They are attacking the corporation facilitating mass copyright violation.

Napster is providing a file transmission service. It is a protocol and index very similar to how the WWW and yahoo and lycos relate to one another. If some dumb kid were to install a web server on her computer, put commercial mp3 files in the doc root, then have lycos and hotbot spider the server, should Metallica file lawsuits against lycos, hotbot, and the maker of the web server software? No * 1000.

Multiple legal precedents have been set establishing that the provider is not responsible for filtering the content passed through its system. If alerted to illegal conduct, however, the provider must take steps to prevent the perpetrator from continued misuse of the service (i.e. close the account). This does not mean the service provider must provide some method of preventing the misuse from occurring. Napster qualifies as a service provider in this situation. Its responsibility in the piracy issue is identical to that of AOL, Time Warner, and the telcos. The reality is that the lawyers found it easier to convince Metallica to file a wrongheaded lawsuit against Napster than convincing Lars he could beat AOL in court.

Continuing this perspective, I do agree that Lars has a right to protect his copyrighted material, just as most other defenders of Napster believe. The method of protecting his 'art' is to file lawsuits against the individuals providing the files for download. This is not difficult to do and once a few hundred or thousand people were taken to court over it, I think the problem would evaporate quickly. As you can tell, however, it's not such a popular notion for a rock band to take its fans to court, so we end up with the wrong person on the electric chair--- Napster.

Seth

Re:Wow. That was a fucking dumb interview.

[shandrew]

he has a right to say what can be done with his stuff.

Wrong. He sold many of those rights to the record companies.

Regardless, once you release something, it is less in your control. If you want to keep it under absolute control, just don't release it; don't sell it.

Re:Something needs fixing.. before it's too late..

[shandrew]

How do artists protect their copyrights without bankrupting themselves with consultant and lawyer fees, while at the same time not interfering with legitimate copying?

They can do what the software industry has done with regards to software piracy. Forget about it because it's not really worth the time (and is sometimes beneficial), except in the case of large piracy rings.

In the end, music is still a very human, analog artform. No digital recording will ever replace the real music which comes from the mouths and instruments of real human performers, not 1's and 0's. That has been and is the way the majority of musicians make money (though certainly not the way the majority of money in music is made).

Re:Lars: (an MP3 == master (?!?)) = problem

[shandrew]

It sounds like if Lars knew that mp3 had a little quality problem (again, in normal use) he, and presumeably Metallica, would also have a little less of a problem with Napster.

That's not all that relevant; even if sound compression methods were unavailable, people could still trade uncompressed sound files from CDs. Sure, the file sizes would be ~10x bigger, but in 3-4 years, there will be at least 10x more bandwidth, 10x faster computers with 10x more storage.

What is relevant is that even the uncompressed digital bits on the CD are still just a representation of the music; the real music is what the musicians play and sing. You cannot digitally copy that; it is purely analog.

Re:I have to say that I agree with him...

[shandrew]

People should have a say in where their copyrighted material goes. I think most people would feel pretty bad about writing a book and then having it yanked from your hands and copied all over the place without receving a penny for any of it.

On the other hand, no one seems to mind all that much that a library can buy a single copy of a book, and lend it out to hundreds of people (who may otherwise have purchased the book) each year.

OK, they are right...

[magnus13]

When I first heard of Napster, I told a friend of mine that they would be shut down within 9 months. I mean, the basic issue at hand here is simple. If you buy a cd, and then make copies for all of your friends, you are sinply breaking the law. Why should they benefit from your hard earned money, if they want to own it them selves, then they must purchase it. Right? Just like copying computer software. We all know that you cannot just email your buddy a copy of Windows 98, but if you could, it would be illegal. So, what if there was a place you could go to share a copy of a book, that you photocopied you self, and then gave every body there access to your free photo copied book, you would be breaking the law. So, what if you were a poet. And you wanted to tell somebody your peotry, and you gave a guy a copy, and he gave it out to every person in the world, and you got credit for it, but no money, and this is what you did for a living, you would be pissed off, and defend your self viligantly, right? Well that is what they are doing. Defending their art. I say they should sue napster because they are providing a forum in which the intention can be no less than the illegal copying of music. What people are not thinking about or really addressing here is the problem that will occur down the road. If we make it this easy fr people to pirate and share music, then the movie industry is not far behind. And when prices are $50 for a cd and $75 for a movie on DVD, people will look back and say, we let this happen. it is our (The entertainment industry) fault for not protecting the industry from what can certainly bring it to it's knees. People complain about spending $8 for a movie ticket, wait until they pay tripple that for a matinee.

Re:Wow. That was a fucking cool interview.

[Smitty825]

Just a FYI,
There is a semi-browsing function avaliable in Napster...If you go into a chat room and see all of the users, you can select one and see what music each has on their hard drives...
Dan

Re:OK for me, but not for you.

[DarkProphet]

Ya know, I use Napster, but I haven't downloaded any Metallica, because I personally am not that interested in the band... but lets say I did... because I don't own any of the original albums a certain song I downloaded came from, I'd obviously be infringing on copyright, as I understand it. But I DID pay to DOWNLOAD that music!! I __PAY MONEY__ to my ISP in exchange for them sending my computer data from the internet! It seems to me, that the real way for Metallica to nip this in the bud is to disallow ISP's from transmitting/routing/whatever this type of media (digital audio, that is)... THAT is really the only effective solution. However, this brings up MANY touchy implications... The day my ISP starts filtering the content of the data I recieve is the day I find a new ISP without such limitations. And I will be honest... one of my favorite bands released thier new album recently, and I live in a rural area. I was really excited about the new album, and I know that it will not me available in physical media (CD, tape, etc) for quite some time. So I downloaded the whole damned thing via Napster, and burned it all to CD myself. Do I feel bad for doing that? No. Do I feel that I have done anything morally wrong? Absolutely not. Its hardly my fault that record companies and record stores are unable to have albums in stock immediately upon release. If I had to wait 6 months to buy the album, I probably wouldn't. By then I'd have heard 3 or 4 singles on the radio, and probably gotten sick of them all. I sure as hell wouldn't buy the CD then! But, I got the album the day it was released because of Napster, and I am very happy with the album. It will soon be available in stores here, and I will actually go and buy the legit album. Why? I already have the music, right? Well, the actual album comes with extra stuff (its Cd-Enhanced), and even comes with a 4" vinyl with previously unreleased tracks. Being a hardcore fan, I WANT these little extras, and am willing to essentially pay for a CD I already have to get these "free" extras. This is what the record companies should do!! Provide extra stuff WITH the legit albums. Stuff thats essentially unproducable otherwise.. hell, throw in some stickers, I don't care, just give me a little incentive to buy the legit album instead of just downloading the thing! THIS is what record companies have to do if they wanna stay in the game. Piracy (if you really wanna call it that), is something the record companies ARE NOT going to ever get a hold on unless they provide extra incentive to purchase the real deal. Also, I buy T-shirts, and other merchandise because I know it helps support the band (they are a small band and deserve the support)... Sure, I could make my own T-shirts, but thats not really the point. When I wear a shirt sporting the band's logo, and its a offically endorsed product, what I'm telling the world is that I like the band, I don't mind giving them money and free advertising. That says a hell of a lot. I sure wouldn't be saying that if I spraypainted the logo on a T-shirt myself. Don't get me wrong, piracy is not a cool thing, and can certainly hurt bands. I'm in a band myself, and I put my heart on display in my music. It __IS__ art... (maybe moreso because my band is unsigned), and I would be really pissed off if someone were making MONEY by distributing my music, but I would be FLATTERED if my music was freely distributed. As long as I have a sayso in the matter. I should, I have copyright. I totally see where Lars is coming from there. Its a sensitive thing. If I say its okay to distribute my music, do so with my blessing. If people like my music, I wouldn't mind a little support so I can continue to make music. If people choose to not support financially, and they like my music, they will lose in the end, because it will not be economically feasable for me to continue to produce such music. But, then again, I'm in an unsigned band. To tell the truth, my band DOES NOT make very much money selling our album. Basically just enough to cover the costs of recording the album and putting it on CD. I would imagine some people bootleg our music, and thats fine. As long as we are not losing money, I don't care. We make our real money by performing live. You can't really bootleg concert tickets! And I enjoy performing live anyway, so I really get paid twice. The nice thing about this particular setup is that any money made from our music goes directly to us, all 100%. Maybe some of these bands need to get real and get back to thier roots. Almost every successful (non shrinkwrapped, non commodity, non sellout) band started off about the same way, so far as I know. It can be quite lucrative. If not, your music probably isn't as good as you think. If people like you, they will come to your shows. Sure, you're not going to make millions of dollars that way, and you're not going to get on MTV, but who the hell cares!? That shouldn't be what your music is about anyway. If it is, your music IS NOT art, and you have no business getting pissed off because somebody decided it wasn't really worth paying for. Yes, record companies can greatly help spread your music to more people, but for big labels, that's not what its about. Its all about money... if you think different, listen to the radio for a couple hours, and see how many times you hear the same song played. Ditto for MTV. Some small bands have made it big by basically selling out. I won't buy albums from bands that have lowered themselves to do TV appearances on frickin Donnie and Marie... thats just pathetic! I'm sorry if I've offended anyone, but take it from one who knows what its really like to be strapped for cash... this pity party about quantity and quality is complete bullshit. Lars did a good interview, but he's got his head in the clouds, just like every other sellout band these days. I am disappointed. Makes the rest of us musicians look shitty.

Someone send this to Lars

[Trinition]

I've seen a lot of good replies to this interview and I hope that Lars & Co. take the time to revisit this discussion. It sounds like he was intrigued by the concept in the first place. If nothing else, someone print off the discussions and mail them to Metallica.

Sometimes I feel the best points are made after an interview. If these comments stay inside Slashdot, they may as well not even have been made in the first place.

Re:Before you throw around baseless accusations...

[Aaron39]

BTW, hard as hell, maybe if you said it right, i bet you asked about "adams package" or something. hard, jee, take a look... http://www.cpcn.com/articles/091798/ear.person.sht ml http://www.atomandhispackage.com/ http://www.midheaven.com/bin/state.cgi/2047356281/ artists/atom.an http://val.looksmart.com/eus1/eus52213/eus156227/e us156477/eus522 http://atomandhispackage.webjump.com/ http://expage.com/page/atomgo http://audiofind.net/atom_and_his_package.html http://kickbright.com/shows/atom.html ttp://www.outtoeat.com/thewhitelodge/atom.htm http://citypages.com/databank/20/990/article8216.a sp http://www.catnet.ne.jp/kiuchi/atompic2.html oh, by the way, theres an electric fetus in just about every city. you can find LOTS of atom and his package there. oh, btw again, these links are all of one search.


Dont let school get in the way of your education

Re:Half-off-topic: Contempt for non-computer-peopl

[kjeldar]

ps, I don't know shit about the music industry. I don't care to. I don't see why we need a music "industry", I sort of wish there was music artistry instead...

Don't you see the irony there? Aren't you annoyed when you hear non-techies say something like "I don't know shit about computers, and I don't care to. I don't see why we even need them. I wish they'd make the damn things just do what I want instead of making me screw around with 'click this, type that'."

[kjeldar]

I fervently pray I get to metamod that.

Missing an important point...

[Miou]

First of all, I'd like to give a big kudos to /. and anyone else involved in setting up this interview. Frankly, I didn't expect it would ever happen, and I'm happily surprised to see that it did.

Second, I am convinced that this was not set up by the label - the grammer was too bad, and the positions too garbled, to be a purposeful PR thrust. :)

Aside from that, he makes some valid points. Those songs are intellectual property, and shouldn't be being traded without the consent of the I.P. owners. Also, I have to admit that the scale arguement does at least have some validity.

However, one of the things mentioned was "perfect quality." Hah! Any true audiophiles out here will argree with me - mp3 is no where near perfect quality. It's good - considering the amount of compression applied, it's amazingly good - but the dynamic range just isn't there.

In addition, most people don't have the equipment to properly enjoy mp3 music, at least not yet. How many people own a portable mp3 player? An mp3 player for their car? How many people have a truely good sound card w/ decent speakers? More of the latter than the first two, but still not many.

For most of us, mp3's are simply not convienient enough. I need my music to be able to travel with me, and without the need for a special/non-portable player.

I will grant that he did at least admit that the issue is not lost revenues now, but lost revenues in the future. However, how much longer before a product exists that works similiar to Napster, but uses a pre-existing common carrier network (IRC, anybody?)? I can understand his concern, even if I don't agree with it. But fighting these on a case-by-case basis is going to be a losing battle - and based on this interview, that's what I don't think he gets.

Re:Missing an important point...

[broken77]

Read this and tell me what you think...

Re:Missing an important point...

[SquadBoy]

Gotta agree with you on that one. He uses the term "masters" which would be the sources from which they make CDs, tapes, what have you. As we all know MP3s while cool are far from "perfect digital copies" I really think that maybe they do not understand how much this is like taping a LP. Also I have to agree with another poster that if they had been asked and had been explained by someone who really knows about MP3s they would most likely have been for it.

NetPD Broke Bot Restriction?

[jark]

What I find interesting about the research gathering that NetPD did is that the only real efficient way of doing it would of been through automation. Using automation would seem, to me, to be some sort of bot. Napster's service explicity states that all bots will result in permanent bans from the originating IP's. Why has NetPD not been banned yet? Or...were they simply using humans behind keyboards, capturing screenshots, in which case would seem that would be error filled.

Re:NetPD Broke Bot Restriction?

[digitalmind]

I think that the reason that netPD's bot was not banned was that they weren't using it to download off of the napster service, just to query their service to see what metallica songs were downloaded. I am sure that napster would have permanently banned netPD's IP but I would think that it would 1) cause legal problems and 2) I think that napster probably monitors which people are downloading over a few thousand songs/day to ban, since one would assume that few people have that sort of connectivity or time.



Kris
botboy60@hotmail.com
Nerdnetwork.net

To think I respected Metallica once...

[lifebouy]

IMHO, Lars appears to be an idiot.(Sorry to state the obvious). About the only legible idea he got across was that its ok for him to bootleg but not for you, because of the quality and quantity. Love to see the defense bring that up in court. For you, Lars: What would be the end result of Napster collapsing the music industry? Which of course will never happen, there are just too many folks out there as clueless as you, but what if? Think of it! Musicians making music for the sheer artistic value! What a concept! Musicians getting published widespread based on the merit of the music, instead of the dictations of an industry(for instance, no more crap bands like New Kids on the Block.) Nothing, NOTHING, could do more good for music quality than for such things as Napster and DeCSS to succeed. It is truly a shame that Metallica is too caught up in Greed ('It's ours, our masters, nobody elses') to see Napster for what it is: Musical freedom. Lets face it: if you are in music for the money you are in it for the wrong reasons. All I can say is that if they continue the suit, they are proving themselves to be hippocrites. Because they started as a garage band, and I doubt it was about money then, was it boys? Now you become exactly what your music rails against. Shame on you.

Re:I Expected Lars To Be More Of A Dumbass

[Andrew Cady]

> > If you think my undercutting your prices and beating you in business is "dispossessing" you, then.. well.. then your comments have no place in a capitalist society ;)
> You are not competing fairly !

So? I'm still not dispossessing you of it; I'm possessing myself of it. Now you ask me "you don't see a problem with this?" Whether or not I see a *problem* with it is a totally different question than whether I see it as *dispossession*.

> But you'll have one hell of a hard time explaining to the American people why it's in their best interests to pay more taxes.

Actually, the economics of it are simple enough for everyone to understand. Let's say that authors are, in total, payed the same under the new system as they are now. In that case, people would, on average, spend the same amount of money. However, they would have access to orders of magnitude more information. A person could have every piece of music ever recorded in his personal collection. All for, on average, the same amount of money as is being payed for information right now. Now let's say that authors are payed twice as much. Twice as much money, for thousands of times more information. What a rip off, right? Now, if the biggest artists recieved half as much money as they do now, and that money was used to give, in greater proportions, money to smaller artists, that would encourage the creation of works even more than currently. Not only more access to music, but more music actually being in existence due to increased incentive -- all for the same amount of money as is being payed now. All that, plus greater opportunity for semi-popular authors who can't quite live exclusively off royalties. All for paying in taxes what is currently being payed already. The public may not be convinced to do away with copyright and implement this system, but it *won't* be because they don't think it would be a good value. Anyone can see that it would.

> And as such, obviously problematic.

Once again, problems which are impossible for me to address, as you failed to list any of them.

The music industry already allows radio to exist, despite not having complete accuracy in either number of listeners or number of times played per song. Payment from advertisers to television producers is based entirely on usage, yet there is still plenty of incentive to produce shows. And these are all hacked-on systems without any support from the government or the manufacturers of media equipment. And future technology is only going to make things easier. There's no reason to believe people would not cooperate, and cooperation is already enough to yield results in well-funded fields such as television. As current ratings systems show, universal cooperation is not necessary. So, I have no idea what your objections are. If you want me to address them, you're simply going to have to tell me what they are.

> > Right, and in the face of that sort of competition, CD's would obviously become much cheaper than they are now.
> As I said, I don't think that kind of competition is fair, because it completely ignores the fact that the artists contribution, and only recompenses distributors.

That makes absolutely no sense in context. I was talking about using music sales to track music popularity, and using that data to pay artists out of the public treasury. So what the hell are you talking about?

Let me list for you another public good, after which I will again ask you (as you did not answer before) what the difference is between authorship and other public goods. Let's say I'm a scientist, and for some personal reason (i.e. nobody hired me to do it) I do some research on some common commodity, investing a great deal of time and money in this research. In the end, I discover that a chemical in said commodity causes female baldness and facial scales. As it appears to me, you would have neither users nor manufacturers of said commodity allowed to use my discovery for their own personal benefit, until they pay me a price of my choosing. I have met your criteria -- I have done work to make the discovery. My effort clearly has value (i.e. utility, as opposed to exchange-value) and should, by your criteria, therefore be compensated. The problem with allowing people to freely use this discovery for their own gain is that it assigns zero economic worth to the discovery and research process -- the only way to be compensed is by distribution (except for the other ways, which all have obvious problems (too obvious to list)). Am I correct in my characterization of your position on such a discovery?

And what is the difference between authorship and other public goods?

Re:I Expected Lars To Be More Of A Dumbass

[Andrew Cady]

> > However, they would have access to orders of magnitude more information.
> There are already public libraries and radio shows. I doubt that it would make a whole lot of difference.

Public libraries are very limited. Radio even more.

> > A person could have every piece of music ever recorded in his personal collection.
> (a) The utility of this would be somewhat limited.
> (b) Not really true anyway, because you'd still need to pay for media and distribution.

(a) I think you're wrong. I think people would listen to a lot of music that they wouldn't otherwise. I know of many people who listen to less music because more is unaffordable.

(b) The infrastructure that will be in place in one or two years will be capable of streaming music into homes for a low monthly fee. This infrastructure would be implemented much faster and would be cheaper if there were free market competition in the area of music-content delivery, but it's being built for other reasons anyway. Already portable mp3 players exist, in spite of the low availability of music in mp3 form (one has to rip music oneself -- my personal experience with that is that older discs tend not to rip successfully or download, typically over a very inconvenient modem line). If there were competition in music-content delivery, these would be far more popular, available, and affordable.

And it's not just music; all copying costs are continually decreasing. The cost of reproducing a book will soon be negligible, as display technology makes e-book readers as pleasing to the eye as paper (they're already somewhat popular simply for being convenient. They would be much more popular if the amount of books available electronically was not so small).

> For example, how many people would be prepared to write down on their tax form that they purchased 100 pornographic videos last year ? Basically, what this idea says is "give up your right to privacy or we'll retrench your favourite artist".

But that problem doesn't apply when the information is anonymous. For example, if I buy a porno from wildsex.com, there may be a way for me to make this anonymous, or there may not. But the fact that a transfer has been made is already impossible for me to disguise; wildsex.com will know it no matter what I do. Now, if I were able to get my porn on PPV, except without the payment part, and the cable company were to report the number of porno viewings to the government -- information it already makes available to the publisher of the porno, and which the publisher of the porno can make available publically -- I don't see how I could claim my privacy had been violated. The theory behind copyright is that the author is notified every time a copy is made. The theory behind my unnamed plan is that the government is notified every time a copy is made. I don't see any appreciable difference, from a privacy standpoint. In either case, the only way to keep hidden the fact that an anonymous person made a purchase of pornography is to not purchase pornography. In either case, my secrecy is entirely in the hands of the company from whom I receive my porno.

It's a possibility that people would trade porn among themselves, even if all the would-be-copyrighted porn was freely available. That wouldn't be trackable. But I don't think this would happen more without copyright than it would with copyright. With copyright, such actions are actually profitable; without it, they are merely paranoid, more costly, and, though they would be more convenient without copyright than they are now, would be more inconvenient than going through other channels either way.

That's assuming people don't volunteer their watching habits (as they do now and is the primary basis of television and radio), and that we must resort to tracking copying as we do now in other media. But I don't consider this likely. It'd be in people's interests to volunteer their watching habits to the government just as it is right now to volunteer them to Nielson; and it'd be in the producers interests to encourage people to volunteer it.

> BTW, with the inventor

What inventor?

> In the example with the scientist, typically, they will be funded by a university. This works well for scientists. It also works well for musicians, some of whom are also publically funded ( again, by universities ). However, I don't see why this model need be practised to the exclusion of the copyright system.

First of all, the scientist has been not-hired for a reason -- most musicians make music without being hired to make it, yet demand that others (who agreed to nothing) to pay them or not own copies. (If he was hired by someone, then he would be entitled to payment; it would instead be his employer who would not be). And the problem with allowing the scientist to copyright his discovery is that it will increase the number of people who will be bald and have scales on their faces. It is better for society to have use of the discovery publically available. It is better than not for the scientist for him to be able to extort a price based on the utility of his discovery (rather than the cost), but he is in no way entitled to this. It is better than nothing for the scientist to be reimbursed for the cost (including time) of making the discovery, but he is also in no way entitled to that. It is better for society to reimburse him in some way, to encourage such things, but that doesn't at all lead to the conclusion that he is entitled to reimbursement.

By the way, I'm not saying that copyright must be excluded, I'm just saying it should.

It appears that you agree that there is no difference between authorship and other public goods (as you have listed none). This seems to me to lead to the conclusion that authorship should be encouraged by society by whatever means is most beneficial to society, and that authors have no rights beyond that. Do you agree?

Re:I Expected Lars To Be More Of A Dumbass

[Andrew Cady]

> this "street performer" thing you are so fond of

What makes you think I'm "fond of" it? I never even mentioned it, except once -- in reply to your original mention of it.

> BUt IMO it works pretty well for radio stations.

It's not *used* for radio stations. Radio stations are based on advertisements, who pay based on ratings.

> Maybe for upper/middle class Americans who live near the city, yes. For most people, it won't be.

No, that's where it ALREADY is. In any case, tracking disc sales would be exactly as accurate as the current system, which is based on tracking disc sales. You really have no basis for criticism on the ability to track. Either way, copying from friends is not the most cost effective way to obtain music, if we take licensing out of the equation.

> Simply put, NONSENSE. Anyone can write a review of the article that the scientist publishes.

I know that. Man, you need to pay attention to the context here (second time you've forgotten it after a few levels of quoting). I know that monopoly would not be granted to the scientist over his discovery. The point is that your previous justification of copyright applies also to the discovery. In order for you to be consistent, you must support the ability of the scientist to prevent other people to use his discovery for their own benefit.

> Copyright does not enable him to extort a damn thing.

Let me emphasize: I never said it would. Only that, from your previous statements, one must conclude that he *should* be able to extort whatever he chooses, and that it is a violation of his rights for someone not to allow him to do so.

> You could argue that all rules should only be made for the benefit of society and noone has any rights beyond that. And maybe that's good enough for the average Marxist, or utilitarian ( who are both concerned primarily with the "good of society", but measure this in different ways ) The problem with this is that it sets the scene for a "tyranny of the majority". So I don't really agree with your point of view. The fact that something might seem "better for society" is not in itself a justification.

If not the good of society, what is the justification of copyright? If we are to value individual rights above all, we should not have a copyright system at all. Nor should we encourage any public goods with money from taxation. The only reason copyright has to exist is its benefit to society; when that reason no longer exists, no reason is left. Copyright is a type of subsidy, granted by government, to encourage a public good for the good of society. If you are opposed to government subsidy meant to benefit society, it is absurd of you to support copyright.

> In the example you mention ( a scientific discovery ) there are several differences.

WTF? Are you just trying to avoid answering the question? WHAT is the difference? How many times do I have to repeat the question before you answer it? This is the fourth time!

Re:I Expected Lars To Be More Of A Dumbass

[Andrew Cady]

I can't continue this, if you keep ignoring half of my points, including the most important and repeated ones. Rather than answer the minor points you bothered to address, I will restate my main points, leaving you nothing else to answer.

There appears to be no relevant difference between authorship and other public goods. You have certainly had opportunity to point one out, but have failed. Applying copyright-like treatment to other public goods shows its absurdity as a right applying to all public goods, as opposed to an expedient applying to public goods only when it is in the interests of society.

If there is some reason people should be believed to have a right to compensation for public goods, you have not listed it. There are instances of public goods where we both agree that people should not have a right to compensation; you have not explained the basis for your inconsistency. If there is some reason people should be believed to have a right to monopoly over the benefits of their public good, you have not listed it. There are instances of public goods where we both agree that people should not be able to monopolize the benefits; you have not explained the basis for your inconsistency there either.

Please:

1. Explain the criteria for deciding whether a public good should be compensated by government through forced taxation and direct payment.
2. Explain the criteria for deciding whether the benefits of a public good should be monopolized by the author.

My contention, as I hope you realize, is that the criteria in both cases is whether society will benefit from such actions. A consistent individualist, it seems to me, could support neither.

Re:I Expected Lars To Be More Of A Dumbass

[Andrew Cady]

Fuck, there's a little typo there. The line:

2. Explain the criteria for deciding whether the benefits of a public good should be monopolized by the author.

should instead read:

2. Explain the criteria for deciding whether the benefits of a public good should be monopolized by the doer of the public good.

(I'd expect you to realize my intended meaning, but I thought it best to make sure)

Re:I Expected Lars To Be More Of A Dumbass

[Andrew Cady]

Really, keeping private information secret is nothing like "owning" information, or having extrapolations of real property rights apply to information. It's a totally different situation.

But, in essence, a person isn't really harmed by being seen going to the bathroom. It makes people embarrassed, but I don't think anyone can claim that people have a right not to be embarrassed. Not that I'm against "peeping Tom" laws...

I think maybe I didn't state my views clearly enough. I'm not against the violation of rights in all circumstances. Sometimes it's for everyone's benefit that people be restricted from doing something that can be considered a right. Property ownership, for example, is violated by taxation, and at least in principle this can, overall, benefit everyone. It does in the United States, at least. I think copyright must be evaluated based on its merits and flaws -- it can't be decided merely by appealing to natural right. But if anybody is going to appeal to rights, it only makes sense that it's the owners of the physical media in which copying takes place, not the "owners" of the information copied.

So, don't think of it as an argument *against* copyright. It's not intended to be one, and as you point out, it doesn't make a good one. What it is, is a refutation of a specific argument *for* copyright. And at that task, it seems to be successful to me.

Re:Put up a fence...

[Andrew Cady]

> It is actually a crime to attempt to see past a
> visual barricade on public property.

Really, you shouldn't bother refuting a factual error in an analogy when there are dozens of other fitting analogies without that error. I'm sure you can think of a public good that one can do yet from which one cannot restrict people from benefitting. An example is planting trees to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere. This benefits everyone, but you can't charge people for it. Another, more similar to my original example, is a fireworks display. You can charge admission on a park, but you can't use the law to restrict people from watching it from outside the parks' boundries. Many other public goods also fit.

Don't let my lack of legal knowledge about fences distract you from the content of my argument!

OOH! I just noticed: slashdot fixed the several-month-old bug that replaced &gt; (and etc) when messages are previewed. Joy! :)

Re:I Expected Lars To Be More Of A Dumbass

[Andrew Cady]

How about this: Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that we want musicians to be able to be professionals; that we want it to be possible to earn a living producing music. If we accept this premise, then we must resolve the question of how they are to get paid. Before you dismiss copyright law, please suggest an alternative.

The burden of proof? Oy. Well, I have always liked the alternative suggested by RMS. There are two parts of the equation; the source of income, and the decision about where the income should go. For the first, a few options are: taxes on the hardware used to play music (stereos, blank cds, etc), taxes on the sale of music, taxes on radio, and taxes in general. (The latter three, perhaps, would not exist in the way they do now without copyright, and I do not advocate any of them personally. I would be happy with general taxes being the source).

The other part (deciding who gets payed what) is the more difficult. Right now, each artist gets payed a certain amount for each record bought. This could be continued, but that would require a lot of taxes. The more reasonable solution (again not original from me) is to devise a sliding scale, (the specifics of which would be devised after some research on the matter). This would mean more money for less popular artists, and still no artists whose recordings remained fairly popular would starve. Performances would still be a source of income. I don't see a moral problem with a sliding scale, because copyright here is an expedient, not a right (you obviously don't recognize the difference, but what can I say? That is a deeper philosophical disagreement than can be resolved on slashdot). And besides, the cost to the artist of producing 100M albums is the same as the cost of producing 100K (capitalism may be an expedient itself, but most people agree when it comes to specific examples that cost, if not the limit of price, should at least be the basis of it).

This raises the problem of accounting for what albums people listen to, if they are mainly produced by individuals copying themselves. But that problem could be solved several ways, and could actually produce better results than the accounting we have now. Music players (both hardware and software) could track listening habits and send out the information (rather than taxing music hardware, perhaps requiring it to have this capability) -- and tracking information use could provide a much more fair representation of artists' popularity than their album sales do now. Or people could list albums they got in the last year on their income tax forms (same as the census works). If serious bandwidth becomes ubiquitous, people could get all their music from central servers, either streaming (allowing listening to be tracked) or saved (allowing as much information to be gathered as is now). Lots of other methods could be devised.

Another system I saw suggested on slashdot was the "street performer protocol". http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue4_6/kelsey/ index.html ... but I don't think this could work for smaller artists, so I don't advocate it.

Keeping copyright, but having it only apply for a short duration -- say five years for music, but the duration depending on the norms of the specific industry (e.g. music, software, novels, text books, reference). This depends on the technical feasibility of enforcing copyright, which is soon to disappear, so I don't advocate it either, at least long term.

Someone else here on slashdot also suggested that the cost of music production could be greatly reduced by reducing the editing done of music. This could circumvent a lot of the need for capital in music production. One take in the studio costs a fifth as much as five, after all. People could even skip the studio's altogether and record live shows.

Also, the lack of any system at all is an alternative system. My estimation is that we will be plunged into this system once technology makes copyright infringement as ubiquitous as speed limit violation. If the amount of information produced suffers too much, some other system will be devised. If not, well then everything will work out, just like it did before copyright. I don't think I hold any burden of proof to show that this would be worse than copyright -- copyright is action that requires continual expenditure of resources and violation of rights. The burden, therefore, lies with you. However, I didn't really want to turn this into a debate over whether there should be copyright. I just wanted to explain why I don't think copyright monopoly is a right rather than a privilege granted for expediency.

I apologize for the form of this post; there's too much information here for me to have the time to present well. I'm sure I've come off as rambling, but at least I've let you know that I do have an alternative that allows artists to be payed. Not as much, of course, but I think that's OK. I don't think we're going to reach agreement here, because you don't seem to hold any regard for the notion of innate (as opposed to government-created) rights, or the idea of low information availability as a great evil. These are certainly debatable issues, but ones I'd rather not get into here.

Re:I Expected Lars To Be More Of A Dumbass

[Andrew Cady]

> However, we *DID* give the artists the right to
> withhold music.

I thought I dealt with the law-is-authority-on-rights argument in my post. Just because the democratic government says so, don't make it so. And, really, move to another country? Think of a government agent as a regular person with no authority. Could he justify actions with that excuse? Could he come into your house and take your property (calling it taxation) and then say "if you don't like it, move to another house"? No, of course not. He's going to need a much better argument for taxes than that. And so it is with copyright.

Besides, our government has decided that our government is not an authority on rights, but rather that it only does its best at *discovering* rights, which are pre-existing and properties of the natural universe. It even has lots of "checks and balances" intended to weed out mistakes at this process of discovery. So, even if you think government is authority, you must hold that laws are not authority on rights.

> You talk about "peacefully sharing information
> that will result in greater profits". First off,
> you're making a big assumption.

What assumption? I think my language there was unclear. Just to reduce confusion, I will restate that sentence in a more specific manner. What I meant to say was, "... people feel that artists have a right to restrict people from peacefully sharing information if that restriction will result in greater profit for those artists".

If you knew that's what I meant, then I don't know what to say. I don't know to what assumption you refer.

> Secondly, *IT IS
> NOT YOUR INFORMATION TO SHARE*.

Your only basis for this is an appeal to the law. But I find appeals to the law unconvincing, for reasons previously stated (and as yet unanswered).

Re:I Expected Lars To Be More Of A Dumbass

[Andrew Cady]

Sure you can make a garden that you don't want people to stand on your grass and look at it with out paying. Sure you can't stop them from looking from the street. You can stop them from digging it up, taking it to the landscapers, getting a copy of it made, and throwing it back into your yard more or less where it was. Just because something is easy to copy, doesn't necessarily make it information.

You're over-extending the analogy. It causes no physical harm to Metallica's originals for me to make copies of their albums. What you describe is analogous to breaking into Metallica's house, stealing their recordings, copying them, and returning them. A better analogy for you to use is taking pictures of my garden, and then planting similar gardens elsewhere. However, actually copying gardens is impossible. The analogy was intended to give an example of a public good which nobody can claim a right to restrict the enjoyment of.

What reason is there to restrict copying of my garden, other than the physical harm it causes? If my garden could be copied perfectly without any harm to me -- as is the case with music -- why would that be disallowed? You see, your argument is based on an over-extension of the analogy

Information is how something is done, a description of it, the wording used, etc. Information is not the product it refers to (such as a reading of a particular piece of poetry) in my book.

You may not consider the information contained in recordings to be information*, but it's a trifle. I do. The solution for you is simple: whenever you see me use the word "information", instead of saying that word in your head, say to yourself the phrase "information, including that on recordings".

* I wish I knew of another term for the information contained on a music CD, instead of "information contained in recordings", but I know of no such word. I understand that I'm implicitly assuming my own correctness, but it is mandated by the language, or at least the limit of my knowledge about it.

Re:I Expected Lars To Be More Of A Dumbass

[Andrew Cady]

> I am not clear on how theft always requires force.

Whatever. The point is that government-enforced monopolies require a force of a different kind than defensive. They require force taken against a peaceful action for the sole reason that it will attract consumers.

> > Copy protection is unprecidented.
> I am not clear on what you mean by this.

You tried to compare copyright to property rights. But you can't. They're nothing similar. You seem to agree that they are unprecidented, and that therefore your comparison was invalid, so I won't go on.

> > It's one thing to protect an asset from being taken, and quite another to prevent it from being copied.
> You could say the same about money. The problem is that copying money degrades the currency.

You're incorrect. The problem is that copied money can be fraudulantly passed off as money certified by the government. Money is, really, a type of contract. The reason it can't be copied is that one cannot sign another's name to a contract. It has nothing to do with the government owning the information contained on the money. It's not a valid comparison. See the other fellow's post below. I'm shocked that so many people use this example as support of copyright. It's a totally different situation! Like I said, copyright is unprecidented. Or at least, an unprecidented solution to the common publics good problem.

> > Well, government-enforced monopoly is not a free market.
> The government have a monopoly on printing dollar bills, so you could equally argue that this is not a "free market".

When the government does have a monopoly on coining currency, that *ISN't* a free market. You obviously haven't been keeping up with your anarchist literature... Government monopoly on currency has been a somewhat significant issue historically.

> The fact that you recognise creative works ( or more precisely, the right to control a creative work ) as having an owner does not violate the definition of free market.

Yes, it does. It limits what two consenting adults can do alone in a vacuum. That's a violation of free market.

> > Why would they? If the government is granting someone privilege, why would they voluntarily surrender it?
> At least we agree that the copyright abolitionists are primarily trying to make life less profitable for the authors of creative works.

What are you, a 3rd grader? Obviously you know that the purpose of copyright abolition is to make information more freely accessible to people. The less profitable nature of the creation of information is merely a side-effect. Why would I want authors to make less profits?

> I see. So is your proposed solution in this instance "government" ?

No, my proposal is that the current solution in place is an action of government, in spite of the fact that it is not treated as such by people such as you.

> I think someone else mentioned something like "go move to Havana and listen to the state orchestra" -- kind of blunt, but you get the idea, huh ?

Actually, I don't. What are you trying to say? That if I don't like the laws, I should move? Well, how about if I don't like the laws, I'll just ignore them. If you don't like that, move somewhere they can enforce the laws. See how annoying and stupid that argument is? It's an appeal to might. It doesn't at all show that your point is valid, and it's kind of out of place since, at the time, *I* have the might.

> The problem is that with creative works, we really need some kind of market place, so that consumers can vote, instead of the government dictating the terms to consumers.

That's exactly like something I proposed earlier in this thread (RMS's suggestion)! Go look it up. Maybe you'll be pleased.

> The problem is that with creative works, we really need some kind of market place, so that consumers can vote, instead of the government dictating the terms to consumers. In some sense, the idea of having the government directly control creative content is more of a violation of free market principles

Well, I agree that taxation and government subsidies are violations of the free market. However, if we want a straight free market, we won't have subsidies OR copyrights, which are actually a type of subsidy. If we don't, we have to choose the best solution on its merits, not on rights. Of course I don't think that we should have "the government directly control creative content". In fact, I was rather miffed when government subsidies to art were stripped in NYC a couple months back for content... But we do have protections against such things. It did work out, in the end. I don't see how extending the realm of government subsidies of the arts to popular music would create any more of a problem. The problem with the copyright form of government subsidy is simply that it is not the most beneficial to society.

Re:What does Robert Heinlein think?

[Andrew Cady]

Great quote!
Hmm, guess that settles the issue ;)

Re:I Expected Lars To Be More Of A Dumbass

[Andrew Cady]

The very notion of property requires the use of force.

Not really. It only requires the prevention of force. Of course, the prevention of force generally must be done via force. But no force other than the prevention of force is required for private ownership of property. This is not the case for copyright.

(This is, of course, a broad definition of force that includes the threat of force).

The fact that force must be used to protect the copyright holder does not mean that there is somehow something "wrong" with copyrights.

I never said it did. Why are you quoting the word "wrong"? I never called it "wrong" at all -- whom are you quoting??

As for "nothing wrong with circumventing people's means to compensation", well I don't see how it's substantially different from theft.

Well, the difference is that theft harms the person who is robbed, whereas copyright infringement merely fails to benefit the person whose copyright is infringed.

I don't see how copyrights are an obstruction to a "free market". You could use the same reasoning to argue that laws forbidding counterfeiting are somehow an "obstruction" to the free market.

Counterfeiting is really only objectionable so long as it is used for purposes of fraud. Laws against actual counterfeiting (if they exist; I'm not sure) are meant to prevent fraud through the use of counterfeit bills, much like laws against gun ownership are meant to prevent murder through the use of guns. But it's easy to see that there's nothing wrong with either in themselves, and if the motive behind gun control was economic, you could say it was a violation of the free market.

The fact that an asset is intangible does not mean that the law should not recognise and protect it.

Copy protection is unprecidented. PROPERTY protection entails *guaranteeing a person rights to his property*, not guaranteeing his ability to monopolize reproduction of his property. It's one thing to protect an asset from being taken, and quite another to prevent it from being copied. It doesn't fit into the category of property in the traditional sense. However, it *does* fit into the category of public goods in the general sense.

It seems that some musicians survive well in the free market

Well, government-enforced monopoly is not a free market. Metallica's unorthodox use of the word aside, music in general is not a commodity, but recordings are. There *could* be competition in the sale of these commodities, but the government prevents that.

It seems that some musicians survive well in the free market -- consumers are certainly free to boycott bands that don't use the "street performer protocol", but it seems that consumers are voting for the copyright system in droves, with their wallets.

Uhm, what? That's exactly the effect of violations of a free market. They give an advantage to someone. Thus, everyone votes with their wallets for the person who is violating the free market. For instance, let's say the government granted a certain publisher copyright arbitrarily (i.e. without having permission from the author), like governments used to do. People would vote with their wallets for that publisher, because all the other publishers have the government-created disadvantage of being illegal. Another example is slavery. People will vote with their wallets for slavery, because slave-labor is incredibly cheap, and therefore offers a competitive advantage over payed labor. Violations of the free market that *don't* give someone special privilege don't matter, and they don't exist because nobody bothers to lobby for them. It's when people start to vote with their dollars that there is a problem.

By the way, I am very glad you raised the notion of free markets. Tell me this -- if the "street performer" thing and all these other freeloader-friendly models are really superior to the copyright model, why haven't they prevailed, when the current law allows copyrights and other models to co-exist ?

Why would they? If the government is granting someone privilege, why would they voluntarily surrender it? Why would people not voluntarily surrendering government privilege be evidence that the government should continue granting privilege? I don't follow you at all. Anyway, copyright hasn't yet existed anywhere near as long as slavery. I'm sure we agree that slavery is bad -- why don't you tell me why slavery prevailed for so long?

Copyrighted works are not really "information". And I don't see why they are a "public good". I see this point of view as one step away from simply declaring that "property is a public good".

Uhm, but declaring "property is a public good" makes no sense. You obviously don't know what the term "public good" means, so let me explain. A public good is something that, in a free market, is altrustic. They are things that, while they may benefit me, also benefit other people (i.e. the public) equally, and therefore are not in my own personal self-interest, if they cost me anything. An example is clean air. It benefits everyone -- including me -- for me to produce my product in an environmentally-safe way. But it benefits everyone else equally, and costs only me. So, depending on the degree of cost and the degree of benefit, it's often in my self-interest to pollute. Another example is policing. If I hire someone to police my block, that will protect me. But it will also protect my neighbors. If there's really a need for extra policing, it's in my best interests not to pay for a guard and hope someone else in the neighborhood does. If everyone on the block combines to form a pool to pay a guard together, it's in my best interests not to join -- they'll pay either way, and I'll get the service either way. Etc. Information fits well into that category. It's a common problem, and the usual solution is government. But nobody looks at other public goods situations as if rights are involved. Information is just another public good, and copyright is one way of fulfilling it -- a bad way, IMO, but that's really a separate issue from whether or not it is merely a tool to encourage public goods, or a right.

Re:I Expected Lars To Be More Of A Dumbass

[Andrew Cady]

Anyway, I'd *much* rather have copyright than some system based on taxation, because a system based on taxes will *never* support the kind of variety we enjoy today. The religious right will veto Trent Reznor's albums because they encourage gratuitous sex. Rap albums will get no funding, because some rap star says something misogynistic.

Uhh, the system I suggested would be based on usages, not democracy. I agree that the straw man you suggest would be worse than copyright.

Technology can't make copyright infringement ubiquitous, any more than it makes burglary ubiquitous.

What major advances have there been in burglary technology!? None that *I* know of. At least, none on the scale of copying technology, and none like the copying technology we can reasonably predict will soon exist (like broadband in the home, cheap storage through giant hard drives and new types of WORM media, freenet, etc).

The price of copying for people with the latest greatest tech is now close to zero. The price of burglary, though not easily quantified, is certainly large. Burglary entails all sorts of risks, like being caught, being shot, or not being able to sell your stolen goods. It also has a cost, in time, effort, and skill. Copying has none of these things. What are you talking about?

Re:I Expected Lars To Be More Of A Dumbass

[Andrew Cady]

> Dispossessing

Ironic that you use this word. Copying something of yours doesn't dispossess you of it.

> A software license is also a type of contract. Like money, copying restrictions are necessary to make the contract work.

You're dodging the point about the money analogy not being applicable, but in any case, a software license only applies to people who agree to it.

> I think this says it all. You want to dispossess the authors of their creative work and give it back to the "comrades".

Whom are you quoting? I never said "comrades". Why is it that this "Marxist rhetoric" has no place in this discussion? You fail to explain anything, apparently opting instead for the ad hominem innuendo approach. Why don't you explain exactly why what I specifically said "has no place" here?

> The SEC regulations are also put their by "acts of government", but this does not mean that they should not be there.

I never said that copyright should not exist because it is an act of government. I merely said that it is an act of government; one intended to solve the public goods problem of authorship.

> I would ask you what you propose in the place of the copyright system.

Rather than answer you here, I'll direct you to my previous post, here.

> On the other hand, if neither is, then you are still wrong, because they are not "in a vacuum" -- the copyrighted work is there as well.

As a matter of fact, you are incorrect. The copyrighted work is a Haiku, and one of the adults has memorized it.

> How do we decide who gets funding ?

Based on usage.

> There are definitely problems using this model as a replacement for the copyright system

None you bothered to mention.

Re:I Expected Lars To Be More Of A Dumbass

[Andrew Cady]

Let's not pretend for a moment that there is anything "peaceful" about what is in fact a large scale attempt to circumvent the artists primary means of compensation.

There's nothing in principle wrong with circumventing peoples' means of compensation -- especially when those means require the use of force. Not that I support unbridled capitalism, but to a certain extent we can say that if your occupation couldn't support you on a free market, you have no place complaining when it fails to support you. Information is a public good. There are ways for the state to encourage or compensate those, but nobody has a *right* to compensation for one, unless there was some agreement made beforehand.

Analogies don't usually prove anything, but they often can provide a reductio ad absurdum for principles used to reach a conclusion. The principle that people have a natural right to be compensated for their effort, even from people who wouldn't buy it on a free market, is bunk. I can give a host of examples where you would agree that it is not, and I've already given several in this thread, including the one in my first post. If there is some other principle by which Metallica can be said to be owed compensation for its music, it has yet to be stated.

Sure, the law is not a moral absolute, but "information wants to be free" is certainly not a moral absolute either

When did I ever say "information wants to be free"?

Re:I Expected Lars To Be More Of A Dumbass

[Andrew Cady]

Actually, in copyright law (unlike patent law), if two people independently come up with the same work then both are granted copyright over it (and it does happen, although infrequently. Little stuff like Haiku or part of the riff from Enter Sandman (if you'll remember, there was a suit over that a bit more than a year ago)). Your objection doesn't really apply to copyright-like privilege; only patent-like.

The objection only applies to "intellectual property" anyway (rather than public goods in general). With other public goods, such as fireworks displays or efforts to remove pollution from the environment, they simply have no application.

IP is unique in that a task can be repeated without causing any more benefit than the first instance of the task. The reason copyright works the way it does is that a second independent author isn't actually gaining any benefit from the first author, and people who buy the works of the second aren't either.

So you see the problems with your objection. It doesn't actually apply to most public goods, and even for the ones to which it does apply, it is predicated on a false understanding of copyright law, and a false understanding of the question (as what I said was, monopoly over the *benefit* of the public good. Clearly the second independent author does not actually benefit from the actions of the first, but rather benefits from similar actions performed by himself).

I still see your position, if carried out to consistency, mandating (for instance) that it be illegal to watch a fireworks display without permission from the creator.

Re:I Expected Lars To Be More Of A Dumbass

[Andrew Cady]

> On a large scale, it does

Uhh, no. No matter how many times I copy it, you still have the idea. You can still use it. If you think my undercutting your prices and beating you in business is "dispossessing" you, then.. well.. then your comments have no place in a capitalist society ;)

> Ah yes, freeloader friendly. Sure to be popular on slashdot because you get something for nothing.

Taxes are not "nothing".

> Someone can just burn "warez" copies that are just as good sound-quality wise.

Right, and in the face of that sort of competition, CD's would obviously become much cheaper than they are now. It costs a lot less to mass produce CD's than it does to burn them from your home, just like it costs a lot less to mass produce chairs than it does to build them yourself from materials from homedepot. There aren't usually patents on chairs, but people still don't build their own. Another case in point: cheapbytes.com. Of course, portable discs may be obsoleted altogether by rewritable storage devices or streaming over broadband, but there are ways to track those as well. Indeed, as you point out those can be tracked with much greater accuracy; actual listening can be tracked.

> As for this idea of tracking devices, this idea is objectionable from a privacy standpoint.

Well, it could obviously be voluntary. Think something like Nielson, only with a larger sample size (or not. If Nielson's samples are enough for reasonable accuracy, then there you go. However, technology allowing, a 100% sample size would obviously be ideal).

> My creation is being widely used but I'm not getting payed. Does this not seem unjust?

That's the classic public goods problem. Unfair as it may be, it is not something I would call unjust, for the reason that you had the option of expending effort on something that is *not* a public good instead. That a person chose to take action that would have a beneficial effect on people with no obligation to pay him is not sufficient to show that he has a *right* to payment, even though it would be fair for him to be payed. And, IMO, the fairness ends when payment exceeds cost anyway. But that's another discussion.

If I plant some trees and, through various methods, cut my CO2 emissions in half thus benefitting the entire world, do I have a *right* to payment? In the US, I can recieve payment at least for some of those methods, in the form of tax breaks, but do I have a *right* to those tax breaks, or are those merely a privilege offered by the government to people for acting in a sociable manner? I contend the latter. Why is authorship any different from other public goods?

[limbostar]

I will never understand /. moderation.

Score3Insightful

[limbostar]

...Nor will I understand what /. rips from the headers.

Re:A change of opinion?

[Silicon_Prophet]

I didn't read Linus's opinion... I read the interview. Is it possible that others might also think the man has a point?

Lars seems to dismiss Napster's side

[petard]

Is it just me, or does he seem to be ignoring Napster's position as he maintains that Napster needed to ask the band's permission. Napster maintains that Napster doesn't trade the songs. This means that they couldn't possibly ask permission to trade something that they're not trading. Moreover, Napster's TOS state:

Users are responsible for complying with all applicable federal and state laws applicable to such content, including copyright laws. As a condition to your use of the Napster service and browser you agree that you will not: (i) use the Napster service to infringe the intellectual property rights of others in any way; (ii) use the Napster browser or service, or attempt to penetrate, modify or manipulate the Napster browser or service or any of the hardware or software thereof in order to: invade the privacy of, obtain the identity of, or obtain any personal information about (including but not limited to IP addresses of) any Napster account holder or user, or modify, erase or damage any information contained on the computer of any user connected to the Napster service; or (iii) reverse engineer any portion of the Napster service or browser.

Thus anyone posting Metallica's songs on Napster against Metallica's will is harming Metallica, breaking the law, and subject to being banned. Napster, however, cannot police this. It is up to the holder of intellectual property to protect it. Does Lars get this?

How do they know it's infrigement?

[rob_from_ca]

So Metallica hired a company to sit down and monitor Napster, finding 300,000 people who supposedly downloaded or made available copyrighted material. What if the person who downloaded the song owns that CD legally? Doesn't that strike anyone as fair use? Of course in the CD Now case the court decided that didn't constitute fair use. Seems fishy to me. I can certainly make MP3's for my personal use. I can trade them with a friend, providing he/she owns the same CD. I suppose Napster could get in trouble for not policing the actual possession of the CD, but this would be a non-infringing use of Napster to download Metallica songs. Except that the courts already ruled incorrectly in the CD-now case, setting a bad precedent. I suppose the problem comes in the distriubtion..."This material is not licensed for public broadcast..." Can you call making the material available for download (using the honor system so only people who own the CD's can get it) public broadcast? Regardless, the "300,000" users are bunk, since I'd bet they're almost all Metallica fans who own a license to the songs they were downloading.

Re:One major point...

[rob_from_ca]

I agree...any MP3 I've heard of is pretty much sutible only for background listening material. Works okay if you're not paying attention to the music, but gets horribly objectionable to just sit around and listen to. Even as background music they get fatiguing. Certainly not any incentive at all to keep me from buying the CD if the music is something I want to listen to.

Repost: An Open Letter to All Media Providers

[Meridun]

Yes, I've posted this before. It continues to be relevant, and hopefully if I can get enough people to read and understand it, the ideas might get through. If not, then at least I tried.

Introduction
With the advent of the internet, many of the current media providers have found themselves on the defensive. Newspapers and magazines feel threatened by the web; movies, television, radio, and music distributors are lashing out against filesharing of their content; software companies are complaining about rampant piracy of their products.

This situation is deteriorating with the addition of new legislation and new lawsuits to the scene. The Motion Picture Association of America is suing the makers of DeCSS (a tool that allows DVDs to be read to a file for viewing or copying), the Recording Industry in general seems to be suing Napster, MP3.com, and anyone else that they see using the MP3 music codec, and the Digital Millenium Copyright Act has basically criminalized "fair use" for anything that uses encryption to prevent copying.

The Problem

Most traditional content providers make their money by charging consumers for their products based on the media that they buy. Book publishers sell printed book, newspaper companies sell newspapers, record companies sell CD, tapes, or records. For most of our lives, this has been the only way to do it. If I want the latest Terry Pratchett novel, I have to go to the bookstore and buy it. They even make additional money by releasing hardbacks first, so that the devoted fans will have to pay 2-3 times more than the paperbacks will cost if they want the books in the first few months after release. The internet challenges this entire revenue model by offering an alternative distribution system. Traditional media is based on the sale of the physical medium. Since most types of content can now be digitally encoded as files, the physical medium is not a limiting factor. 100,000 recordings of a song can be copied with no degradation, no media cost, infinitesimal distribution costs, and no additional sales commissions attached. This sounds great, doesn't it? Economics 101 says that demand will always exceed supply, and drive the price up. Well, the supply curve just went through the roof, so shouldn't this mean that the price should go down? The problem is that the sale of items cannot be mandated for copying to take place. Simply put, there is no way to physically make someone pay for items that they have copied from another person. Legal requirements against copying protected materials will be about as enforcable as the 55 mph speed limit has been on metropolitan interstates in the long run. :)

What's At Stake Here

Many computer users may feel that this is fine. "The music will always be free" proclaimed one in a recent article. That very well may be true, but musicians will continue to have to pay rent and buy groceries. Therefore, some method needs to be found to allow them to make money from their efforts.

On the other hand, groups like Metallica and Dr. Dre can only lose by their lawsuits and intimidation tactics. The word Boycott doesn't hold the threat that it once did, but their fans will remember their actions for quite some time. Many people are simply tired of the inflated prices for movies, CDs, software, and other items that are now media-independent, and are taking things into their own hands. They know that they're not stealing, since the "injured" party has not lost anything; they simply haven't gained anything either. The net outcome to the artist is the same as if they had simply not bought the album at all.

While each of these viewpoints are correct, a solution must still be found for each. If prices aren't drastically lowered for media-independent content, many computer users will simply stop buying movies, CDs, and other items they can "pirate" for free. But if revenues diminish for the artists, the content will suffer (as many would argue it already has for television).

Fortunately, there is a solution. I'm not the first person to have thought of it. I doubt that I'm even in the first thousand to have thought of it. I just haven't seen it in print anywhere yet in it's entirety.

The Solution

Lower the price for file-based media content. Drastically.

Yes, I know that this is a blinding flash of the obvious, but it's well overdue. How much does an album really need to cost, once you remove the cost of the media, the shipping, the warehousing, and the retail markup? How much would you earn in additional sales?

The key to defeating piracy is simple. Reduce the price and it will go away. Downloading a CD from the internet on a slow connection might take up to two hours, depending on your speed and if you get disconnected from your (often unreliable) source. Software often takes 4-6 hours and movies could take days. This assumes that you can even find what you're looking for, which can be a hit-or-miss process for many items. Even a straight CD-to-CD copy will often take an hour if you have a CD Burner and may not always work.

If companies were to reduce their prices and make their content available for paid download online from high-speed, reliable servers, they would not only stop the vast majority of piracy, but they would increase their own revenues fairly substantially. Copy would still be possible, but the effort required to do so would not be worth it.

The model I think would work best is along the line of "Everything for a buck". Why that amount? Because one dollar represents a psychological cut-off point in most people's minds. It is throw-away cash that can be spent with no guilt. How many people do you think would have paid $1 to download WinAmp? How many would have downloaded the Matrix Soundtrack for $1? I'll bet that it would have amounted to more money than was earned.

I sincerely doubt this would affect the current market for conventional media either. People will continue to buy CDs, DVDs, and books if they have no computer, have no internet connection, or simply don't wish to be chained to their computer to enjoy these items. In fact, people who download these items onto their computers will often buy the media afterwards for the convenience, if they enjoy it that much. In the case of television, this may inject some life back in the media, if broadcast companies would allow download of old shows and episodes (and we mean complete series, not just snippets).

Specifics

CDs - Allow download of complete CDs for $1 ideally ($2 if necessary), or $0.25 per song. Royalty is paid to artist, company pockets the rest. Could also profit from banner ads on download page.

Movies - Allow partial download of movie (first half) for free to get people hooked. Require payment of $1 for download of entire movie. Link to sale of physical DVD or VCR tape. Make money on banner ads.

Television - Allow download of TV shows at $0.25 per 30 mins. This includes shows that are off the air, as well as previous episodes of currently showing series. Include commercials, which can be fast forwarded (but often aren't; people have gotten used to seeing them and often forget when they can fastforward). Make money on banner ads.

Books - Allow download of first half to 3/4 of book for free (many publishers already do this.) Allow text, HTML, or word doc download of entire book for $1. Link to sale of physical book. Make money on banner ads.

Software - Allow download of popular software (games, common apps, OS's, other "must-have" software) for $1. Sell printed manuals separately (this is commonplace). Have easy on-line registration. Make money on banner ads.

Critical to this is the ease of payment. All payment should be through credit card or some equivalent secured online payment. Note that this will make the credit card companies very happy and would make for excellent partnerships with them.

Don't worry about encryption or copy protection
. Encryption cannot succeed, since the final product must be decrypted to be used. Even a movie that was kept encrypted all the way from the DVD to the TV could be defeated by a viewer with a video camera and a digitizer who simply pointed it at the screen. Same idea with audio. Even if you can break the encryption, all you have to do is identify the point where the signal is decrypted and intercept it after that point. Besides, if you sell your products at a reasonable price, most people will have no problem with paying that price. Some unauthorized copying will still take place; simply point out the ultra-low cost of legitimately purchasing the product to flagrant abusers.

...Or Else

What I have suggested above is one of the better ways to go. I would urge media executives to consider this and implement it. A few final points should be made, however.

If companies continue to try to enforce their inflated prices by lawsuits against companies like Napster, MP3.com, and individual users, they will rapidly find themselves running out of targets without solving the problem. New technologies are being developed specifically to mask the identities of users and decentralize the location of the files. Who will you sue when the program has no controlling company? Who will you finger when the users and file sharing are anonymous and encrypted? How will you block their access if the software can jump ports or sit on port 80 (requiring Web Access to be blocked in order to block the program)?

The business of media content is changing. The dike is leaking and the industry is running out of fingers to plug the holes. The rewards for adapting to this new reality could be enormous; if you lower your prices by 90%, but have sales increase by ten fold, you can come out ahead. But if you don't change, you may find that you don't have a industry anymore.

Mike Dickinson
meridun@templeton.gt.ed.net

Notice: This article may be retransmitted freely, but only in it's entirety and with credit for authorship given.

Lars makes sense, like it or not

[Animol]

I had the misfortune to be one of the Napster users banned because of the whole Metallica proceedings, and I read this interview with one thought in mind.

I don't hate Metallica.

And strangely enough, after reading this interview, I still don't. My tastes in music are extremely eclectic, and the reason I first started using Napster was to try to find rare songs that couldn't be easily found anywhere else. It's a great forum for the distribution of the ever-popular parody songs (What if God smoked cannibus, etc.) and a lot of older, less-popular music. Lars, however, made a lot of sense if you read carefully. All he says is that he didn't want Metallica's album-perfect music put up for trade for free, because there CAN still be money made from it, and because he doesn't feel it's necessary.
Chuck D., as a counter-example, supports Napster. I also have no problem with this point of view. But, as Lars said, the argument that everyone's ignoring is why Metallica made this decision - *METALLICA* didn't want *THEIR* music traded like that. Metallica's not damning all of the copyright violators of the world. Metallica's not intentionally barring people from enjoying their music, they're just strongly showing a preference about the way it's done. And they know it won't *STOP*, because there are many total anarchists out there.
Maybe Lars isn't particularly internet-savvy. Maybe he *DOES* enjoy getting SOME money out of this. This is no reason for us all to scream "Bad guy! Bad guy!" He's just doing what he thinks is right, and it's always up to us (the fans, the Napster users, the real world) to make the final decision.
Me? I don't share Metallica songs on Napster anymore. I still do, however, share the Punk Polka.

some passages worth examining

[evil_deceiver]

Disclaimer: there are well over 1000 comments in this thread. This one will necessarily be to some degree redundant. I apologize in advance, and will do my best to say things that are worth repeating anyway.

. . . I would say that I'm quite, I'd say, more than surprised, I'm quite stunned at the lack of communication and input from the record company. Obviously, you know, with record companies we never really usually depend much on what they have to offer in terms of creative things, but I am stunned at the low volume of support from the record company, both publically and privately.

I am too. One would think that the record company would jump to protect their investment. Unless, of course, they understand better than Lars that MP3/Napster is something they can't fight.

I mean, obviously, Peter and Cliff, our two managers -- they're our closest advisors -- we have been, they've been advising us for 18 years now. Our managers are basically the fifth and the sixth members of the band. They're a total partnership. We view both of them as equal. And they're equally involved in this.

. . . we don't take anything from anybody. We take advice from our two managers, but ultimately we override them a lot.

These two comments paint their managers in very different lights, I think. In the first, they're friends; in the second, merely advisors. After reading the first quote, I was surprised to hear the phrase "We take advice from our two managers," because I would have thought that those managers would be part of "we".

. . . when it comes to my relationship with the Internet and with my comptuer, the fact is that we don't spend a lot of time together.

I would never fault Lars for not using the web, or for not being a geek. These things aren't everyone's cup of tea. But I think it's important to note that Lars admits here to not being well-versed in computers or the internet. He is attacking something about which he is not adequately educated, and I think it shows. He and the band, and their lawyer too, would do well to familiarize themselves with the structure of Napster, the nature of the internet, and the concept of filesharing before they make themselves look foolish in court.

. . . when somebody fucks with what we do, we go after them.

What are they, a street gang? Never mind, that's not important. What's important is that it is Metallica themselves who are setting up the Us vs. Them dichotomy of this debate. People don't trade Metallica MP3s because they hate Metallica, they do it because they like Metallica. These people consider themselves fans, and if the band has not already alienated these fans by getting them banned from Napster, they will surely do so by insisting that they [the fans] are trying to "fuck with" them [the band].

You don't sit down and sort of try and sort of justify yourself, well, 'Maybe our time and energy would be better spent thinking about something a year or two from now.'

Why not? Everyone else in the music industry seems to be doing precisely that. (Or hiding their heads in the sand, I guess.) It is astounding to me that a band with as long a history as Metallica might not have extensive experience with either planning for the future, or adapting to the present. MP3 will force the industry to develop a radically new way of doing business, but there's no reason Metallica shouldn't be blazing that trail.

We really felt that it was time for somebody, an artist, with a potential of a public platform, to get involved with this.

I do applaud Metallica for using their fame to draw attention to an issue they believe in. At least they were at the head of some parade, even if it had to be a misguided one.

Now, are we aware of the Gnutellas and all these other things? Of course we are, but you can only take it one step at a time. And I believe, and the people that we talk to about this, we believe, that the minute some of these companies become active, when they basically come to a point that they become fully funcitonal, we believe that there will be technology and a way to go after them in the way they can invent this technology and make it untraceable. We believe that as quickly as they can make it untraceable we believe that you can find a way to fuck with it . . .

I believe it will be very difficult for Metallica to "fuck with" Gnutella. First of all, the last I heard -- and someone please correct me about this if I'm wrong -- Gnutella wasn't even supposed to be released. Its own developer doesn't support it (and barely acknowledges it). Who is Metallica going to sue to stop Gnutella? It's pirated music being transferred via pirated software. And even if I'm wrong about this, or if it changes, it's the concept that's important, not the implementation. Like CmdrTaco said, "Yeah, we should definitely ban peer-to-peer file sharing over the Internet, and NFS pisses me off, too." If we can't use Napster or Gnutella, we'll use DCC. Or FTP. Or HTTP. Or we'll invent a new protocol.

It's true, what Lars says, that as quick as hackers can find some way to facilitate the flow of MP3s, "The Man" can find some way to block it. But the cycle doesn't end there -- the hackers circumvent the block, the Man blocks the circumvention, etc. Where does it end? With the simple fact that, because of the way computers have been built from the early days, it is effectively impossible to prevent a string of bits from being copied.

So it's sort of like -- the thing about this sort of mob mentality, what we call the 'Internet Extremists,' it's all kind of cute -- 'Yeah, we want to fuck with the system,' 'Yeah, we have a right to get everything for free.' But I believe that if you have the energy and the resources to chase 'em -- and that's one thing we have is a lot of energy and a lot of resources . . .

Why doesn't he just walk around wearing a t-shirt that says "I Am The Man"? He dismisses the notion of rebellion as "cute" and brags about his vast supply of resources (read: money). I think this is a very damaging thing for Lars to have said, though I must admit I'm glad he's said it. It certainly does suggest that Metallica is firmly entrenched in the corporate world.

So of course there will be at some point -- we are not stupid, of course we realize the future of getting music from Metlalica to the people who are interested in Metallica's music is through the Internet.

This, on the other hand, is encouraging. It suggests that Metallica haven't doomed themselves to being legacy artists.

That ultimately is what the biggest beef about this whole thing [is], is that Napster could have so easily avoided this whole thing. It's like, OK, 'It's January, my name is Napster, or I'm Sean, or whoever the CEO was at the time, we have this service, we would like to know if you are interested in being part of it.' If we'd said Yes, then there's no issue, if we'd said No, then this whole thing would have never -- it's really what this is about, it's what this whole thing ultimately comes down to, you know.

This is plainly ridiculous. Either Lars simply does not understand how Napster works, or he is being deliberately silly in the middle of making what should be a critical argument to his side of the story. Napster never asked a single band if they wanted to be a part of their service. Likewise, Napster has never made available a single work belonging to a single band via their service. The service they are providing is not, as Lars seems to imply, to the bands. They are providing a service to their users, a service that allows them to transmit files of certain types across the internet. (Never mind Gnutella, which permits sharing of any file, period.) It is the users who share the files, and if anyone should have asked Metallica first, it's the users. I have said elsewhere that Metallica was right to finger individual users, if they feel they must persist in this attack, and I stand by that statement. (Actually, it was Dr. Dre to whom I was referring, but it's the same idea.)

Unfortunately, it seems that this comment is only a perpetuation of the consistent misunderstanding of the way Napster works that Metallica, Dr. Dre, and their attorney Howard King have shown since we first heard King say "Tha t [Napster's offer to ban usernames who were identified as sharing Metallica/Dre songs illegally] was not a satisfactory response. That was a comical response." Metallica, Dre, and King do not know how Napster works, and apparently, they do not care to find out. Worse, they do not seem to think they will need to.

It's sort of like, you know what, fair enough, I can certainly respect and I would certainly somewhat agree with the fact that paying 16 bucks for a CD is probably, you know, pushing too much. But, it's the marketplace that dictates that, not me.

Quite right. And this is what scares people who make money off of music. One of the rarer moments in the history of capitalism is upon us: for once, the consumers are going to tell the producers how the industry will be run. People are not willing to pay $16+ for a CD. In fact, people don't necessarily want the entire CD, and they may not be willing to pay a cent. The marketplace is speaking, and it's saying, music should be free. No one has told Metallica not to charge money for their music. But MP3 listeners worldwide are telling Metallica that they're not going to pay it. Is this frightening? Should this worry us? Only if we're the sort of people who think that music is created to earn the artist money. But if we believe that music is art created for art's sake . . . .

Understand one thing: this is not about a lot of money right now, because the money that's being lost right now is really pocket change, ok? It's about the priciple of the thing and it's about what could happen if this kind of thing is allowed to exist and run as rampant and out of control for the next 5 years as it has been for the last 6 months.

. . . look, our record sales have gone up in the last three weeks, OK?

You heard it directly from Lars, folks: the amount of money currently being lost due to MP3 trading "is really pocket change". And now he suddenly starts thinking about the future. Convenient.

Well, 1st of all, you have to remember that you're talking to somebody who advocates bootlegging, who has alwyas been pro-bootlegging. We have always let fans tape our shows, we've always had a thing for bootlegging live materials, for special appearances, for that type of stuff. Knock yourselves out, bootleg the fuck out of it, we don't give.

The bottom line is the size of it. The size of it and the quality of it. . . . So it's the quality, the quality and the scale.

So is it okay to make and trade MP3s of bootlegs?

I can't help feeling that this is a bit hypocritical. Metallica insists that their crusade is about principles, not money, but then say that it's okay if your illegal copying only costs them a little bit of money, but not if it costs them a lot.

So back to the question again, the 'commodity' really becomes about it being traded around illegally, and rather than the art that it is.

Is Lars trying to say that art isn't art if there's not a price tag attached? If someone doesn't receive compensation for it? Art is art because it has an effect on the audience. And I'm talking about an effect aside from the removal of $16 from the audience's wallets. Art's effect on the audience, 99% of the time, has little or nothing to do with how it got to the audience, or whether the audience had to pay for it.

Napster has the right to exist. I support Napster's right to exist, OK? But I want them to support my right to not be part of it.

This is a reasonable request, made to the wrong people. As Lars has already demonstrated he doesn't know, Napster is not responsible for the contents of their users' hard drives. This appeal ought to be made to the users.

. . . you have to remember that statistically, for every one band that you hear about, for every one band that a record company helps make successful, they lose their fucking shirt on the nine other ones you never hear about . . .

. . . which wouldn't happen if music were traded without restriction or cost. There would be no need for record labels, and thus the only money lost when a band failed to achieve its goals would be whatever money its members had contributed themselves.

But record companies will never be completely extinct, for one reason and one reason only, that there will always be a need to develop younger artists, and record companies will always be able to play a big part of that, because this whole thing about "I'm a young band, I'm an upstart band, I'm going to put my music on Napster, and then I'm going to become successful?" Fantasy. The only way you you will become successful is by having a publicity and promotion campaign behind you that elevates what you're doing above what your competition is doing.

This is not even true in the current music industry, where bands like Fugazi, a dedicated anti-commercial act, can do their own marketing and achieve a level of popularity that longevity that rivals many corporate-sponsored acts. But if the current music industry is rendered obsolete, and consumers go back to trusting their own personal tastes to decide what music they'll listen to, instead of advertisements, radio and TV, then not only will this scenrio Lars rejects be possible, it might be the only way to succeed as a musician.

It's very very simple. One of the -- when we monitored Napster for 48 hours three weekends ago, we came up with the 1.4 million downloads of Metallica music, there was one, one downloading -- one! of an unsigned artist the whole time.

Inconceivable. There is not a snowball's chance in hell that, in a 48-hour stretch, only a mere one out of the millions of songs transferred via Napster was written by an unsigned artist. I don't know what caused Lars (or NetPD) to make this massive error in calculation, but it is statistically as near to impossible as you could hope to get.

As for those 1.4 million downloads, here is a short list of things Metallica does not know about them:

• Metallica does not know whether or not the files were actually transferred, unless they downloaded them themselves, or shared them and watched them being uploaded. All they could know is how many were publicly available for downloading. To know how many actual downloads there were, they would have to monitor a host-to-host transmission as a third party, which is eavesdropping, and is illegal.
• Metallica does not know whether or not the files that purported to be MP3s of their music were actually MP3 files. They could just as easily have been empty files carrying the name of a Metallica song and a .mp3 extension.
• Even if they were MP3 files, Metallica does not know whether they were their MP3 files. Renaming another band's song would be child's play. The disk space required even to download and listen to a sufficiently large sample of 1.4 million MP3s is a lot more than Lars has on that computer he never uses. The task itself would be mind-numbing and eventually downright infuriating; I can't imagine anyone having the patience to do it.
• Metallica also does not know how many of those transfers were between two users who already owned the albums, and thus had legitimate rights to own copies of the songs. Doubtless these users account for a significant percentage of the 30,000 who challenged the ban Napster placed on them at Metallica's request.

You can sit there and talk about how this is great for up and coming artists or for unsigned bands, but a big counterargument that nobody gets is, me and you could form a band together, and we could like, make a demo and then we could put it up on Napster. Who is going to give a fuck? Nobody's going to care, because they don't know anything about what sets my and your band out from the gardener and the guy who cleans my pool's band. The record companies will never be extinct, because there will always be a need down at that level.

More bragging about how rich he is. In regards to this assertion, read The Brunching Shuttlecocks' An Open Letter From Metallica, which dispatches the notion better than I could, and more humorously too.

I believe ultimately -- and this is sort of what I was talking about before -- that the hardest thing about this is to try and come up with a system where it becomes an individual's right to choose how he will want to partake in this sort of stuff through the Internet. That's the hardest thing because it becomes very difficult, it's very difficult to generalize, like I said before. It's not fair to sit there and say, 'Napster can't exist,' because there are people who would like to use it. And it's not fair to sit there and say 'It has to exist and you have to be part of it,' for the people who don't want to use it.

This is a very good point, and an insightful one as well. Lars is right, this will be a very difficult problem, and in fact, I'm not sure I want to see how it gets solved. It also addresses a more important issue: the question of how to ensure that authors retain copyrights to their work, and how to ensure they're properly credited for it.

We believe based on the people we hired that we're probably not more than a year away from where you can basically download Mission Impossible 2 the same day that it opens in the theatre . . .

Another example of how much Lars hasn't bothered to find out. This is, of course, more or less possible today, though with the problem that a two-hour movie will generally be a much larger file than a five-minute song.

I guess that's all I have. I'm sure it's plenty. There was other stuff I wanted to respond to, but I can't remember what it was, and damned if I didn't waste enough time writing this already. I guess it's obvious where my sympathies lie.

Re:Half-off-topic: Contempt for non-computer-peopl

[ekidder]

Okay, true, that is a difference. Of course, this makes Lars right as well - relativism aside, I agree with him (and seriously mock the 'information wants to be free' thing). Do Lars and I 'get it'? That depends on just what 'it' is. In this case, 'it' is a particular philosophy espoused by a particular organization (just look at those big words gooooo), and since I don't subscribe to that philosophy, of course I don't get it. Ah well :) I'll probably be the first against the wall when the revolution comes.

Eric ze Kidder

Re:A right to *any* piece of information on the Ne

[ekidder]

Let's not forget so-called 'private' information. If there is a right to *any* piece of information, it's not just media, it's also any piece of information about YOU. (using the 3rd-person, generalistic view, of course :)

Eric ze Kidder

One unsigned artist? How do they know?

[Distan]

Lars really confused me when he said there was only one download of an unsigned artist. The reason this confuses me, is I don't understand how they could know this, and it makes me wonder how NetPD did their job. I imagined that NetPD had written a client to query the Napster servers and look for people providing Metallica songs. But Lars keeps talking about downloads, not shares, and it means that either: 1: He doesn't know what he is talking about. -or- 2: They monitored Napster a lot closer than I first thought. So, fellow slashdotters, puzzle me this; How could they know how many downloads of an unsigned artist there was?

Re:Wow. That was a tumbling vomiting spew.

[zeusjr]

I would choose "misinformed" instead of "ignorent" because it would make me, myself look less ignorant - not that that's a particularly striving for a nondicum of ignorence, but because of the contextual obligations set in the precender's paragraphs, I must concur with the competing revelations, of which I know only five ("three to be revaeled at the curring instant, someothers later, I suppose, it can't be helped"):

1.) "The precidience of the metal's glowing embers reaks with the rumblings of an ancient squire."

"Metal" must mean metallica, of course; as for squire's I don't know any! The legendary Arthur may have been a squire before he was king; could this be a reference to his fabled return? How blessed we are to be living at such a time as this!

2.) "To be revealed at a later time."

I'm terribly dissappointed but I can't tell you yet - THIS INFORMATION NOT YET FREE.

3.) "To be revealed at a later time."

Sigh - THIS INFORMATION NOT YET FREE.

4.) "The forth revelation concerns the final strew, that yonder fooligans belief was not to parlay with the manymore."

I have to admit I don't understand this one at all! Does anyone else have any ideas?

5.) "The finalling state was to be reconsiderty before the end of the times if you, if you werrto be so dash. It is not tyh's to reconsider after thin rebluthering yell of 'sook' for which this was made. Be not afraid, noo."

It's good to know everything will turn out alright in the end. I suggest everyone keep this comforting thought close to them in their darkest times.

Thanks for letting me be so revealing!
zeusjr of the state of comfort

Good idea.

[StatGrape]

Perfect idea... everyone wins. Who hasn't bought a CD just for one or two songs, never intending to listen to the rest?

Re:Ignore Lars at your Peril?

[jallen02]

That is one thing that bothers me

He made an excellent case for his side.

No matter what the case may be it is damn near irrefutable since it is their music.

See? Its not just an excellent case its irrefutable people are bootlegging their music not live concert stuffa s he said he still encourages but stuff from their CD's first generation type material that people can copy onto CD's of their own.... easy now. I dont think its just an excellent case I think they win hands down

Jeremy

Re:OK for me, but not for you.

[Shadox Tsurien]

Intel has a monopoly on Intel computers (well, the processor anyways.) This is, I believe, what he meant. It's a good analogy; there is only one place to get CDs by any particular band. The problem is industry associations like the RIAA prevent competition between record companies, so prices get out of control. As in the other poster's example, sure, there is only one place to get any particular CD... but all the other bands, produced by the other record companies, cost the same.

Price fixing, plain and simple. It's as if Linux, Beos, Windows, MacOS, and BSD all cost exactly the same, because some association decided that's what was fair.

How to fix it? Simple. Dissolve the RIAA, and make it illegal to form any horizontal-market association not dealing solely with standards. They only exist to prevent competition and screw the consumer.

Re:OK for me, but not for you.

[hrieke]

I think that it's the scope of the copying which is being done, not the fact that it is. So, back in the 70s you had maybe 10 high schoolers copying a record to share around, you didn't really see that, even though there were those ten kids at each school. Now Napster comes along and these 10 plus ever other group go online, and suddenly you have 10 million people doing it, all localized. But, yeah, he who lives in a Glass House...

Re:Wow. That was a fucking cool interview.

[DrXym]

The unsigned artist thing is interesting since Napster requires that you know what you're searching for. Since by definition an unknown artist is, well, unknown, who the hell is ever going to find their songs?

Who's music is it Lars?

[NiceGeek]

Seems to me that according to the "Work For Hire" admendment that the RIAA managed to sneak in that Metallica (and every artist signed to a lable)is no longer in control of their music anyway..so why fight so hard..let the RIAA fight all by their lonesome. (heres a link about the admendment)http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/2000052 5/en/music-copyrights_2.html

Re:Wow. That was a fucking cool interview.

[AnarchoFreak_00]

Would I like to see something like Napster make it easier for me to make a living? Yes. But I'd like them to do it by *ASKING MY PERMISSION* before letting people distribute my work.

Although it sounds like a good idea. It needs a bit of work. Anyone have any ideas on how this could work? 'cause I know at the moment -- if i remeber correctly -- that napster lists everything in a folder. And it would be a bit of a pain for ppl to sort out legal, and illegal mp3z (It has to be easy for them or they won't do it). Also, alot of people are going to do it anyway.

Re:Heres why dipshit

[AnarchoFreak_00]

people ought to be able to exercise the control we have given them by law in this country"

What about microsoft?

Re:Either/Or

[Rei]

There are lossless compression algorithms, you know. And with modern bandwidth (cable modem, etc) it is more feasable to download them then just downloading regular mp3s over the net. The fact that mp3s have been so successful is due to the fact that people like having a *lot* of music, and are too lazy to make a cd image and burn it. Hence, my comment about ready-to-burn formats.

- Rei

Re:Either/Or (correction)

[Rei]

That was meant to say, "...then just downloading regular mp3s over a regular modem" (something people have been doing for quite a long time).

If you're picky about undiscernable quality loss (which, btw, you have in regular cds, but you don't complain about that, oh no....), then I'm sure this would be an option if a major service got out there. And besides, whats to stop them from printing and selling you hardcopies for the production cost?

- Rei

Re:Either/Or

[Rei]

What are you talking about?
Its nothing similar to liquid audio.

Liquid audio is the conventional system, but over the net. RIAA still gets profits, you still pay for each track you get (and of course, you don't really *own* it, just like normal music). Costs are still the same, you just get a digital copy instead of a hard copy.

- Rei

Re:mp3 quality

[Rei]

I hate this argument... its technically lossy, but most people I've seen saying the quality is bad have good stereos and lousy computer speakers. I've been eager, for a long time, to set up a fair, human-based quality test. Maybee I'll do it this summer.

- Rei

You know what this reminds me of?

[AnonymousHero]

It reminds me of when Gates insisted upon getting paid for his code at home-grown computer club meetings in the 70's.

Same basic issue: someone insisting upon being paid for using their intellectual property, and a bunch of people who weren't paying for it.

Re:Help!

[NI3]

Would people use something like this?

Biggest problem is the method of payment; I don't wanna send my credit card info to every site on which I wanna spend a few dollars. If I could buy a smartcard for say 100$ and plug it into my PC to pay for little things, (specially downloads), I certainly would consider buying my MP3s (at a reasonable price ofcourse!).

And I could finally register some of those sharewares I've been using for years ;-)

Re:Get the users leave Napster Alone

[NI3]

You can give your files any name you want to. So Napster would also have to check if the MP3's in question were made from copyrighted material.
Not that easy to do I believe.

english major?

[ocipio]

take out 'i mean' and 'obviously' out of lars' replies and you have shorted the length quite a bit. I wish they understood technology more. They don't get too deep into the reason. Napster is 'bad' and that is as far as they can go.

Re:Journalistic ethics

[emmett]

And bTW, what did he actually say which Emmett replaced by [fight] above. I'm guessing he used the c-word?

I secured the interview, but timothy conducted and transcribed it.

--Emmett

Metallicrites

[lysdexic]

• Dictionary Definition
• principle (prns-pl) n. Abbr. prin.
  A basic truth, law, or assumption: the principles of democracy.
  According to Lars
• Understand one thing: this is not about a lot of money right now, because the money that's being lost right now is really pocket change, ok? It's about the priciple of the thing and it's about what could happen if this kind of thing is allowed to exist and run as rampant and out of control for the next 5 years as it has been for the last 6 months.
  
• In response to the question "Have any of you (Metallica) ever copied a tape, record, 8-track, CD, etc. from a friend?"
  Of course we have, ok? And of course it's a valid point. The bottom line is the size of it.
  
  

Principles are not principles if they are compromised when it is convenient to compromise them. A compromised principle is a compromised principle regardless of the scale.

Principles are principles. Piracy is piracy. Hypocrites are hypocrites.


lysdexic

"A man is none the less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years."

Metallica not sueing napster, just banning users

[Platypii]

you said that "The bottom line is Metallica wants to pick a fight, and they can't do it with 600,000+ users directly (their current count), and they can't do it with Gnutella or Freenet (which they haven't quite realized yet), so they do it with Napster. They want to blame Napster for what 600,000 other people want to do with their music.", but you have to keep in mind, that they aren't taking action against napster, they simply banned the users in question, which was prefectly fair. They broke the law, they should just feel lucky they weren't actually sued!

MP3 = lossy

[Platypii]

true, mp3 is a lossy compression algorithm, but at any bitrate higher than about 64 is close enough to the original quality, that the loss of quality is negligeble. Yes, you can hear a slight diffence in CD vs. 128kb audio, but a cd player hooked up to bad speakers could be worse too, the point is that the songs were pirated, and the people who pirated them violated the law, and should feel lucky they weren't sued!

Re:OK for me, but not for you.

[IMZombie]

While I agree that the mp3 format has no loss when copied, mp3's are lossy when compared to the the original work. If the mp3 was a perfect digital copy of the master, that's one thing. Anyone who's "ripped" mp3's off a CD can tell you the CD always sounds better.

That's where you are mistaken...

[IMZombie]

.mp3 IS NOT CD quality audio.

Re:That's where you are mistaken...

[molda]

if you consider that mp3 uses a masking technique to remove the notes you cannot hear when another note is played, then by definition, mp3 is not cd quality. Also added to that, if everybodys' hearing is different, then surely every mp3 song that is around sounds different when played. No one knows what the other hears, it is just assumed it is the same.

Re:That's where you are mistaken...

[e13ven]

For all practical purposes? Practically everyone can tell the difference between mp3s and the cd source. If you play your signal through a stereo reciever( doesn't need to cost $1,000) 128 and 196 sound "tinny" compared to the original .wav. 256 sounds close to the original but the four people in this room(excluding myself) identified correctly six different .mp3 files from their original .wavs. Criterion- which sounds better? I am using a nearly twenty year old yamaha natural sound stereo reciever and my computer(nothing special). There is a physical & audible difference between cd wavs and even high quality mp3 copies. I collected analog cassete tapes of bands like Grateful Dead, Phish & MMW and even when these became available via mp3 my analog cassete tapes won out sounding audibly better than the 128mp3 commonly circulated. You can chant that there is practicaly no difference all you want,(you probably don't listen to or enjoy music very much) there is a practical audible diference. I would rather have an exact copy of a digital file than a compressed one. Any day. I am passionate about the music I listen to though.

Re:I have to say that I agree with him...

[shren]

But I also think it's impossible to control mass distribution of media now. And any attempts to go after Gnutella (a true file-sharing utility just like anonymous FTP) will be fruitless.

Why do people keep saying this? Are they just trying to convince themselves? I keep hearing this fact spouted from various people, repeatedly and without evidence. Writing a program for an ISP that watches for certain protocols coming off of connections, and shuts down those connections when the protocols are spotted, is (within my guess of course) a one month project for a good programming team. No matter what you are sending over the internet, the IP header has an IP address that can eventually be trailed back to you.

This is just a small example of the simple fact that anything that repeats itself by some system can be sabotaged, exploited or tracked in some way. Any person who has a habit, system that uses a common channel or the same method over time, or orginization that reacts the same way to all threats, can be attacked on the basis of that regularity. It's the foundation of electronic espionage. It is why defense is harder than offense. It is why your 'invisible' file swapping methods, once widely used enough to be a blip on the radar, can be tracked.

Re:gi

[shren]

Did anyone else notice that Lars dodged that question better then Bill Clinton and Bush combined? Slick one that Lars is, have to watch him or he'll get away from ya. I would like to get a direct answer from him. Wonder if his Label has him under some non-disclose agreement about that type of stuff??

Oh, come on. He's under no obligation to tell you how much he makes, which is essentially what this part of the question asks. But he *did* answer the majority of the question, the important part in my opinion.

The focus of this part of the interview is, "Have you considered bailing on the record company?", and Lars answered, in sufficient detail, "Of course! Wouldn't you? When it's viable we'll seriously look into it." And that's all we really need to know.

Re:Perfect digital copies, Garth Brooks, & Metalli

[shren]

Sherman, set the wayback machine for the early 1990s. A new trend had started among the big retail music chain stores. Used CDs. Racks and racks of them. This got the ire of the music industry to threaten stores with no more new CDs to sell if they didn't yank the used ones. Drugstore cowboy singer Garth Brooks made himself the pulpit boy for the cause. The claim was that used CD sales is "theft" from the artists because the sound quality on used CDs degrade. A used CD sounds just as good as a new one. Brooks and the RIAA wanted to ban used CD sales or at least to 'tax' them with the kickback going to the RIAA to make up for loss to artists (/me scratches head at logic here). The issue was LAUGHED at by the public at large. Garth Brooks was seen as a raving idiot and the issue faded away.

Now it's Napster. Same shit all over again.

I can't believe this got moderated to 5 : Insightful. What does this have to do with anything? It's interesting trivia but the only thing that it has in common with Napster is that Used CD sales and Napster are both things that tick the RIAA off.

Copyright, is right though

[gowdy]

Hi All,

He does make very good points in general I do agree with what he says. I guess this goes against the Free Software morallity though, programmers can't financially benefit from their work, so why should musicians? I don't think we (as a society) are in that position yet and people still do need to derive something from their work, be it a musician or a doctor.

Many entertainers are grossly overpaid, why should (to pick a name at random) Tom Cruise get paid many orders of magnitude more than a teacher? Why really does benefit society more?

Anyway, to conclude, I think he should "win" in the sense that people should not be giving away what is not theirs to give. Bands who "GPL" their music should be allowed to use Napster-like services though, so there is no reason for it to be stopped.

Stephen J. Gowdy

Re:Copyright, is right though

[gowdy]

I think we more-or-less agree. I would though also include the likes of Michael Jordan are other "sports" stars. We don't live in a socialist society and I am not a socialist. In the UK I would vote for the conservative party (if they didn't have a stupid leader at the moment). In the US you don't really have that much of a choice between the parties and it is becoming the same in the UK. Both (main parties, although we do have some real others) are tending towards right of centre.

Re:Copyright, is right though

[gowdy]

Free Software has absolutely nothing to do with the napster/music/mp3/copyright issue. NOTHING.

Are you sure? Can you tell me what the difference is? I can write a program that would be unique, someone else would never combine quite the same issues. What would that not be the same?

I was under the impression that some bands did publish their music on the net for people to share. This was aimed at making them more popular. If this isn't the case then the duality isn't corrent, sorry.

Re:Copyright, is right though

[mindstrm]

Free Software has absolutely nothing to do with the napster/music/mp3/copyright issue. NOTHING.

Bands who 'GPL' their music? But they DONT gpl their music. Should they be able to use napster like services? Sure... but napster DOESN'T cater to these people. It helps you find things you already know exist. It is 99.99% piracy.

Re: The current system must be destroyed

[bendude]

Perhaps we should create the new system and have it competing with the current system. If artists and record companys can control their product then they will endorse the new system and all the little robots out there will be brainwashed into using it - eventually leading to mp3's (in it's current position) extinction.

Put up a fence...

[ca1v1n]

It is actually a crime to attempt to see past a visual barricade on public property. (Peeping Tom or Trespassing) Put up a fence, and they can't see your garden. If someone pays the admission cost to enter your garden, takes pictures of it, and then redistributes them, whether or not they charge for them, they have violated your intellectual property rights. Metallica still has the right to control distribution. You want a sample of their songs? Download bootlegs. The pristine album cuts are their cash cow, and rightfully so. No, Metallica doesn't owe us anything, but they're allowing us bootlegs, which they don't have to do. We should be grateful for that.

Groan

[yibyab]

1. I tried. I really tried to read the whole thing...but trying to read this transcript of a spoken interview is terribly cumbersome. I think you've done the Slashdot readers, and certainly Lars, a disservice by publishing the interview this way...unedited. There are several previous posts that ignorantly think Lars wrote these replies. Hey people...you try answering some questions extemporaneously and have it transcribed verbatim and see how articulate you come off looking.

2. Nevertheless, from what I could parse, is that Lars doesn't get it. He knows something about the issue, but comparing Napster to a Book-of-the-Month club scheme? Come on. I think this represents the difficulty we're going to continue to see as the gap between the cogniscenti and the "uncleaned masses" continues to grow. I'm not espousing elitism here. I think its important for the geeks of all degrees to glimpse this and recognize that as the Lars's of the world come on line, or regulate it, or pass judgement on it, it is they through sheer numbers who will hold sway over it. This sounds like I'm being condescending, but we're a generation away from conversations like these seemingly horribly ignorant and primitive. People don't want to have to know how things work...only that they do. Lars barely understands that AOL isn't the Internet. That's not his fault. But it's the challenge we face, especially when we have judges and regulators and public opinion that has the same misconceptions.

3. I could only get through question #2, so if the interview improves after that, I'm sorry for basing my thoughts on a short review.

Music is property?

[smalltown]

If all the record companies go bust and all the artists can`t make a good living we`ll be left with people making music because they enjoy it, with a cheap and effective means of distribution on the net, seems OK to me.

Re:FWIW...

[Dethboy]

Dave is writing even shittier music than Metallica... and trying to find a decent guitarist since Marty bailed.

Re:Long winded webby awards

[3x3eyes]

Yeah.. I seen a lot of bad post today.. but LK's post is pretty funny though 3x3

MP3 vs. Master Recording

[goorala]

Lars shows his ignorance by claiming that people are downloading "1st generation, perfect digital copies of master recordings from all the world". When the sound quality difference, even with the best encoding, is quite bad compared to the original. Did anyone explain the MP3 encoding process, and the quality degradation, especially of distorted guitars, like in Heavy Metal?

Xerox my Mechanic as Well as My Suburban: MusicToo

[Mimosa]

... in the same way that if I go down to the car dealership and want to buy a new Suburban, and I feel that paying $47,000 for a new Suburban is too expensive, that doesn't give me the right to steal it, right?

*sigh* I don't know whether to smack my head against the wall, or fall down flabbergasted from what I'm hearing!

Well, hell - if copying and creating one or a thousand Suburbans were as trivial as copying computer files, why hell boy I wouldn't wait for you to steal my work I'd run to make it available to the world! Put another way, recently I saw a televised Ulrich say ``how would you [we the public that is] feel if you were a car mechanic and you fixed my car and I did not pay you for it? You wouldn't like it!'' Sh*t! If I dug ditches, performed brain surgery, created software, built Subarus, fermented Dutch cheese (and its sons =), fixed cars or for Gads sake I made music (we all know how vital to national security that profession is ) I'd gladly let you do the work so I could get on to providing what a bunch of fancy arranged silica could not.

Perhaps feed the hungry, as ditch digging is now done simply as a mouse/keystroke. But, shit! That f*cks up your analogies! The users (i.e., the throngs which Ulrich so facilely told to get lost recently in so many TV interviews) those masses out there are not communists. What they are are a bunch of pissed off consumers. I am 35 years old, a few years younger than these old geezer sound alikes, and from NYC. I remember the young Metallica that gigged here in 1981/2 at L'amours. Without a doubt those raging guys would have felt about a rich band bemoaning $17 music CDs as ``not [their] problem right now'' as so much hogwash. I know that for a fact.

You could use a dose of reality from many other enlightned musicians, the Web is festooned with leads.

Thanks

Linus: "Go, Metallica"

[NoizAngel]

"Piracy is bad," says Linus Torvalds, the creator of Linux, when asked about the matter. "Of course you should be able to sue over copyrights. The one good lawsuit in the whole Napster case is the one by Metallica: a suit by the actual authors. While it's probably motivated mostly by money, I can still at least hope that there is a strong feeling of morals there, too."

http://www.msnbc.com/news/410556.asp

---------

Re:OK for me, but not for you.

[Comte]

This is the same argument used by pharmaceutical companies: "We have to charge hugely inflated prices for our products because of all the money we lose R&Ding drugs that don't work". If net profit margins weren't so obscenely high this argument might have some validity, but as it is the consumer is upcharged on successful commodities in order to pay for the company's R&D investment, despite the fact that overall the company reaps a net margin that is grossly out of balance with the amount of money spent on "unsuccessful" research. This analogy would certainly seem to apply to the music industry as well. In addition, the argument loses a lot of weight when you consider that, of the hundreds of "young" bands that are signed each year, most are unceremoniously dumped if their first album doesn't sell at least in the high six figures. Quick, easy and big profits seem to be the only motivating issue. The industry doesn't really seem to be interested in "developing" new artists so much as it is in turning them into money sponges, then squeezing them dry with the hopes that a few end up being big enough to endure numerous wringings.

Re:I have to say that I agree with him...

[FreshView]

Yeah, If Gnutella or FreeNet becomes easy to use, the whole idea is shot, but until that time, killing napster, or at least getting them to enforce copyrights, would be a big step towards Lars' goal.

The most important thing he said:

[Rimbo]

"But I do also -- and this is one of the things that fascinates me about this whole thing -- I do also see things about the Internet being something that people I think taking for granted, that they're becoming so comfortable with it that the feel they have a right to any piece of information that comes to them through the Internet. The Internet is changing our perception about a lot of things, it's changing our perception about almost everthing around them in society."

Folks, this is the same logic by which totalitarian governments justify keeping information from people: The concept that access to information is a privelege, not a right.

We do have a right to the information we receive over the internet. We always had this right. The issue is that this right has been abused for so long, that people have adjusted to it.

I probably sound like one of those "internet extremists" Lars speaks of. So be it. I'm sorry, but freedom of information is how we protect ourselves against oppressive governments, monopolistic corporations, and bullies of any kind everywhere.

Lars is saying that information is a privilege, something someone earns because of their position or office held. I say that it is a basic human right.

Re:The most important thing he said:

[Silver Paladin]

I don't think that this is the point Lars is trying to make at all. You don't have the right to downloads Metallica's MP3s just because you can find them on the net any more than you have the right to use other people's credit card numbers to make purchases because such information can be found on the net.

Re:The most important thing he said:

[G27 Radio]

I don't think that this is the point Lars is trying to make at all. You don't have the right to downloads Metallica's MP3s just because you can find them on the net any more than you have the right to use other people's credit card numbers to make purchases because such information can be found on the net.

The problem is that for information to be freely available over the Internet you have to accept that people will share anything they feel like. It bothers me that people would prefer to give up their rights to freely share stuff over the Internet to protect their profits. I honestly believe Metallica will profit well regardless, but who knows for sure if they will profit as well if their music is freely available? However, I think we can be fairly certain that we all lose if we can only share material that someone else has to authorize first.

One guy mentioned how SDMI would be a great method of distribution, but I think the truth is that it's not really a solution at all. If I can get the music to my ears, I can assure you I can make a hi-quality MP3 of it regardless of the original format (assuming the original format is hi-quality.)

Metallica has given us a lot music-wise, and I'm glad they've profitted from it. If they produce any more good music I truly want them to profit from that as well. If we could all just work on the honor system here, and pay them for the music we like, and not pay them for the music we don't listen to, then we're all set. I don't think this is going to happen though. Some people just won't pay.

So, in order to guarantee that they get paid we have to guarantee that people aren't passing around their music without permission. One way to do this would be to monitor everyone's Internet connections, arrest anyone that encrypts stuff so the authorities can't see it, and have someone in charge verify that each transfer falls in line with local regulations. That doesn't work for me.

Another option is to have everyone pay the RIAA a tax for their Internet connections to make up for any lost profits the RIAA and its artists may experience. I don't think this is fair to all the other artists and don't really like this idea either. However, this is the scenario that I expect the RIAA to support. Mandatory payment regardless of quality of production--not a bad deal for the RIAA. We'll probably see some lobbying for this.

Metallica and every other producer of audio, images, and data are releasing their products into an environment where it can propogate regardless of our wishes. This is what we have to deal with. The Open Source crowd is the furthest ahead in dealing with this new fact of life.

In the meantime I release my creations for free unless I'm commissioned to create them in advance. One thing I have realized due to this whole Metallica thing is that I don't know where the fair middle ground in all this is yet--I'm not even sure if there is one. I'll be thinking about though. Lars isn't the only one who's still got a lot to figure out about what the Internet makes possible.

numb

L0pht's reply

[0x0000]

I recieved the following email, apparently in response to my remark that audio is a poor applicion for digitization. Don't know why the author chose not to post; doesn't know how, maybe?

I don't know if s/he works for Time-Warner, or is just borrowing their networks. Anyway, I got a chuckle out of it....

From L0pht Sun May 28 12:29:08 2000
X-Apparently-To: zero_hex@yahoo.com via mdd102.yahoomail.com
Received: from fe5.southeast.rr.com (EHLO mail5.sc.rr.com) (24.93.67.52) by mta208.mail.yahoo.com with SMTP; 28 May 2000 09:28:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from workstation ([24.31.205.234]) by mail5.sc.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.357.35); Sun, 28 May 2000 12:28:01 -0400
Message-ID:
From: "L0pht"
To:
Subject: mp3
Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 12:29:08 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0005_01BFC8A0.51DB1CA 0"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600
Return-Path: l0phtlee@yah00.com
Content-Length: 3082

Your putrid attempt to devalue the superior mp3 standard shows you as the over-zealous undereducated bullshit spewing anti-social leper that you are. I pity the test tube that bore you asshole. You must have an inferior PC and an inferior PC audio interface (Nothing less than an 800 MHZ processor will suffice dickhead). You can have your inferior tape and vinyl formats, nothing beats high compression (512Kbs) audio. The truth is your just jealous you could never come with and develope a method of mpeg compression audio yourself. You never could and you never would. If you honestly think mp3's are not superior to any other digital format out there (again, its because you have a shitty PC, get a real one leper) why not come up with a better format yourself ? Do the world a favor and shut your fucking pie hole up. The only thing that spews out of it is bullshit. Nobody likes you, so do the world a better favor and stick a gun in your mouth and pull the trigger, Bastard.

PS. Dont cry to your live-in mommy that I'm utilizing opinionated speech protected by the first amendment, you commie wanker. --

I didn't realize my detractors were so ignorant. Sounds to me like it L0pht can't quite grasp the difference between digitization and MP3, and took it reeel purse'nahl.

How 'er ya'll'uns dewin over ther, einyway, L0pht? Ya'll likin' th' Kunfederacy purty good siance th' Wahr indid? Ya'll geet that-thur sheeyit about th' FLAG wurked out yit?

Fuhk yew, boah.

"You are The Son of The Bitch!"

CDRs & who wants all of their music on CDRs/MP3s

[J.C.B.]

I don't know of anyone who copies tapes anymore. About 25% of the people that I know have CD burners (including myself) and we just use CDRs when we copy music (with no degradation)

One of the things that I don't see mentioned alot is the fact that people don't like having all of their music on CDRs or in MP3s. They like to have the actual CD. When some new CD comes out we don't have one guy go to the store and get the CD and a box of CDRs, usually we just each get a legitimate copy.

Re:Wow. That was a fucking cool interview.

[edunbar93]

but I think they're also pissed because they might make less money

Heh. Perhaps you just skipped right over the interview and posted without reading? This guy isn't pissed off because he might make less money. He's not too terribly concerned with making more money than he already does. (personally, if I were such an artist and had more money than I needed, I would focus on my art, because I don't _need_ to focus on making my rent.) He's pissed off because noone _asked_ him if he wanted to distribute his music on Napster. I know a number of erotic writers who really get pissed off when their stuff shows up on a porn site that charges money for their stuff. These writers aren't making _any_ money off of it, and they don't want to. They publish their stuff with the expressed intention that it be FREELY AVAILABLE. However, entirely too many people are willing to say "Hey, it's on the Internet, so it must be public domain, so I can start charging people money for it."

Don't deny that this attitude exists, because it's so rampant it's not funny. And Napster is most definitely making money off of this. And they expect to make a profit too, or you wouldn't see VC's pouring millions of dollars on them. If Napster had asked Metallica if they wanted their stuff to be distributed in this way, Metallica just might have agreed. But people didn't ask, they just started raping them.

And I also think it's funny the way people think about the music industry. If a guy in the Real World got a job doing the thing he really loved, people would look at him and say "hey, there's a really successful/lucky guy." But when a musician starts making money doing the thing he really loves instead of barely existing on a job at a fast-food joint, (or worse, struggling to make rent on the club circuit - most everyone would be really tempted to do "whatever it takes" under those circumstances.) then he's sold out to The Man and doesn't deserve the time of day. Gimme a break man.
---

Never saw this before

[hardburn]

I mean, I can just barely ... I know how to get onto AOL.

I bet you never thought you'd see that in a Slashdot interview :P

musings from a musician/computer geek

[cybin]

first of all, let me just say that i don't like metallica, i've never liked their music, and i think lars is a simpleton for calling what they do "art" because, let's face it -- the only reason bands whose names you know are in the music industry in the first place is to make money. there are many great musicians with record contracts, but nobody knows who they are because they don't play loud enough or have explicit lyrics stickers on their CDs.

our culture today is centered around money... the GPL and OSS as a whole is slightly counter to that, but let us not forget how many people have become millionaries in the last few months on account of Linux and similarly licensed software... aside from money, we like shock value (which is all heavy metal is), and we like things that sound 'pleasant' like boy bands and britney spears. is this truly art though? maybe in the most primitive sense of the word. art is supposed to illicit a reaction from you... IMHO metallica's music illicits one of two reactions:

"Dude, that ROCKS! YEAH!"
or
"Ugh, turn that shit off!"

perhaps i am generalizing, but that's about all i've seen. it has to do with the way the sound is constructed in heavy metal... it forces you to feel something. IMHO again, true art will succeed in eliciting emotions from you without forcing them out...

and if you notice, everything that Lars said and Metallica's stance on this whole thing in general is exactly the same way: people either say "Dude, that sucks" or they say "YEAH METALLICA! Be fucking selfish! You deserve it COS YOU ROCK!" or something like that.

real artists are not selfish. they don't keep their paintings in their house -- they have a desire to share them. as a composer, i WANT my pieces to be played, and if they are recorded and distributed, so be it. exposure is key if art is going to reach people. being greedy and "gimme-gimme" as metallica is doing does nothing for the music industry (which is already corrupt and producing generally crap across the board) or music as an art form.

so, if music plays and nobody is there to hear it, it's not really music. boycott these motherfuckers who shelter their music like an open wound. art is communication, and we're already paying too much for recordings. do you see any symphonies getting pissed that people are trading mp3s of concerts? no... because classical music doesn't make money for record companies. people who listen to it still like to go to concerts, and it's a thriving culture in the concert hall still... maybe metallica should take a hint from the more educated musical establishment. recordings are deceptive: play live.

i'll quit now... /me puts on his asbestos longjohns... --matt

Re:I Expected Lars To Be More Of A Dumbass

[ruin]

Don't like it? Move to a company with no copyright - and not many artists.

Company? I assume that's a simple typo. Of course, it could be a delightful double-entendre in which you're implying that we live in a country in which laws are being written by companies to their benefit, and to the detriment of the average citizen. Doesn't seem to support your argument, though, so I guess it has to be a typo.

Not many artists? Since when are people who make art for money artists?

--

hm

[ruin]

The part of the interview that amused me the most was:

believe that there are four -- oh shit! (Lars takes care of something in the background) -- I believe that there are sort of like four links in the food chain here.

Milk boiling over? Bongwater spillage? Hot girl on televison? Inquiring minds want to know...

--

Lars uses AOL, nuff said.

[prac_regex]

can anyone understand a word this fool says? maybe its that double-bass drum, or the hockey. "must be the colors, and the kids" - cat power

Re:Ignore Lars at your Peril?

[dan5691]

Like another poster mentioned most peoples spoken engished transcribed would probably be pretty incoherent, myself included. But intelligent, I can't make that leap. He hardly seem to more then a topical understanding of the issues.

Re:Wow. That was a fucking cool interview.

[lgas]

Would I like to see something like Napster make it easier for me to make a living? Yes. But I'd like them to do it by *ASKING MY PERMISSION* before letting people distribute my work.

Napster doesn't distribute anything. They simply provide software which allows users to distribute files directly to each other. What you really mean is "it would be nice if the users asked permission before trading my music."

Good luck. As was pointed out in the interview, Napster is a drastically different paradigm (largely because of the drastically different scale) than taping your friends Iron Maiden albumns, but the individuals doing it still view it the same basic way, they're not going to ask permission.

Immaturity

[Locke420]

While I agree that it is good not to censor the words of someone being interviewed, I also think that it is quite assinine to transcribe the replies word for word. People do not generally speak the way they would write. Censoring does not mean taking someone's words and taking out all of the 'uhh's and 'umm's to make their statement more readable. Censoring is the act of removing ideas expressed from public view. Lars makes some good points in his interview, but having to wade through a myriad of dashes and childish spite makes it much more difficult to read than understand verbally. my $0.02

refutation of Lars' objections

[inquis]

First of all, I would like to say that this was an enlightening interview, and I would like to thank Lars for speaking with Slashdot. You can talk with "experts" and the like, but it still more enlightening to get it straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak.

Secondly, this post is going to be based on what I thought Lars' objections were... if I'm wrong on some point, then this whole post will be thrown off.

1. Metallica never asked for their music to be on Napster; therefore, it should not be on Napster.

2. Metallica objects to the quality (methinks he said "perfect digital" or "first generation digital" somewhere) and the ease-of-acquisition of .mp3 files through Napster.

This being said, I would like to address first the opt-in vs. opt-out aspect of Napster; that is, Metallica never asked for their songs to be on Napster. The point that Lars is missing is that Metallica would not exist or be successful as a band without its fans. When a Metallica song is shared on Napster, that song is shared by a fan of the band. When I first started using Napster, I would share my entire music library of 600+... however, I found that all the Napster users leeching off of my library ate up waaaay too much bandwidth. Because of this, I cut down to sharing only about 25 or 30 songs; one or two of those songs were Metallica's. I would not have shared a Metallica song if I did not like the song and if I did not want other people to hear it.

Think of it like this. There are really two different types of Metallica fans: those casual fans who like to hear Sandman on the radio now and then, and those fans that really love the older stuff and are interested in knowing where Metallica is going as a band. Those more casual fans would only have a few Metallica .mp3s, and they probably wouldn't own a Metallica CD. The more hardcore fans would probably be sharing a huge library of Metallica songs (and own a bunch of Metallica CDs) and share the songs because they _like_ the band and because they _want_ people to listen to Metallica. I shared Blackened. Try searching on Napster for _that_ and see what you find.

Lars then goes on and compares .mp3 copies of music to tape copies and objects as to the quality of the .mp3 copy. I give this challenge: take any Metallica song (which are pretty aurally complicated anyway), in .mp3 format encoded in whatever bit rate you want. Compare that copy to a CD copy and see which one is better. I did this myself, and I found that I had to encode a song like Battery at 192kbps before I could ignore any difference between the .mp3 and the CD. For something off of S&M, I had to encode at 256kbps, and I could _still_ tell the difference between the encoded song and the CD... and these file sizes were _huge_. .mp3s are not perfect copies by any stretch of the imagination, and the more perfect they become the more _restrictively large_ the file sizes become. The only _perfect_ copy of a song possible is in a full size raw audio file (.wav), and even then errors will be introduced through the CD-ripping process.

Metallica's other objection is that songs are too easy to obtain through a service like Napster. The thing Lars is missing here is that Napster users don't just arbitrarily download songs. I believe Lars would agree with me if I said that it is hard to buy a CD these days from an unknown band because you don't know if there are any good songs on the CD other than the one you saw on MTV. Napster is invaluable for me because it offers me the opportunity to see what else the band has to offer before I spend 18$ on a CD that could have only two decent songs on it. Case in point: 3 Doors Down. I had heard Kryptonite on the radio, and I loved that song enough to consider buying the CD. So, I hopped on Napster and got Kryptonite along with three or four other songs (Duck and Run, Not Enough, and something else). I loved those songs too... so I went to the bookstore and ordered the CD. I would not have bought that CD without the ability to preview the other songs using a service like Napster... and I am not talking 30 second crappy quality Real Audio clips; I am talking full length, redistributible songs that I can email to someone down the hall with the subject line: "Listen to this!". Ease-of-acquisition and redistribution is the draw of Napster. Who here has heard of a band called A Perfect Circle? I heard their name dropped in a Napster chat room a month and a half ago. I downloaded their new CD that day. I have been talking them up to my friends for a month. Two of my close friends already own the CD, and I am going to buy it with part of my next paycheck. Easily accessible .mp3s let me sort the good bands from the bad and make informed purchasing decisions.

I understand Lars is concerned about proteting his intellectual property... but maybe he shouldn't. Maybe he should encourage "piracy", and maybe make a few more die hard, t-shirt buying, pile-of-CD owning fans. Wouldn't that be a good idea?

The inquisitor has spoken.

Re:Long winded webby awards

[startled]

Pay attention? If I did that, I might break into double-digit karma. Ack. I try to keep informed comments to Anonymous only.

Re:Journalistic ethics

[startled]

I actually don't mind minimally edited transcripts. Anyone with half a brain knows that's how most people talk, and that most journalists edit it out.

Basically, anyone who posts "oh, Lars is such an idiot, look how he talks" is not only going to get ignored, he's going to get modded down. Well, unless he makes some extraordinarily funny joke involving Chuck D, User Friendly, and fsck.

For the rest of us, who are at least slightly intelligent, we get to read an interview that sounds like it was done with an actual person, not a publicist for the RIAA.

Re:Journalistic ethics

[startled]

Oops. Nevermind my previous post, quoted below. Apparently, all it really takes to get modded up to 4 is saying "like" a lot of times. But I couldn't have overestimated the intelligence of either the poster or the moderators, so I must just not "get it".

I actually don't mind minimally edited transcripts. Anyone with half a brain knows that's how most people talk, and that most journalists edit it out.

Basically, anyone who posts "oh, Lars is such an idiot, look how he talks" is not only going to get ignored, he's going to get modded down. Well, unless he makes some extraordinarily funny joke involving Chuck D, User Friendly, and fsck.

For the rest of us, who are at least slightly intelligent, we get to read an interview that sounds like it was done with an actual person, not a publicist for the RIAA.

Re:Long winded webby awards

[startled]

Obviously not at the quality of your post, or else it'd be "-1, Reduntant reduntant redundant, dammit, why do we KEEP getting posts mocking how Lars talks, after a million of them have already been posted, rather than actually making any readable points".

No, today we have the monkeys moderating. Enough computers and enough time, and one of them would eventually come up with a comment worthy of getting read. Unfortunately, this is the dumbest slashdot message thread I've read in weeks. It'd be nice if everyone could GET OVER how Lars talks, and actually agree/disagree with points in the interview, or even *gasp* critique a point or two!

Napster cant easily block trading...

[SirEdward]

Lars mentions that Napster has the technology to block the trading of their music. As far as I know, the only way to do that would be to actually scan the file names and look for keywords... such as "Metallica."
Now, what's to stop someone from naming an mp3 "Me**llica-RideTheLightning.mp3"? or just RideTheLightning for that matter... And then the rights of other bands enter the picture: what if The Raging Licknuts have a song called Ride The Lightning which they would like traded on napster? Or even a song called Metallica sucks? Now those songs are also blocked.
What's more, I'm sure other artists (Dr. Dre?) will quickly follow Metallica's lead and request that their songs also be filtered out. Can you imagine waiting all that time while your HDD gets scanned for "copyright infringements"?
I think that Metallica needs to learn a little more about computers before they start opening cans of worms
I do think, btw,that Lars has a point about not having to participate in Napster if he doesn't want to, but he'll have to figure out a better way to do it first...

Just my $.02

Re:Napster cant easily block trading...

[Burgr]

If people were forced to rename their songs to Me**llica-RideTheLightning, as you suggest, other Napster users would not come up with any hits if they tried searching for "Metallica". The music is really only available if it's accessible, and if they censor the name, then no one, both Napster and it's users, will be able to locate that song.

You do bring an interesting point about the censorship crossfire for other bands, however.

Re:Scale a Factor in Fair Use Analysis

[sparkane]

Scale may be a factor in fair use, but fair use is not a factor in using Napster. The files which are legal to distribute on Napster are not at issue, and it is only those to which fair use applies. Trading Metallica's songs on Napster is simply infringement and there is no fair use defense.

In regard to our rights to use Napster or software like it, fair use never comes into the picture. It's all free speech, right to read, right to privacy, hell, even right to assemble. In regard to these rights, "scale" is a red herring. Totally. Absolutely. And Really Red.

---

Re:Scale? - Free speech not matter of convenience

[sparkane]

As long as its restricted to your circle of friends, there is a limit as to how far its going to go, and there also is more of a sense of responsibility - your friend gave this to you.

The whole scale thing is slightly skewed, first of all, because napster isn't one action on a massive scale, but a huge amount of little actions. Therefore the effects take place on one scale, but the causes exist on an entirely separate scale, and this is important to know.

To address the "between friends" as being the scale where it becomes unethical - that too makes it sound much bigger and badder than it really is on the individual user's scale. In fact there probably aren't that many downloads taken (by strangers) from any individual user on napster. there may be more than that user would have actually given to their friends, but probably not that many more, so it certainly isn't going to seem like it's taking place on a huge scale to the user. In fact it can't take place on a huge scale for an individual user, unless they have a T1. My modem at home doesn't know the meaning of "scale", except scale=1 download.

Really the scale argument is fundamentally flawed, in the sense that your free speech is not a matter of market convenience. If piracy suddenly becomes easier to do, does that mean that tools to do it with like Napster or the companies that distribute them are illegal or that our rights to use the internet should be severely curtailed? It's preposterous. I'm not saying that infringing copyright is a good thing, but if all the attackers of napster can say is "hey! we're going to lose a lot of money!", that doesn't mean they're right.

---

Re:Metallica displays a complete lack of clue...

[digitalmind]

it amazes me to see the level of stupidity of slashdotters as a whole. First you act so immature (not a suprise, since most slashdotters are between the ages of 12-15 anyway

My you are a bright one. I'm 14.

The point of the original post was not to say that lars or any of his fans are idiots (no comment on whether they are or not) but that if he expects to get ANY support from slashdotters then he really should rethink his argument. If he thinks that it is okay to be hypocritical about his own actions then think it is okay to ban 330000 fans from sharing his work he SERIOUSLY needs to think.

Pissing off the open source community is not a good idea. Some people are smart enough to know how to get around the pathetic implementations of metallica to ban their fans. Remember, when they banned all of those people, they lost previous customers, current ones, and future ones. Most people, myself included, eventually buy the CD's anyway, or delete the MP3 because it sucks. I don't know why metallica is wasting their time. If they do manage to get all popular artists to ban their users from napster, they will still be rich from selling t-shirts and concert tickets, and people will realize that all that indie music that's left on napster is pretty damn good anyway.



Kris
botboy60@hotmail.com
Nerdnetwork.net

Re:A fun thing to do is ...

[digitalmind]

Not to mention the word "like." Makes him sound like an oldskool valleygirl.

Visit nerdnetwork.net and Fight for napster!



Kris
botboy60@hotmail.com
Nerdnetwork.net

Re:mp3 quality

[digitalmind]

I think 99% of the people downloading MP3's wouldn't notice a discernable difference between CD's and Cassete either, for that matter. except for the little "sssssss" between songs, and dolby on most decent stereos would take care of that. If it's a metal tape the only differences would be skipping tracks and 'how would it sound in ten years?

From a technical standpoint, the biggest part of the compression in an Mpeg level three compression (long words lars! DON'T THINK 2 HARD!) is filtering out the high and extremely low range frequencies (the ones that will piss off your dog, but are burned on a cd) as well as the ones that are relatively high next to the lower ones that most people cannot hear (example: can you hear someone with a high voice when your subwoofer is really working? didn't think so.) As far as longevity, who gives a shit? I won't go into the issue of whether a bands music gets stale after ten years, but in ten years the music on a metal tape will probably get demagnetized enough to make a difference in sound quality. the plastic in a cd-r or cd-rw will usually start to degrade in ten years to the point that it will warp enough to make it unreadable, assuming room temperature and a temperate enviorment with less than 50% humidity.

Now lars, this comment is from a 15 year old who didn't need to research just to know this information. I would expect a better comment from you. Which is why I still don't respect your band or your lawsuit.



Kris
botboy60@hotmail.com
Nerdnetwork.net

wanna be anarchists. . .

[digitalmind]

The hypocrisy here is worse than george dubyah bush. And god help us if a dumbass like that gets in the whitehouse.

Metallica wants to be cool with the fans and look like badasses. They claim to have dubbed tapes when they were younger just like their fans to associate with them, make them be able to say things like

"I am a real metallica fan, I buy their merchandise and look like them and act like them and did what they did when they were younger just like me"

Yes, I'm listening to the real, uncut uncensored version of the real slim shady by eminem that I downloaded off napster. I will get the CD shortly because I think eminem is cool and I like his work. His art, if you will.

Most of the stuff I download off napster I get the cd from sooner or later because I like their art. Several of my friends have expressed their feelings that metallica was cool but now they hate them because they were kicked off napster even though they DO own one or more metallica CDs or just think that metallica are jerks and won't support their lawyers.

So you tell me. What is hurting sales more? Metallica pissing off paying fans, or letting the trading continue? Why would napster change their software to only allow artists who gave them their "permission" to be traded? It's great software already. I use it often. Why do people use napster? Rebellion. I doubt that lars is telling the truth with the record label setting prices. Any smart(sorry lars), popular band will say we want at least this many benjamins or we'll go to your biggest competitor and see if they will sign us. Duh. Big bands are perfectly capable of bullying the record label if they want.

As far as payment, I do have Changes by 2pac on my computer in my mp3 collection. Everyone knows that 2pac is dead. DEAD. Not living. Cannot take money, cannot get royalties, cannot spend it even if he could get it. Just the other day I saw a 2pac cd for 18 buckaroos. None of it goes to 2pac. He's dead. Everyone knows that.

So lars, is the dog wagging the tail, or is the tail wagging the dog?


Anyone who thinks about you getting the list of 300,000 some names realizes that what you did was extremely illegal. NetPD was hired to check on a continual basis which of the songs by metallica were downloaded. Had you not been actively in a lawsuit against napster you could have just asked for a list. Or told napster to ban all of the users with metallica. Instead you did illegal hacking for a bad reason. I just did a search on napster and turned up tons of songs by you. Nyaah nyaah. You can't get all of us. You won't. People like me, the real anarchists, can play your games. Except we aren't the hypocrits lying about being anarchists. We're the real thing.

This comment was posted by me, kris schneider. Birthdate 5-30-85. That makes me 14, almost 15. My comments have more depth and insight than your whole interview. And that's why I don't respect you, your lawsuit, your lawyers or your pathetic ass excuse for a band. Fuck off. When bands like you start shutting down napster and all those mp3 sites me and my friends will be the ones putting up hundreds of mirrors so you bastards waste your time and cash on a legal waste until your lawyers buy your house and you are all living on the street. And you deserve that fate.
Ask anyone.
Cause everyone knows it. And the real kick in the teeth, all of my friends that were dropped because of you bitching about napster, all of them have gone out and bought limp bizkit CDs because limp supports napster. They're the real anarchists. They're cooler than you.



Kris
botboy60@hotmail.com
Nerdnetwork.net

Re:Metallica displays a complete lack of clue...

[digitalmind]

Hey clueless: They said they only saw one download from an unsigned band int the 48hrs they were monitoring traffic- not that it took 48 hours to find an MP3 by an unsigned band.

Hey clueless replying to clueless:

We are talking about lars here. His army of metalheads couldn't find the on switch for their computer so what the hell makes you think they know how to use napster, much less napsters search features?



Kris
botboy60@hotmail.com
Nerdnetwork.net

Re:mp3 only affects the big bands!

[digitalmind]

Actually, they are trying to protect what little product they have left because their music sucks and they know it.



Kris
botboy60@hotmail.com
Nerdnetwork.net

Re:Journalistic ethics

[kel-tor]

I don't read traditional print media anymore, that is, specifically I don't read the local newspaper... the journalism was just to yellow-- only the news that they get good coverage of, Front page full page of Di's death with Mother Theresa's death on page 2, -- it's all glamour and fashion, or yellow journalism. And there is one thing that I find more 'yellow' than everything else... the corrections are in small type, bottom corner, of page 2, 4, 5 or 6 depending on day, of section D. If they were journalists in the sense that I understand the word, I would expect that corrections would make the front page and keep their community informed and not operating under a misconseption because they didnt catch the correction. My 2 cents. ie, /., for me, whenever you print corrections, please keep them obvious (like the Hellmouth book, the Update: that you add, etc)

Whether ya like it or not...

[Rico_Suave]

Lars is 100% correct.

--

Re:Scale makes it wrong?

[Hotaine]

I don't think he said taping vinyl is OK. I think he was saying that bootlegging their concerts on tape was acceptable. I don't think they appreciate any piracy of their studio work, whether it be taped from vinyl or ripped from a CD.

The real, NON-EDITED interview

[Hotaine]

click

An important counter to one of his points..

[Effendi13]

Lars mentions that the difference between bootlegging tapes and trading MP3s is the scale and the quality.

MP3s are not perfect quality "masters" as he calls them. They may sound that way on your little clock-radio, but on an 800 watt system, there are giant holes punched in your frequency range. I would go as far as to equate an MP3 from a CD to a tape from a vynal. In fact, one of our club promotion schemes is to give away mixed CDs of some of the music we play. Since we support the bands we play and don't feel right about giving away perfect masters, we encode and decode our songs at 128, non-VBRE to lower the quality of the recording (like a tape would be) making the copy imperfect and unuseable by other DJs.

As far as volume? He said that the 1.4 million in 48 hours is a lot, because in his time he copied a tape from his friend. How many friends copied tapes from their friends? Obviously not as many due to the cost and hassle of copying a tape, but I am sure this is not as big a deal as he thinks. Let us point out that it is twice as much hassle to get that MP3 on a CD and into your car than it was to make a tape 10 years ago.

Lars has obviously grown by educating himself as this issue progresses, and I detect a hint of regret at attacking too early. This will be unfortunate as he will not be allowed to go back on too much of what the origional plan was. I hope he can tolerate swallowing a little pride and maybe ask us how to solve the problem, rather than taking an outside approach to attack us. The truth is that technology is too fast for him or anyone else. All they are doing is buying time to impliment something else in a "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" style. We will see.

-Effendi

Re:OK for me, but not for you.

[jrigg]

people here seem to be skirting around the fact that dubbing on to a tape is not necessarily the most popular form or copying now. with the amount of prefab systems available with cd-rw it's becoming just as easy to copy cd to cd with NO quality loss. with cdr media sold in large quantity (eg. spindle) it's just as afforable as analog tape and takes less time to copy due to the fact that you are not forced to play the music to tape. it's also easy enough to borrow the cd from a friend and rip it yourself with no way to trace it.

Competition?

[Crazy Man on Fire]

I would certainly somewhat agree with the fact that paying 16 bucks for a CD is probably, you know, pushing too much. But, it's the marketplace that dictates that, not me. And people who live in the United States live in a Western capitalist society, where most of these things become about marketplace and about fair competitionin the marketplace, and that's what ultimately dictates these prices. That does not soldify that my only other option is to steal is it. My other option is to not buy it

ok, i agree that the price of something being too high is a poor reason to steal that item, but there is clearly NOT competition in the marketplace (only 1 company makes metallica cd's, so they can set the price to whatever they please)! perhaps some competition in the music industry would eliminate this buy/steal issue...

This is not a hard concept

[horis]

I've read the article, and I've read quite a few of the posts here. Here are some of my thoughts: This guy is getting attacked for his grammer. WTF is with that? I think the first person to ever check out the online scene finds that the majority of people haven't clued in to the backspace key, or was not stellar in their grammer. Does this matter? NO. Just because he said things (NOT typed, BTW) that aren't necessarily coherent all of the time, it does not lessen what he is conveying. When you read the article, (without IMHO excessive worry about grammar), he makes his point quite clear. I understand his point, and completely agree with him. Get over the fact that he doesn't have a Ph.D. in English, but you know what he does have? He has a practical Ph.D. in dealing with the music business, understanding that he owns what he creates, and understand that quite simply, he's getting ripped off. And whether or not you like the semantics of this case, he's right. You don't want to create something, only to find it's being given away with your permission. The open source thing implies that: You're giving it away. Well, news flash folks, he didn't give it away to begin with. The questions regarding who is behind this are very important. If it's the RIAA, or (pick your favourite acronym here), that's another story. But the band themselves don't like it. I don't blame them! They put out a product that they expect to make a profit on. Never mind the recording industry. When you can see $$ going down the drain (or as Lars says, it's very little right now), he still has a point. Give it some time. When you take a long hard look at it, the situation isn't that complex. I buy a Metallica CD titled 'A' and you buy a Metallica CD titled 'B'. We swap rips of each CD to each other. That results in a loss to the band (like I said, leave the industry out of it for now.) If you were losing money on this would you like it? Hell no. But you're not in that situation, you're just getting music for free. When you create the music, and lose money, how the heck would you feeL? I'm glad that Metallica has the resources (read: money) to get into this, because AFAIC, this will help the little bands he speaks of. If this were any band that was unknown and didn't have the coin to fund it, a lot of people would be backing the underdog, even though the concepts are the same. No matter which way you rationalize this, they (amongst others!) are getting ripped off. I think people are getting their philosophies wrong: Free software (that we are "used to") does not mean everything (like copyrighted material) is free. For Napster to stand back and say "Well, I didn't infringe...someone else did." is sophistry. They are aiding and abetting a crime. And don't give me crap about free speech. Do you think your ISP is allowed to have it's users distribute kiddie porn? No. It's illegal. And copyright infringement is also illegal. One happens to offend our morals, the other doesn't, but that makes it ok? Think about it. How Napster is allowed to do it's thing via legislation is a whole other story, but until that time comes, it's clear they are in violation of the law. Let's not kid ourselves and pretend otherwise. It would do a lot more good to the open source community to get out and say "Yes, they [Metallica] are right." Rather than "Well, it's on the Internet, so it must be free." The people that should be getting a black eye out of this should be the "I want stuff for free" zealots, not Metallica/OSS/Internet community in general. Stop beating a (common sense) dead horse! - Horis

Shoulda known that you are being an ass

[ZikZak]

That sort of thing only works if you're intelligent enough to copy someone else's writing style, and of course being intelligent enough not to put a .sig on an AC.

Whether seebs is right or not really isn't relevant anymore. You've been seriously out-debated and now you're acting like a wimpering 5 yr old. Admit defeat gracefully and shut up.

Re:FWIW...

[ZikZak]

where's Dave Mustaine when you need him?

Preening in front of a mirror, running his fingers through his pretty-boy hair, and reminiscing about the good old days when he had a career, maybe?

Re:Either/Or

[ZikZak]

It is common journalistic practice to edit out the "umm"'s, pauses, and other qualities of speach that make it difficult to read if it is transcribed verbatim. The only reason not to do this is to make your interview subject look dumb.

/.'s actions in this transcription are reprehensible, and they should be taken to task for this. It was a slimy, under-handed tactic that I have never seen before in any /. interview. You think they would have done this to Linus or Stallman?

And for the record, I don't like Metallica or their actions regarding Napster. I just think the transcription was bullshit.

Re:Either/Or

[ZikZak]

I'm assuming Slashdot just e-mailed him the questions, and he responded in kind

Many people thought this, and their views of Lars were clouded by it. First, /. should have made a more prominant mention of this being a phone interview. Second, I'm not talking about reworking the interview into crystal clear prose, just editing it for readability. This can be, and frequently is, done w/out losing the qualities of a spoken conversation or deleting key points of the discussion.

Re:how am I supposed to find them?

[NetFu]

That is true, but first the search is just a way to filter out stuff you aren't looking for, so yes you could just do a search for "*" with 500,000 maximum results and you'd get a complete list. And yes, that's not the best way to find unknowns.

Second, Napster is not the entire mechanism here, it just facilitates music transfers. You wouldn't find out about some hot new artist in Napster, you'd find out about them through the web like everyone does now (the artist's direct site, MP3.com, etc.). Once you've heard their music and you know you love it, then you use Napster to find everything available from them that's out there.

It's that simple. I've been using the internet for about 7-8 years and I never thought I'd be finding unknown/unsigned artists I really like through the 'net -- but I have. This is where it's going and idiots like Lars/Metallica (who've shown in Lars' response they and their managers couldn't manage their way out of a wet paper bag) will either have to adapt or go bye-bye!

R&D Means nothing w/ out Advertizing

[DgtlGhost]

And lets face it, if CDs were reasonably priced people might find more bands that they like. Me, I've bought a few CDs on the past because I liked a song or two, and I took a chance...
4 out of 5 times, I loose. Then I find a band I've never heard of that my friend has the CD for, I listen and love the whole thing. Why haven't I ever heard of this band? Because the record company hasn't gotten them Air play, because they didn't want to sign the right contract, what ever.
Now, I get a cool song Via Emial, or on a reuseable disk, listen to it when I get a chance, and make up my own mind before spending the (cheap) $12.99 US for the CD.
Cheap media, moire sales, trust me on this....

-Earthman

Re:Wow. That was a fucking cool interview.

[mtrupe]

What is wrong with wanting to make money? What is wrong with wanting to make shitloads of money? I want to make shitloads of money. Maybe that's greedy, whatever, I think its human nature. Big deal. I don't care if Lars like money. I love money.

"Circumventing the record companies"

[seanmeister]

From Lars: "What you have to remember is, it's only bands who are fortunate enough to be at the level that we're at that have the option of maybe circumventing the record companies and the retailer."

MP3.com has music from over 50,000 artists on their site, mostly unknowns. I could go home tonight, lay down some tracks on my synths and guitars, rip 'em to MP3, and distribute them to the world, all before bedtime.

Wake up, Lars!

1.4 gjillion downloads a second

[-ParadoX-]

An interesting thing to note about Lars' observation that Napster users downloaded 1.4 million songs in 48 hours. Assuming that the US has a nice round population of 1.4 billion people (i don't know how close this is to the actual size), and an average CD has 10 songs on it. It turns out that only one half of a tenth of a percent of the population is guilty of coyright infringements on any one day. This, in my mind at least is comparable to what Lars comments on as trading my Iron Maiden record recordings with friends, and doesn't seem like a large threat to his money making potentials or the shareholders of his recording company.

lssy cmprssn

[mundungus]

I posit:

Lars is pissed off due to the fact that the lossy-ness of even a 128kbps encoded MP3 is indicated mostly by the "flanged" quality of snares, cymbals, and other white-noise type instrumentation (read: DRUMS).

This stinky bitch is just upset that MP3 files of his 'art' make him sound like his drum set is filled with cigarette ash.

Re:Wow. That was a fucking cool interview.

[M$ Mole]

I agree with Seebs here. This is probably one of the best interviews I have ever seen on /. I think Lars makes some excellent points about the entire debacle between the band and Napster. And we all know that he's right, Napster could have easily just made it impossible to search for Metallica mp3's (of course that would just lead to renaming the files to distribute them...). Of course, like everyone, I'm biased in one direction or another. I've always felt that Metallica was in the right for doing what they did. Two thumbs up on this one.

Re:One major point...

[M$ Mole]

You're obviously not informed on what really sparked this...people were trading music that Metallica has JUST laid down a few days prior...stuff that had not been released yet, so what Lars is referring to is the fact that the masters were obviously leaked.

Re:It is the quality and the scale??????????

[Saint Aardvark]

I have a question for the peanut gallery; how many people out there download MP3s for CDs they don't have and keep them permanently? I don't.

Honestly? I do.

I plan on getting the CDs eventually, since the MP3 is only playable on my computer with its noisy fan that kind of annoys my girlfriend...but I don't have the CD now, and it might well be a long time before I get around to buying it.

Does that make me a bad person? It certainly makes me a thief.

Unknown != Unsigned

[Saint Aardvark]

Whoah there, big fella...there are plenty of musicians who aren't signed to major labels that are still not unknown. Ani DiFranco 'd kick your ass for that...

Get ASCAP/BMI involved!

[Saint Aardvark]

I said it before, I'll say it again: get ASCAP and BMIy involved!

They're the ones that monitor radio stations and license places like stores and restaurants that play music. The money goes to anyone who signs up with them. Obviously it depends on how often you're played, but anyone can sign up.

Treat Napster like a radio station. Make them pay licensing fees -- big ones maybe, because of the number of songs they're "broadcasting" (yeah, it's a bit of a stretch, but just imagine). Metallica gets 1.5 million downloads? Pay 'em accordingly. The guy who cleans your pool gets 2 downloads? He gets paid too. Napster makes a choice between passing the fees off to advertisers, or charging users a subscription fee.

Wouldn't that make people happy?

Re:My note to Metallica.com last night...

[Saint Aardvark]

Excellent idea, and extremely well-put. But -- and I don't say this to be a jerk -- what's to prevent passing along the (say) unique serial number on your CD? Is everyone gonna bring their CD to Ticketmaster to get the discount on tix?

Re:Half-off-topic: Contempt for non-computer-peopl

[Saint Aardvark]

Go to your library or bookstore and get Confessions of a Reocrd Producer: How to survive the scams and shams of the music business by Moses Avalon. It's a fascinating introduction to the numbers of the music business, and why and how the big labels work the way they do. I can't recommend it enough.

He's got a point, you know.

[Saint Aardvark]

"Are we assholes for wanting to get off this service that I was never asked if I wanted to be part of in the first place?"

I say no.

Re:I Expected Lars To Be More Of A Dumbass

[Izubachi]

Since the argument turned this way, open Napster, look, I'm downloading a bootleg of a live DMB concert. Which is quite legitimat and legal.

Re:I Expected Lars To Be More Of A Dumbass

[Izubachi]

If Napster was built exclusively to facilitate piracy, then why did they ban all of the users that Metallica asked them to. Perhaps it was, but it can be used well for legitimate purposes too. And how exactly could you know the creator's original intent? I can't either, which is why their record needs to be taken into account. And their record shows that they fully complied with Metallica.

Re:I Expected Lars To Be More Of A Dumbass

[Izubachi]

The real problem with this suit, however, is not that Lars is trying to control distribution of his music. That is perfectly justified. What isn't is blaming Napster. They have said repeatedly that they are not responsible for the content that transfers over their servers unless a problem is pointed out to them. They stuck by this agreement when they banned the (supposed) offending users at Metallica's request. It is not technically feasible for them to ask every single artist who could possibly be on their servers permission before-hand. That does not, however, mean the service should be made illegal, because it can be used for legal purposes (independent artists, live bootlegs, etc. Yes, people DO transfer these things over Napster). If artists would like their music taken off the service, they can go to Napster with a list of names (This is an iffy use of identification, but still can be used) and Napster takes those people off the service. If those people apply to join back on, and can show that they were wrongly charged, they're back on. There may still be some pirating on Napster, but it will be much reduced, and it's better than applying draconian restrictions to file-transfering software. There are times when individual rights come before profit.

Re:I Expected Lars To Be More Of A Dumbass

[Izubachi]

That would entail either an obsene and unfeasable amount of work to confirm which users were trading in legitamit material or innacurate and wide-sweeping bans which would effectively eliminate all of their users. Neither of these is a possible solution. They have already presented a solution that is possible, and workable. Napster is intended for MP3 distribution. Because MP3s are commonly used as a format for piracy does not mean that Napster is intended as a utility to facilitate piracy, just as VCRs are commonly used for (effectively) piracy when people use them to record TV shows, but they are not intended for this use alone. They also have legitimate uses, just as Napster does. And just as it would be outrageous to sue VCR making companies and make VCRs illegal, it is equally outrageous to sue Napster and make that type of software illegal.

Could this be considered "LIVE" Metallica

[TheLocustNMI]

Could this interview be considered "LIVE" Metallica? If so, I'd like to see it in MP3 format please. (I don't think it would be a bad idea to post the audio interview on Napster, either).
Ham on rye, hold the mayo please.

Real Issues Here?...

[*BBC*PipTigger]

I'd like to add some cents. Firstly, this whole thing should've been posted as an MP3 (with a EULA for extra irony =) ). Secondly, all these analogies being spouted just don't hold water. The first half (of course) are totally valid like no stealing Suburbans or TV's etc. but when the physical-ness of the media is actually a factor of your bandwidth and a negligable amout of your own physical hard drive space (or other recordable media which is obviously your own and personal)... it's just not equivalent.

How am I stealing when I haven't taken anything? I've read the data (just as I would have if I were to listen to it etc.) and made my own local copy. Yes, it may be copyrighted data but the ease with which data can be copied and widely distributed fundamentally changes the nature of anything which has been datafied whether copyrighted or not.

Files (as in packetized data elements with a hopefully descriptive handle) have been transmitted and traded ever since there were two computers. People (as opposed to services or servers or intelligent computer agents or anything else inhuman) are initiating such data duplication either by offering or retrieving themself. Bottom-line this and what-I-authorize-for-my-IP-that-I've-worked-hard-o n that... They are all nice ideas of cute capitalistic profit assurance but the world is connected now.

Data... personal information... intelligence... art...

It doesn't matter what you want private or public. If it's data (or somebody can record it as data), it's copyable. It's searchable and modifyable and it's practically free to duplicate. It's not the way things have been. It's not always going to seem fair. I'm $JAPH =~ s/(\w)([A-Z])(.)(\S)/$1ust$2nother$3erl$4acker/; and I know that code is data too. Creative data never refraining from not being unsimilar to doubled reverse recursive inverted negatives like video games or music or movies. The idea that ideas can't be protected can't be protected ... unless nobody knows ... for either one. Hopefully you read this and you understand and it is not protected. It is shared and we all become wealthy with understanding that we are connected and we can share.

It's not overly-idealistic and it's not communistic. It's relatively new (if not entirely new to many people) and it's inevitable. It's not buzzwords or market hype-able. It's fscking binary data and it ain't gonna disappear unless we run out of power (and the Matrix taught us what happens then). Be smart. Be sharp. Be. Think. Breathe. Work. Learn. Play. My father taught me that when you play, you also learn and work and breathe and think and be. You do everything important when you play. Play right. Play nice. Teach others how to play so we can all play together (and so we can all rise up in arms and grotesquely slaughter and maim those who won't play nice =) j/k). Peace... I'm out. TTFN & Shabbat Shalom.

-*BBC*PipTigger
p.s. You don't really have to agree we me or anyone for that matter but please know why you don't (when you don't) before you react with the knee-jerk ignition of intellectual discussions you are ill-prepared to digest due to your misconceptions and predispositions toward that which further dictates your reactions. Life is too recalcitrantly multifarious to wrap our heads around but if we don't try, we cannot contribute and we cannot hope to be anything but a beast responding to primitive stimuli without a purpose. We don't earn our lives. They are gifts but we sure should try to earn them once we realize that what it's all about. More Peace!

Re:One major point...

[jayhawk88]

Not true. A standard MP3 recorded as 128KBs/44Mhz weighs in at about 3-4 meg for an average song (easily withing download range for 56k users). Yes, there is a difference between it and a CD version: the sound is degraded. The degredation, however, is not noticable to the human ear, except perhaps on the highest quality sound systems.

You don't really start to hear the difference until MP3's dip to about 96 KBs. There are some MP3's out there of this nature (and lower), but the vast majority are at least 128, with many now reaching 160 and higher. Metallica is right to be concerned about this issue: it is possible to get digital, CD-perfect songs for free, or at least as perfect as most users will ever need.

nine valid points, and no valid answers.

[ChiaBen]

Lars, I'm afraid has backed up my theory that rock musicians are not too bright.
But thanks for responding to the questions, Lars.
regards,
Benjamin Carlson

Re:Really?

[ChiaBen]

Hmmm, did you manage to read the answers to these questions?!?
1. Was it your decision, your manager, your lawyers or record company that made the call to go after the Napster users?
Answer: "...I mean, I can just barely ...I know how to get onto AOL, and I will say that I have used AOL a couple of times..." - Who cares? What was the question?
2. With other programs such as Gnutella, Freenet, etc... don't you think that you should be spending your time and money developing your own Internet solution......rather than trying to push back the flow of technology...?
Answer: You don't sit down and sort of try and sort of justify yourself, well, 'Maybe our time and energy would be better spent thinking about something a year or two from now.' - Hmm, Lars, I do this... it's called planning for my future. In business it's called forecasting, and since you just bang the skins, and don't take care of the business far be it for you to think about your future.
3. ...You were quoted as saying something like (paraphrased): "Napster takes our music and treats it as a commodity, instead of as art."
Answer: Yeah. I mean, OK, 1st of all, let's start by making sure that I am not the one who decides that a Metallica CD should sell for 16 dollars. - Hey Lars, whose music is it? If you don't decide how much to sell it for how can yu decide that $0.00 is to little?!?

these are my first replies, and more are to come...
regards,
Benjamin Carlson

Re:He speak english right?

[Marco_polo]

Perhaps if you read carefully.. you'd notice it was a phone conversation, typed verbatim.

Re:Wow. That was a fucking cool interview.

[slycer]

There are a lot of remixes of songs out there that are pretty much only available on Napster, along with other music (foreign, mostly) that would be near impossible to get any conventional way. They're never at stores, and the only websites that I can find that have them are in Japanese, which doesn't help me much.

Ok, but how did you here of these artists? Through Napster? I think not. There is AFAIK (I don't use it a lot) NO browsing function within Napster, you need to run a search, the search is obviously some band/song that you know and want a copy of their music. So how does this promote independant artists? You still have to have heard of them in order to get their music.

I think that was the point that Lars was making,
Napster is a tool to trade music (legal or not), there still has to be someone to promote the bands, the record companies spend the money to do this. MP3.com is a viable alternative, but that's a different issue.

Re:Another sobering fact

[slycer]

After four months IIRC, he got his first check. It was an mount of just over seventy dollars

Maybe that was because he was a pianist? :-)

Re:Metallica violated the Prime Directive.

[Nidhogg]

Ah that brings to mind a couple drummer jokes.

Q: What's the last thing a drummer says before he gets fired? A: "Hey guys I wrote this song."

or

Q: How do you get a drummer of your front porch? A: Pay him for the pizza.

OK I'll stop now.

Thanks Lars...

[zipped]

Thanks for the interview Lars. It is good to have you answer questions from the general population, so that we can get answers to our questions about the issue, not the media's ?s.

A right to *any* piece of information on the Net?

[yankeehack]

"...I do also see things about the Internet being something that people I think taking for granted, that they're becoming so comfortable with it that the feel they have a right to any piece of information that comes to them through the Internet. The Internet is changing our perception about a lot of things, it's changing our perception about almost everthing around them in society."

This is food for thought here. Is there a right to any piece of information through the Internet? Remember cphack and DeCSS.

Re:You missed the point...

[IronChef]

Sure, music is wonderful, yadda yadda yadda but it is still, in the end, the product of someone's labor. Like software. And while I think it would be keen if music makers all wanted to give it away for the betterment of all, they still have a right to charge for it. If you don't want to pony up, you find a substitute product.

You can't force creative people to give their stuff away. That's just wrong. If you built a house, do I have the right to crash it? Or are you a bad person for not letting bums sleep in your living room? Of course not.

copying

[FranTaylor]

So how many fans out there are making "illegal" cassette tapes? No one knows. There's no way to find out. So it could be "everyone" and it's just passed off as "fair use". But "We" can tell how many Napster copies are being made and somehow that's worse? I don't understand.

And if these rock&roll people are to be admired as forward-thinking people for their music, maybe they ought to get their heads out of the sand and make an attempt to imagine a future that's significantly different from what we have now. I have ABSOLUTELY NO respect, admiration, etc. for these people because it's clear that they have not invested any quality thinking about their or our future.

Metallica can join Michael Jackson in Neverland for all I care. If I'm going to invest my precious time in listening to music, it's gonna be from people I respect.

No comment

[Dyolf Knip]

How much money do you get from the sale of each CD, and how much goes to the record company?
Anyone else notice that Lars never answered this? Free speech indeed.

Dyolf Knip

Cutting profits

[zygut]

What is Metallica actually losing, what is the bottom line here? Is not Metallica mega-rich already? Why do they need more money? Isn't there a point in every musician/artist/CEO's life where they have made too much money?

I'm not talking out of jealousy here, I am just talking about the Bill Gates phenomenon. People say Bill Gates is great because he donates this or donates that to X or Y charity, but said charity would not need his donations if they had money already. Does Bill Gates directly take money from charities and then selectively give it back? No, but we are talking about the distribution of wealth over all and the enormous and rapidly growing gap between the rich and the poor. As Bill Gates' pie gets larger, our portion gets smaller, and more and more we come to the table and ask, with our pleading dog-eyes, "'Smore please?"

While a minimum wage is a good thing to have, there are good things to having a maximum wage too. Where would all the money go if Bill Gates had to quit after $X would it disappear, fly into the air, catch fire, become too stinky to pick up? No, it probably would be more distributed than hoarded in a closely guarded mega-vault on the other side of Lake Washington...

Re:Towards a new system of intellectual property

[Hentai]

It's possible. Check out the Technocracy - and no, this isn't some evil White Wolf RPG/Illuminati NWO agency hellbent on taking over the world. Check 'em out.

Towards a new system of intellectual property

[Hentai]

You know, I either heard or read in a book once, a notion of a society based entirely around IP. It was a completely open, free society, in which everything everyone said was well-documented and publically available. The trick was that whenever you quoted someone, or used one of their ideas, you had to talk to them about it and arrange some sort of payment or they could sue you. Production, labor and the like were all taken care of - technology and energy production had reached stages where it was pretty much trivial to do anything you wanted, and noone really HAD to "work" for a living. So the entire concept of wealth was based around your ideas; around what new ideas you could offer the world and how eager the world was to utilize those ideas. If you came up with something people liked, and used, you were compensated for it (sort of like the idealization of the Karma system here). If you never contributed, you stayed pretty much in anonymity. We're pretty close to being there, you know. We could very easily replace most people in most jobs with automated equivalents; we just don't in most cases because people are afraid to lose their jobs, and other people are afraid to make these people lose their jobs. We've grown up with this idea that what you do with your hands and the sweat on your back define your worth as a person, which leads to a bunch of people toiling away in dead-end, boring, unimaginative and just plain unpleasant jobs, that they admit regularly that they hate, because they feel they have to. What we need isn't just a redefinition of intellectual property or a redefinition of wealth; we need a redefinition of worth, at the fundamental, humanist level. An idea that a person isn't worth the money they make or the work they do. An idea that you're worth what you know, and what you help others to know. It sounds hopelessly, stupidly idealistic, right? One of those pipe-dreams that Internet pundits and sci-fi buffs talk about all teary-eyed. But it's entirely possible for such a system to conretely work. One of the first steps is to ENCOURAGE people to allow themselves to be replaced by automation. Put forward a publically funded project: If you can find a cost-effecive way to replace yourself with automation that will save your employer money, the government will offer to fund the patent-filing and research to realize it, on the condition that the profits and/or savings get split 33/33/33 between you, your employer, and the government. This will make EVERYBODY money, besides the fact that you no longer have to work for a living! The second step is to teach people that creative, original ideas to problems are not taboo. That "this is the way it's always been done" is a really stupid reason to do something, but that you should always make sure there isn't really a better one before you go ahead and change everything. Encourage people to THINK about what they're doing, not just blindly follow instructions. We have robots that can do that, thanks. Just about anything that a person can do physically, a robot can do better and cheaper. The real value of a human being these days is the neural net housed in its skull; we need to start utilizing these beautiful machines more effectively.

Grr. Sorry about the formatting of that.

[Hentai]

Anyone know how I can make 'Plain Old Text' my default choice? I keep hitting 'submit' but forgetting to change my format. ;)

Re:Cooked up? More like pulled out of his ass...

[schtum]

Wow, nice list of unsigned/indie bands there. While you're at it, check out the dismemberment plan. If you go to their web site you'll find a very intelligent argument in support of napster. But they don't archive their posts so check it out quick.

This is my first time attempting a post with Mozilla. 3...2...1...

Re:Cooked up? More like pulled out of his ass...

[SigVn]

Endas Goldfish is signed by either MOONSKA or Ska Satalite same label

Re:Amateur musicians

[SigVn]

I have never heard of a record company losing millions on a new artist, what I have heard of is record companys who advance the money for recording, videos, promotion, Concerts and such, and then take the money out of the future earning of the record. If you want examples check out the Clash and TLC.

Responsibilty

[dennizzenn]

//prepare for downward moderation. Not jump on any side here ... esp NOT RIAA!!! Nor to attack the FSF==free everything zelots. But a lot of people seem to be missing the point of responsibility here. Lars had a very good point. Napster is a corportation. They provide a service. It IS their responsibilty to try to protect the IP rights of other entities, to the extent they are able. It is like if any employees started using pirated software (IP is only public domain if specifically released as so) on company computers. Who is ultimatly responsible? The COMPANY. (IANAL) I'm not saying I like how Lars and the gang have chosen to protect their property, but it is their right. And Napster does have the responsibility to respect their rights. As for RIAA, they are greedy money grubbers trying to squeeze the public for all it can. The sooner Metallica and other bands cut them out of the money chain, the better for everyone else. My opinions are entirely my own, not yours, nor anyone elses, and you can't have them! Feel free to quote me mock me or whatever me. Frankly, in the end I DON'T CARE! OUT

Stealing Suburbans

[albamuth]

If I don't feel like paying $47,000 for a Suburban but instead I could stick it in a magical Xerox machine and copy it for free, would that make it stealing? Would it be wrong?

He didn't answer...

[GandalfGreyhame]

how much Metallica got from each CD sold. Just an interesting omission, IMHO. Anyone know the answer?

Free Lars!

[CaptainSpaulding]

I find it somewhat ironic that Metallica is greeted with such ferocious animosity by supposed champions of "freedom." The same people who rant, day after day, about the inherent need for choice and self-determination in the technical world seemed to be the same people condemning Lars for wanting to exercise those same rights in the musical realm. If Metallica doesn't want their music to be part of the Napster service, who are we to deny them that decision? Wouldn't you want to maintain those rights over one of *your* creations? In a sense, isn't that a foundation of the GNU movement? A group of people decided that maybe software could be built and nurtured in a better manner. And the reason it works is that everyone plays by the same set of rules. If you wrote a great GNU app, and then I decided that it was my right to distribute it and charge people for its use, somehow I doubt you would be so forgiving. That action would obviously attack the spirit in which your creation was forged. But reverse the situation and suddenly Metallica is evil. They aren't in the business of giving their songs away. Maybe people think they should, but they're not - they're as profit driven as any other capitalistic endeavor. For better or worse, it *is* about the Benjamins. The question for me is when did the online community's desire to have free access to their commodity usurp Metallica's decision to distribute it for profit? I always get the impression that the Napster devout would also argue that they should have unlimited access to perfectly forged twenty dollar bills. Would it be cool? Of course it would. Is it legal? Certainly not. And is it in the spirit of the larger capitalistic system in which the dollars are created? No way.

Is that guilt I feel?

[dilvish_the_damned]

At first I thought 'Ya, just wait buddy, your way outnumbered here and we have the advantage of knowing the land and having guerrila tacktics, you can pry my napster from my cold dead hands!"
But then I think about it from a little distance, not too far. I have used napster see, and at the time it did not bother me in the least. (I have pretty thick skin). But I know that way back in the cobwebs of my mind, there is guilt. I xcan feal it.
I can think of only one reason for there to be guilt, 'cuz its wrong. Very wrong.
Now I am not talking about a lot of guilt (feeling), just a little. Much like when I install a commercial software package on multiple Machines. Or when I download an evaluation copy for the 3'rd month in a row.
I guess I just fail to see how this is drastically different from any other warez operation.
NOTE: I am not suggesting how everyone else should feel, This is just MHO regarding how I should feel regarding unlicensed copies of music. (Metallica did not release this material under the GPL).

A Good Question...

[Cannonball]

You've raised an excellent question: Who's at fault for the "napster remixes?" Let's assume for a moment that any remix downloaded from the net is not in violation of copyright laws (since the original is altered to represent something that's NOT the original and the rest belongs to the remixer). Is the guy who grabs it from Napster at fault? Is the remixer who remixed the song at fault for not asking? Should the artist be flattered? What's the story here?

It's a shame...

[Chops]

This was an opportunity for Lars to talk directly to people who think he's the enemy, and prove he's not. Instead, we got:

With other programs such as Gnutella, Freenet, etc. that are anonymous and are not controlled by a centralized company which you could sue, like Naptser, don't you think that you should be spending your time and money developing your own Internet solutions from which you can profit, rather than trying to push back the flow of technology which will only become more and more difficult to combat?

"Well, we didn't think about that, and we don't plan to start."

How much money do you get from the sale of each CD, and how much goes to the record company? Would you be interested in a system that allows you to circumvent the record company, sell your music for half the price you do now, and get quadruple the cut that Metallica gets on each sale? The internet has the potential to offer such a system.

"I don't feel like answering your question, especially the first sentence. But I'd be happy to blather about how record companies aren't all bad and cite a dubious statistic that has NOTHING to do with the question."

This evasive claptrap makes me doubt the rest of the interview ("This was entirely our own decision, when you include our managers in 'we.'"); the whole thing smacks of a poorly-rehearsed press conference. This is Lars letting everybody know that he doesn't give a damn about the issues involved.

Re:Wow. That was a fucking cool interview.

[[-HiDDeN-]]

I download music from bands all the time that I can't buy albums of. They simply aren't in any music stores.
----------------------------------------- -------------------

Did anyone else notice that....

[Penguin_99]

Lars is an absolute moron?? A brick could challange him on an intellectual level.

He says: "[...] I know we are also quite smart."

Who is judging this?? He claims to have listened to the opinions of people who are "Internet savvy" about MP3's and Napster but it is obvious from his rambling, incoherent responses that he has no idea what he is talking about. It appears to me that the only opinions he respected about these issues are the ones that benifited him. Maybe he should get some other opinions from some other "Internet savvy" individuals. Better yet, never listen to anyone who calls themselves "Internet savvy" because in most cases they aren't.

From there he goes on to say:
"[...] that the feel they have a right to any piece of information that comes to them through the Internet."

That is exactly what the Internet was invented to do, spread information. Who is Lars to determine what information is suitable for me? Information is free and I do have the right to any information that comes my way. What I do not have the right to are things that are illegal for example child pornography or even Metallica's music (seeing as how it is copy righted and their work).

I am not saying that I agree or disagree with Metallica's suing of Napster (actually I am torn on the issue) but I do think that Metallica should learn a little more about what's going on. An example is when he claims to know what Gnutella is then says that he is going to take action when the company becomes active. Obviously he has no idea. Oh well, I regress.

Re:Why should he prove it?

[redleg141]

Have you ever heard of the concept of "Presumed Innocent until Proven Guilty?"

It is the quality and the scale??????????

[redleg141]

Lars: Yeah, I mean I think we answered that before. Of course we have, ok? And of course it's a valid point. The bottom line is the size of it. The size of it and the quality of it. When we go in, and check Napster out, we come up with 1.4 million copyright infringements in 48 hours, this is a different thing than trading cassette tapes with your buddy at school. I mean, 48 hours! So it's the quality, the quality and the scale.

It is the quality and the scale?????????? Who is he kidding. Can he prove that of those 1.4 million copies, noone who downloaded them owned the appropriate CDs?

I own several CDs but I don't want to carry them everywhere I bring my laptop. However, if I have MP3s for all of my CDs, they don't add any wieght to my system.

How I get the MP3s is another question. should I spend 20 to 30 minutes a song and rip them myself of should I download them from someone else who owns the CD as well and has already ripped them in 5 to 10 minutes a song. My time is valuable. I think I'll go for the shorter time.

As for Napster, it is a tool that allows me to easily find the files for the CDs I already own. I have a question for the peanut gallery; how many people out there download MP3s for CDs they don't have and keep them permanently? I don't. I use the MP3s I download to decide if a CD is worth buying.

Re:It is the quality and the scale??????????

[ZVSMedia.com]

My reason for grabbing Metallica MP3s (pre-Napster) was to replace my worn-out old cassettes that I bought years ago - surely there must be many other people in the same situation! Maybe I'm being a bit anal about it, but your typical MP3 is *not* a 1st generation master as Lars keeps repeating. It's far from it - somewhere between a cassette and a CD (generally speaking). While I think MP3s are great for listening to, there is an obvious (at least to me - I do it for a living, but so does Lars) difference between an uncompressed digital master and a compressed MP3. In terms Lars might be more comfortable with, the difference between the genuine product and the bootleg can be readily established. I so wish that Metallica would have put all this time and money into a constructive solution, like a secure digital download format, rather than penalizing their fans and making a bunch of rich lawyers richer...

The differences here?

[DragonMagic]

First off, I'd like to say that I once was a Metallica fan. I've seen them in concert a couple of times, even paying the $30+ for lousy seats, because they entertain well. You get your money's worth. I've also bought some CDs of theirs.

However, I do not have respect for a band with ideals such as what they've put forth. They've become hypocrites and sell outs. Before everyone attacks, here's my reasons:

1) Why is it that Metallica, a band as big and as rich as they may be, cannot find the ability to sell cheaper CDs or market them as other bands, such as Elvis Costello and They Might Be Giants have, through eMusic? No, Metallica needs not do this, but if they are concerned about their profits being damaged, why not make more profits, instead of spending money trying to get rid of a few infringers.

If there are only 1.4 Million infringements in 48 hours, and their albums go gold in about that much time, where's the hurt? It's about 1 infringement to 1 album sale, is it not? Plus, many of those infringements aren't being downloaded. How many using Napster get EVERYTHING someone has, instead of just what you wanted? Not everyone's a Metallica fan, after all.

2) Why is it that it's fine to copy a Metallica album to cassette? Why is it okay that Metallica does pirating, but it's not okay for its fans to pirate them? That's a massive double standard here. You can do it if they don't see it, or it's fine for them to do it, but the moment you put up music with about 1/32 the quality as a CD because it downloads faster, and not necessarily distribute it, just make it available, you're suddenly very very bad.

3) Is Lars here, and the band themselves, promoting bootlegging? I can take a digital DAT recorder, place it up near a monitor on the stage, and get a good quality copy of the show, in digital format. Let's say I put that on Napster. They're not shutting down users who have bootlegs, so it's cool, right?

How is the live version different than the CD? Both are quality digital recordings. The DAT recording here would be better, because it has versions of songs you can't buy in the stores. Plus, hey, it's $16 to buy a Metallica album, but about $30 to go to a concert. Sure, you see more at a concert, but that's still a lot of money.

Why go see the concert when you can just listen to a few cities before? Their thinking hasn't been truly thought through yet.

4) When it comes down to it, Metallica isn't really concerned about loss of money, so much as loss of control. What it sounds like, from what Lars was saying, is that Metallica is more concerned about the online trading of CD-quality mp3s that they sell in stores. I would bet some money that if Metallica were marketing through eMusic or one of several other online mp3 marketing sites, they wouldn't be as concerned. But now, why would they bother, since there are over a million infringements out there with such songs already?

Metallica has lost a fan through its absurdity. I've moved on to other bands who want to use the next frontier in technology, much like all these users Metallica put out of Napster.
Dragon Magic

"Its not about the money"

[polin8]

While I don't entirely disagree with L.U., it seems odd to say on one hand its "not about money" its about "principle". Then on the other hand to say its OK to violate copyrights on a small scale, ie., analogue tapes. If this was really about principle wouldn't he have to reject his own admitted copyright violations. If copying a song a million times is theft, then copying it once is still theft. -The truth is, its ALL about the money.

Re:OK for me, but not for you.

[VaporX]

Imagine the quality of the recording after that many generations of duplication. That is _entirely_ different from making exact digital copies with the exact same fidelity and quality.

Re:Ignore Lars at your Peril?

[VaporX]

I agree with seebs. I thought he got his ideas across very clearly and intelligently. It's fallacious to try and decry his arguments simply because he doesn't have a degree in English. He made an excellent case for his side.

Re:Dopehead?

[VaporX]

And pray tell, how did you HEAR him talking?

Re:Either/Or

[muldrake]

I don't understand all this whining about the interview being supposedly incoherent. I read it with no problem at all. Some people just have comprehension problems or like senselessly bitching.

Re:Promoting the little guy

[muldrake]

A lot of people have said that you can use Napster to find new bands you've never heard of.

Considering one of the main features is a search engine, it's fairly difficult to use a search engine to find something you've never heard of, and therefore don't have a name for.

The world could be different

[swm]

The only way you will become successful is by having a publicity and promotion campaign behind you that elevates what you're doing above what your competition is doing.

This is true in the market that the record companies have created for themselves. Record companies are sales and promotion engines. They have created a competitive distribution model where you need their services to succeed. It works out rather nicely for them.

statistically, for every one band that you hear about, for every one band that a record company helps make successful, they lose their fucking shirt on the nine other ones you never hear about

There is more creative talent out there than the record companies need to run their business. They take what they need and leave the rest.

me and you could form a band together, and we could like, make a demo and then we could put it up on Napster. Who is going to give a fuck? Nobody's going to care, because they don't know anything about what sets my and your band out from the gardener and the guy who cleans my pool's band.

The record companies have defined success as million-selling disks, because they make more money with a small number of big sellers than a large number of small sellers.

The world could be different.

What if the (global) measure of success was not the number of dollars in record execs pockets, but the number of songs written and heard by at least one person.

People writing songs, that voices never shared
- Paul Simon

Charlie Rose Show Interview: Lars & Chuck D

[anon7864]

This is posted for discussion purposes. Please keep its references intact.

This transcript has not been checked against videotape and cannot, for that reason, be guaranteed as to accuracy of speakers and spelling of names. (DSM)

CHARLIE ROSE Transcript #2681

May 12, 2000

CHARLIE ROSE, Host: Welcome to the broadcast.
How free should the Internet be? Tonight, Metallica's Lars Ulrich and rapper Chuck D of Public Enemy on the legal war over free music downloaded on the Internet.
CHUCK D, Rapper, Public Enemy, Founder of rapstation.com: What is gonna take place now is that, you know, the computers have allowed the Internet to actually expose music throughout the world -- a greater exposure point -- and for an industry that has prided itself off the enthusiasm of the fans, it's really funny hearing them trying to put their hands up and saying, ``Well, this is the biggest thing since the Beatles, but we have to stop it.''
LARS ULRICH, Drummer, Metallica: There's millions of dollars involved in this in the same way that there's millions of dollars in the evil of music business as you're saying.
CHARLIE ROSE: Sure.
LARS ULRICH: And I just think that it's, like, if the record-company bosses don't take the money, then the Internet people are gonna-- somebody's gonna profit off this.
And, if it's the not the artist, then you're profiting illegally. It's bullet-proof.
CHARLIE ROSE: Also tonight -- the art of war, not as defined by Sun Tzu, but by some artists who were hired to put World War II on canvas.
EDWARD REEP, War Artist: I'd go out after the camps, after the marches and I'd paint in the fields. That was my job. They say to paint the war.
I wanted to get to the front. I wondered what the front lines looked like.
ROBERT GREENHALGH, War Artist, ``Yank'' Magazine Artist: That's what I do is try to express the feeling of it. The camera can do it better, a lot better than I can do it.
But I can give you a little bit of movement that maybe the camera won't give you 'cause I'll exaggerate it a little bit.
BRIAN LANKER, Director: It's rather enlightening and surprising. We don't think of the military generally in those terms. You say, ``Artists, go out, experience the war, interpret it for us, and bring it back so we can better understand it.''
CHARLIE ROSE: And finally -- from the art of war to the art of the fad, The New Yorker magazine's Malcolm Gladwell on how something small can be the start of something big in the way we behave.
MALCOLM GLADWELL, ``The New Yorker,'' Author of ``The Tipping Point'': Well, The Tipping Point is word that comes from study of epidemics. It's to describe that moment in the epidemic when it explodes, when the moment of critical mass.
And, if you look at every epidemic, there is always that moment when the curve suddenly shoots up very sharply and dramatically. And so understanding how you can get to The Tipping Point is really this-- is the critical question when you're looking at something that's contagious.
CHARLIE ROSE: Music wars on the 'Net, a world war on canvas, and fashion wars in society -- next.

Recording Artists Debate Distribution of MP3s On-Line

CHARLIE ROSE: A wildly popular web site called Napster has changed the landscape for pop-music fans who download music on the Internet. Downloading music files isn't new, but using the web to share music files among thousands of other fans for free is not only new, it is controversial.
Through Napster, digital recordings copied by web users can be copied by anyone else accessing the site, creating a copying frenzy. And it's all free to the user.
That's put Napster on the catching end of lawsuits from artists and from the recording industry, which wants the web site shut down. Just this week, a federal judge in California ruled against some of Napster defense, a ruling the company plans to appeal.
Among the lawsuits pending against the company is an action filed by the legendary heavy-metal group Metallica. This week, the band insisted that Napster block access to more than 300,000 fans who have downloaded Metallica music through the site.
The company said it would.
Joining me now for a conversation on this complex issue is Lars Ulrich, who has manned the drums for Metallica for the past two decades; and Chuck D, lead rapper of the group Public Enemy, who supports Napster and the free exchange of popular music on the Internet.
And, because this is so timely and so controversial and so intense in the debate because a lot of things are at stake here, I am pleased to have two people -- especially these two -- here to talk about it.
What is it about this? Give me in essence -- you know, the-- strip it away-- Why this is for you such a bad thing that you want to stop it?
LARS ULRICH, Drummer, Metallica: In essence it's about control. It's really about controlling what you own. You know, we clearly own our own songs. We own the master recordings to those.
And we want to be the ones that control the use of those on the Internet. That's it in essence. So, we are going after Napster legally, in a legal forum, but at the same -- which is becoming increasingly important to us -- is to try and get this debate out into the public forum, to try and make people understand what's at stake here and what the ramifications are if this is not something that's dealt with and sort-of guided into some sort of-- with some sort of parameters that makes the artists, the service providers, and the fans out there happy.
CHARLIE ROSE: What's at stake?
LARS ULRICH: What's at stake is really the control of it.
CHARLIE ROSE: An artist's right to own and control his own art?
LARS ULRICH: Control, yes.
That's what's at stake for us right now. At the same time, this is something that changes every 15 minutes with the advent of another technological wonder. So, you can only sort-of try and trail right behind where technology's going.
But right now what's at stake is controlling that and trying to set some parameters for the future.
CHARLIE ROSE: And people will say just this point -- you talk about ``there's a new technological development'' -- that what you guys are trying to do is stop technology. And you can't do that.
LARS ULRICH: No, we cannot.
CHARLIE ROSE: And there's no way you can do that.
LARS ULRICH: We're aware of that, of course. So, what we're trying to do is -- as the first artist to basically come forward and set our foot down and say, ``Wait a minute, time out for one second. Let's just sit down and deal with this and try and get both a public debate going on how to control this for the future.
And also in the course of a legal forum to try and go after Napster and show the other upstart companies out there that provide similar services that, if you are going to do this, you are gonna have people like Metallica with very deep pockets who are very tenacious and very emotionally involved in trying to fight this on your back all the time and whether that's something that you want to continue pursuing--
CHARLIE ROSE: People say-- just again, your very point. They say, ``You've got such deep pockets. Music has been so good to you. You've made so much music that so many people love, why worry if a few people get a few free copies?''
LARS ULRICH: Well, it's really not-- I mean, right now it's not about the money. It's really about the control and about the future.
The money that's being lost right now in this revenue is pocket change. It's really about-- to me the core issue is it's sort of people's perception of the Internet-- people's perception of what their rights are as an Internet user and how it relates to intellectual property.
You've got the most extreme people sitting right now going, ``Anything that comes through the Internet, through my computer, is mine to own. And I have the right to it.''
And that type of train of thought, I think, is very, very dangerous-- does not just affect musicians. It affects anybody who creates any type of original work. And that is something that really has to be dealt with-- that there's a thing that people take it for granted that because it comes through the computer, through the Internet, that they have a right to it.
It's a very, very dangerous position to take.
CHARLIE ROSE: You think this is the first step on a very slippery slope.
LARS ULRICH: Yes.
CHARLIE ROSE: That will lose-- that will lead to the artist losing all control?
LARS ULRICH: Yes.
CHARLIE ROSE: Of the work.
LARS ULRICH: And not just musicians. All artists who create anything from scratch -- absolutely.
CHARLIE ROSE: People also say, ``People have been recording songs off the radio for a long time. People go to your concerts, and they record your songs.''
LARS ULRICH: And we advocate that.
CHARLIE ROSE: I know you do.
So, what's the difference?
LARS ULRICH: Well, the difference is basically-- having a perfect, first-generation digital copy of the song is basically equivalent to owning the original master CD that we sell in the stores.
So, people-- we encourage people to tape our music at concerts. We have no particular issues with home taping because you're talking about clear generation losses. But, when it is the original master recording of our song available in a perfect digital format, that is a different story.
CHARLIE ROSE: Even though they're not gonna sell it? Even though it's just for personal use? Even though--
LARS ULRICH: Yes.
CHARLIE ROSE: None of that matters.
LARS ULRICH: It's--
CHARLIE ROSE: In the end, it's control?
LARS ULRICH: At the end of it, it's control. And it's about the people-- part of what we're trying to do here is make people understand that what they're doing is illegal. I'm not even get into the moral issue. But it's illegal.
And, if we can get -- one by one -- people--
CHARLIE ROSE: 'Cause it's theft of property in your judgment?
LARS ULRICH: It's theft of a property -- absolutely.
CHARLIE ROSE: All right.
You're an artist.
CHUCK D, Rapper, Public Enemy, Founder of rapstation.com: Right.
CHARLIE ROSE: Public Enemy-- you don't want your stuff taken away.
CHUCK D: Well, I look at Napster as just being a version of new radio. I look at-- in all due respect to Lars and Metallica-- they have an issue where they own their masters and they control their realm.
And they want to talk about control of their realm, which is warranted and granted, indeed. But they're the exception to the rule.
I think the degree of artistry over the last 15 to 16 years has proven that the music business has been the one in control of the artist's destiny -- throwing them in, throwing them out.
And right now, this war goes beyond their heads. This is like the power goes back to the people 'cause the industry has over the 15, 16 years has been accountant- and lawyer-driven. And it hasn't been about the artistry.
And I look at Napster as a-- as a situation or the connection between file-sharing, which this is, and downloadable distribution, as power going back to the people.
I also look at this as being a situation where for the longest period of time the industry had controlled technology. And therefore, the people were subservient to that technology. And whatever price-range that the people would have to pay for it.
CHARLIE ROSE: But where do-- where does the people's power stop?
CHUCK D: Well, I don't--
CHARLIE ROSE: Where does an artist--
CHUCK D: Number one, this-- Number one--
CHARLIE ROSE: Where does an artist have the right to say, ``Look--''
CHUCK D: Artist is barely--
CHARLIE ROSE: ``I built a life developing my art, defining my craft, meshing talent, and producing a product. And now you want to say to me, `Everybody can have that product'? Everybody that can download off of the Internet has a right to my product without--''
CHUCK D: You brought a good point.
CHARLIE ROSE: ``--compensating me.''
CHUCK D: You brought a good point yourself, that even in 1967 when FM radio came about and there was this big outcry that the quality of the radio is actually gonna take the artists' music and take away from their sales point. When cassette recorders came in, it was this -- ``Aw, they're gonna rob-- they're gonna take away from the sales.''
And this has proven to be contrary to what has happened. Matter of fact, this is a super-turbo-booster to the industry.
What is gonna take place now is that, you know, the computers have allowed the Internet to actually expose music throughout the world -- a greater exposure point -- and for an industry that has prided itself off the enthusiasm of the fans, it's really funny hearing them trying to put their hands up and saying, ``Well, this is the biggest thing since the Beatles, but we have to stop it until it gets regulated.''
And the industry for long has driven out contracts which claim worldwide rights, which they have never been able to fulfill.
CHARLIE ROSE: But, if I understand your argument--
CHUCK D: Right.
CHARLIE ROSE: And you've written about this eloquently.
--is it is that this the Internet and downloading music is the only way some artists have a chance of reaching an audience.
CHUCK D: Right. Well, I foresee--
CHARLIE ROSE: It's not gonna happen.
CHUCK D: I foresee in two years there'll be a million artists and there'll be a million start-up labels.
And for the longest time the labels' dominance have kept the little man from participating in the music business. They're screaming and crying because they'll have to share the marketplace.
I don't have a problem with that. I looked at the major labels and their dominance -- being lawyer- and accountant-driven -- counting what's not there and then coming up and concocting a situation like, ``This will hurt the music industry,'' when there's actually no proof.
I'm pretty sure Mr. Lars would agree the 336 that he named--
CHARLIE ROSE: Thousand.
CHUCK D: Three hundred fifty thousand people are Metallica fans.
CHARLIE ROSE: Yeah, well, of course the other argument is that they could come back with some other name [crosstalk]
CHUCK D: And I also would-- I also would--
LARS ULRICH: You close out one fire at a time. I mean, that's clear. I mean, just because-- for every counter-argument that somebody has-- ``Well, do you realize, you know, that somebody else--''
It's like you can only deal with it one step at a time. I mean, that-- sort of like you're just gonna sit there and say, ``Well, there's always somebody who can, you know, build another nuclear warhead.'' So, does that mean that you shouldn't go and destroy the ones that exist already?
So, you take it one step at a time. The odds are obviously against us. But we believe that for us it's the right thing to do. And I agree with a lot of the things that you're saying.
CHARLIE ROSE: But where do you disagree with him?
I mean, in other words, are you guys talking past each other? You agree young artists ought to have an opportunity to find an audience? Or do you--
LARS ULRICH: Well, what I agree with is that I think that for artists that want to use Napster as a vehicle to get out there I have no problem with that in the same way that I don't want people to have a problem with me not wanting to use Napster.
CHARLIE ROSE: OK. So, here's our solution.
LARS ULRICH: As a vehicle. Right.
CHARLIE ROSE: If you don't want it to be downloaded, then don't download it. If you're a young artist who needs an audience, download it.
What's wrong with that?
LARS ULRICH: I mean, the problem-- that's--
CHARLIE ROSE: Is that your argument? I mean, is that--
LARS ULRICH: Well, yeah.
I mean, my analogy is to the Book-of-the-Month Club situation, where every month you get a book in your mailbox and, if you don't send it back, if you don't go to the trouble of sending it back, you have to pay for it.
So, what Napster could have done is they could have gone to all the artists and they could have said, ``We are starting this service. We're providing this service. Would you like to partake in it?''
And give everybody a chance to say, ``yes, thank you'' or ``no, thank you.''
CHARLIE ROSE: Oh, I see.
CHUCK D: Technology will beat technology each and every time. I would counter the fact that exposure to a product will still drive that fan base to go pick up that product and still contribute to the bottom line of an artist or a business anyway.
And the whole paradigm of the music business is changing because there is another parallel music world to the one that has been dominated by the former rules. And the former rules are out of the door, like an old baseball game.
The new rules of music-sharing, music distribution, music exposure are now globalized. And I take to it, like, OK, you're in the outfield. It's raining. But the ump says, ``Play ball'' anyway.
CHARLIE ROSE: Right.
CHUCK D: You know that, if you're gonna catch a fly ball, you have to run different on the wet-- on the wet grass.
CHARLIE ROSE: Sure.
CHUCK D: You're not gonna be able to beat the technology. It's almost like dropping a whole bunch of M&Ms on the ground when you had control over it. Now, everybody's gonna bend down and pick it up. And you can't say, ``Stop!'' You know?
CHARLIE ROSE: Let me ask you. You're in the movie business, too. Right?
CHUCK D: I do scoring. I'm not in the movies.
CHARLIE ROSE: Well, OK.
But, I mean, you're in the-- You do scoring for movies.
CHUCK D: Right.
CHARLIE ROSE: Suppose you make a movie. And we get the capacity to download--
LARS ULRICH: Which we will.
CHARLIE ROSE: --and you financed the damn movie. You know, and you hire the actors. And you score it. And you go out, and you bring musicians in.
And I'm sitting there at my Internet site and somebody creates software so I could download your movie. And I'm not going to the theater to see your movie.
CHUCK D: Right.
CHARLIE ROSE: And I'm not gonna buy a cassette, and I'm not gonna buy a DVD.
CHUCK D: Right.
CHARLIE ROSE: I'm gonna take my little equipment and download that sucker.
CHUCK D: I better understand that I better not spend a lot of money making that movie -- number one.
CHARLIE ROSE: But you don't have any problem with that.
CHUCK D: And then--
CHARLIE ROSE: Because you are saying to me--
CHUCK D: I can't have--
CHARLIE ROSE: --``That's the new world.''
CHUCK D: I can't have the accountant's mentality of counting what wasn't there in the first place. Accountant mentality is like ``Oh, you shoulda-- you coulda had--''
And now the terrain is totally different.
CHARLIE ROSE: So, you're saying to all artists that create products that can be downloaded -- either now or later, 'cause it's all coming.
CHUCK D: It's all digital.
CHARLIE ROSE: You're saying, ``Anything that can be digitized-- if you're an artist, look, it's gonna be shared.'' And it's gonna be a certain amount of people who have an interest in the technology are gonna theirs free.
CHUCK D: That's--
CHARLIE ROSE: ``Wake up and smell the coffee.''
CHUCK D: That's the technology that's come into place. And the only thing that can stop it--
CHARLIE ROSE: And you say to Lars, ``Forget it.''
CHUCK D: I'm saying--
CHARLIE ROSE: ``It's a losing battle--''
CHUCK D: I'm talking to Dr. Dre last weekend.
CHARLIE ROSE: What did Dr. Dre say?
CHUCK D: Dr. Dre was basically clueless. He's just like, ``Hey.'' You know, so his lawyer-- And Lars is probably more connected to the lawyer. And, you know, Dre's a, you know, good friend.
CHARLIE ROSE: Yeah.
CHUCK D: And, if the lawyer say, ``Dre, they're taking money out of your pocket,'' then Dre say, ``Hey, yeah. Stop it.''
CHARLIE ROSE: Stop 'em.
Stop 'em now.
CHUCK D: But the issue at hand is bigger than-- is bigger than all this. And so--
LARS ULRICH: I just wish that I could sit here and tell you, Charlie, that it was about the money. You know, it's clear we have respect that we have different opinions on this. But I just believe--
CHARLIE ROSE: It's about the control.
LARS ULRICH: Yeah, and what you were saying about-- Of course, there will be, you know, in a year or five years or whatever there will be software as you can download movies.
CHARLIE ROSE: Right.
LARS ULRICH: I mean, this goes everywhere. This goes literature, poetry, the whole nine yards.
CHARLIE ROSE: Right.
LARS ULRICH: It really is about this whole perception about if it's intellectual do I have a right to it for free because technology allows--
CHARLIE ROSE: If it can be downloaded, it can be free is what somebody's gonna say.
LARS ULRICH: And this is gonna throw commerce and the whole perception of all this stuff completely on its head. And does it mean that the only thing that you can't apply to are people working in assembly lines.
CHUCK D: But, Lars, I think it--
LARS ULRICH: I think it's just--
CHUCK D: I think it--
CHARLIE ROSE: I know.
CHUCK D: I think it's beneficial to trigger off the enthusiasm of what's taking place. You got budding Metallica fans that, you know-- and that will increase. But there will-- There's so many ancillary areas that you guys control that you won't be able to download, that they gotta come to you for.
And we have to look, you know, the sound-- As dominant as it was in the last 50 years, our industry controlling the hardware and making you-- you know -- also, you know, have the software that you have to comply to both. That whole paradigm has changed.
So, now it has to be other ancillary areas. Now, many artists will have the opportunity to actually interact with the global aspect of the world.
LARS ULRICH: And we look forward to being--
CHUCK D: And they couldn't do that when the companies couldn't do that. Now, of course, if we talk about ``control,'' you know, that's a microcosm of what the big, big boys are gonna actually say themselves.
Like, ``We have control.''
LARS ULRICH: Charlie, one really--
CHARLIE ROSE: All right [unintelligible]--
LARS ULRICH: --important issue quick, which is that I think that most of what you're saying deals with the record company being these money-hungry, you know, greedy blah-blah-blah.
Remember one thing. I can guarantee you that there is nobody at Napster that is doing this as a charitable event for all of mankind. OK? There are investors behind Napster. And there are people that are sitting counting the days 'til Napster has an IPO offering.
And they'll make millions of dollars in return for their work.
CHUCK D: But there's always been the shadow of technology lurking over entertainment anyway.
LARS ULRICH: Right, but--
CHUCK D: And there's definitely been two different worlds.
LARS ULRICH: But there is millions of dollars involved in this in the same way that there's millions of dollars in the evil of music business as you're saying.
CHARLIE ROSE: Sure.
LARS ULRICH: And I just think that it's, like, if the record-company bosses don't take the money, then the Internet people are gonna-- somebody's gonna profit off this.
And, if it's the not the artist, then you're profiting illegally. It's bullet-proof. I mean, it's simple.
CHARLIE ROSE: All right. Are you--
It's ``bullet-proof'' meaning what? Meaning that the argument is--
LARS ULRICH: Who can argue with that?
CHARLIE ROSE: All right.
Here's my point, too. Do you-- you know, when you say, ``It's not about the money''--
LARS ULRICH: It's not about the money now.
CHARLIE ROSE: When you say, ``It's not about the money,'' somebody says, ``It's about the money.''
You know? It's always true. When somebody says, ``It's not about the money,'' somebody says ``It's about the money.''
LARS ULRICH: That can also be my counter-argument.
CHARLIE ROSE: Yeah.
LARS ULRICH: People sit there and go, ``It's about-- It's about greed for Metallica.'' But it's also a reversible greed because you're just as greedy 'cause you don't want to pay $16 for a CD. That's the marketplace.
CHARLIE ROSE: Well, good point.
Let me finish this point, though.
LARS ULRICH: Right.
CHARLIE ROSE: The other point is that--
You don't-- You think this principle is so important that, if there's some fans out there that are gonna be alienated because you're out front, leading the fight, you're saying ``good-bye.''
LARS ULRICH: Bye-bye.
CHARLIE ROSE: ``We got enough fans.''
LARS ULRICH: We don't have enough--
CHARLIE ROSE: We can spare a few who get--
LARS ULRICH: No, it's not even that, Charlie. It's, if you don't have enough respect for the fact that I believe this way and that I have a right to challenge it and try and right it for what's right for me, I don't want you as a fan.
CHUCK D: Well, I think--
CHARLIE ROSE: There you go.
CHUCK D: I think-- I think there's artists -- whether they're in Oslo or whether they're in the middle of the United States who can't get signed or probably couldn't get signed because of the limitations of the music business.
This actually expands that whole paradigm. And I just think that they will thrive off the new system as opposed to trying to beg on the old system.
LARS ULRICH: And I'm not saying that they can't thrive on it. I'm saying that there's gotta be a way to make people who do want to retain the control of their copyrighted material happy and in the same way.
CHUCK D: There's a couple ways that's being developed--
LARS ULRICH: And in the same way make Napster available to the people who want to use it.
CHUCK D: There's a couple ways that's being developed right now--
LARS ULRICH: Absolutely.
CHUCK D: And I'm working with people in Silicon Valley on a-- on a way to work with MP3s to make it free for the public and then retraceable back to the artist having control and money.
But the thing about it. The company actually being the--
CHARLIE ROSE: If it's free, then-- Wait a minute. It's free to the public and it's traceable back--
CHUCK D: Back and they actually make revenue--
CHARLIE ROSE: And they have control?
CHUCK D: Makes revenue for the artist. And then whatever team--
CHARLIE ROSE: Who pays the revenue to the artist then. I don't get this.
CHUCK D: Well, this company exists out there. And they're working on it now.
LARS ULRICH: Right, but you cannot look me in the eye and tell me that they are not doing it for some kind of profit.
CHUCK D: They're doing it because they could be technical nerds or just love to see change every second. You got cats out there-- The kid that got involved with Napster. You think he had--
CHARLIE ROSE: Lars is not buying it.
LARS ULRICH: You know what? I respect you, man, but--
CHARLIE ROSE: Lars is not buying into this.
LARS ULRICH: I respect you, but -- you know -- in the United States nobody does anything for free, man.
CHUCK D: Lars, you got people out there that will buy your album even if they-- after they download it. Why do you think Blockbuster's a big industry when people could tape off of HBO, Cinemax or Showtime?
LARS ULRICH: I'm not-- I know-- I--
CHUCK D: They kill to go get it.
LARS ULRICH: I've talked to people who are sitting there going, ``I downloaded one of your songs from Napster. I went out and bought the record.''
Wonderful. God bless you. But does that mean that I can't still go after Napster?
CHUCK D: Oh, no. No, nobody said you can't.
LARS ULRICH: I think it's a wonderful thing.
I just think it's ignorant to sit there and say that just because you take it away from the record business and the record companies and you hand it over to all these other people that make it available in a different way that there is not gonna be the same profiteering from that.
That is ignorant.
CHUCK D: Same thing--
I mean, you're not crying about the radio industry making their money. The radio industry actually--
LARS ULRICH: But I'm not crying about the music business making money--
CHUCK D: The industry--
LARS ULRICH: --on it because they invested in me. Fred Durst sits there and say, you know, ``I, you know, believe that Napster is a great company. And, you know, we want to go against what the record companies are doing.''
Who paid for your [unintelligible]? Who spent $600,000 so you could have a video on MTV that made you sell $8 million? You didn't pay for it yourself.
CHUCK D: If Fred Durst died tomorrow, there'd be somebody else there. So, I'm not saying the record companies are bad guys. They're just doing whatever--
CHARLIE ROSE: Right.
CHUCK D: You know, this is a breed of artistry in the artists' graveyard to actually feel sorry for those cats.
CHARLIE ROSE: All right.
Let me conclude with this. Give me a solution to this.
LARS ULRICH: I'm not sure that I have one right now in a sound bite. I think ultimately by the time we get around to making our next original album that we will have looked at the possibilities and potential solutions enough to start on the next new album with making the new record or portions of the new record available in some format to people on our conditions and our terms.
We're looking at that right now. If all this wasn't taking up so much of our time and energy right now, we could concentrate on that and we--
CHARLIE ROSE: You'd be writing songs or thinking about the future?
LARS ULRICH: And we will be.
It's all about balance. We'll get there.
CHARLIE ROSE: So, let me just say right I'm thankful you came here so we could at least--
LARS ULRICH: Thank you.
CHARLIE ROSE: --get this conversation going.
Last word to you. You got a solution to this? Other than full steam ahead for free access.
CHUCK D: Well, it's a parallel world and a new paradigm taking place. We have to adapt to it. And, you know, like this-- Like I said, this talk goes beyond Chuck and Lars.
LARS ULRICH: Absolutely.
CHUCK D: This is industry versus the people. The people, you know, have got it on their side. And we have to adapt.
CHARLIE ROSE: Do you think of yourself--
LARS ULRICH: I think that when say ``industry versus the people,'' you have to put in a third component. You have to talk about the service providers. They are an equal component in this game.
It's not must the musicians and the fans and the record companies. The service-- the potential service providers knocking on the doors with all their new technology are as big a part of this game.
CHUCK D: And the record companies would love to control them, just like they would love to control radio and TV. But--
CHARLIE ROSE: Are you more of an entrepreneur or an artist?
CHUCK D: I'd like-- I'm part Jamaican. I got nine jobs. So, I could be anything at any given day. But I do tell you that I thrive off the enthusiasm of the people.
I think the power goes to the people -- bottom line. I have a global point of view at things. And I just-- I don't have that-- I don't have that typical American entrepreneur's spirit. That would probably, you know, land me in a nest egg or so on.
CHARLIE ROSE: Thank you both.
Thank you, Chuck D.
Thank you, Lars.
Pleasure.
CHUCK D: Thank you, Lars.
CHARLIE ROSE: May be able to solve this thing here if we could get the Napster people in.
We'll be right back. Stay with us.

To order Charlie Rose program transcripts for $7 each ($12 by phone) and video cassettes for $34.95 each, call 1-800-ALL NEWS, or write to 800 ALL NEWS at 1535 Grant Street, Denver, CO 80203. Please indicate show date and guest.
For Charlie Rose news, guest lists and your comments and suggestions, visit our Web site at
www.pbs.org/charlierose.

Copyright Ú 2000 Rose Communications

800-All-NEWS
800 All News, LLC
1535 Grant Street, Suite 390
Denver, Colorado, 80203-1843

800-ALL-NEWS (255-6397)
303-831-9000
fax 303-831-8901

Web Address: http://www.800-all-news.com

Slashdot is a Different Type of Interview

[anon7864]

The way Slashdot's interviews are setup doesn't allow the interviewer to ask questions based on the responses to questions. That is the nature of having predefined questions. You have to make them very good questions. Hopefully the person you are interviewing understands your question and you can get the type of response you are looking for.

Another quirk in this process is that there can be no question improvisation.

If you watch a good interviewer like Charlie Rose, you will see that a lot of his questions are made up in response to answers.

My point is that Slashdot's interviewing process allows for community interaction in the question making process, but not in the interview. It is an interesting trade-off.

Sure we can make all of the comments we want in response to the answers, but usually the communication channel has been broken by then, and the interaction between the Slashdot community and the interviewer has stopped.

As a solution to this I would love it if the interviewed person would visit Slashdot and post!!

Beans

Re:Wow. That was a fucking cool interview.

[Ian Wolf]

NAPSTER IS NOT A LIBERATOR!

The founding fathers liberated 13 colonies from the British Empire. A moved that helped to form a new country built on unproven ideals, that have somehow managed to stand the test of time.

Napster hasn't liberated anyone from the record companies and their greedy retail cronies. There is a BIG fundamental difference between the founding fathers and Napster. The colonists were forced to do what England told them to. You don't have to buy that shiny new CD the day it comes out, its a luxury.

Don't get me wrong, I hate RIAA. And I hate paying $16 for a CD, which is why I don't! This whole gripe about CD's being overpriced is bullshit. There are plenty of record stores that sell the latest releases for reasonable prices ($10-$11). Napster didn't liberate me, Newbury Comics and some of the other smaller stores did.

Re:Wow. That was a fucking cool interview.

[Ian Wolf]

Sorry, but your analogy is a little weak.

But if you supply a firearm to an individual who is not allowed to posses one, and they commit a crime you can count on being brought up on charges. You can also face charges in some states for storing your firearms in a "negligent" manner.

The simple truth of this matter is, it is illegal to pirate copyrighted materials. The copyright holder has every right to enforce their rights to control the distribution of that material as they see fit. If they want to allow bootlegging, home-taping than that is their right. If they want to remove their material from a "service" such as Napster, then that is their right also. The purpose of Napster is to traffic in copyrighted works, anyone who believes differently is deluding themselves.

On another note. Who the hell gives a damn about the intellect of a drummer? Compared to some of the other drummers, I've heard in interviews Lars is the brightest with the exception of Neal Peart.

Hotline

[MrShiny]

Ironically, Napster probably wouldn't have caused such a big controversy if it had just been a general purpose file sharing system instead of filtering files that don't have an .MP3 extension.

The Hotline network is growing like mad and is 99% MP3s, movies, games and p0rn but nobody seems to care.

Re:Trading tapes...

[tapella]

You're suggesting that 1.4 million tapes/CD-Rs with Metallica's music are traded every 48 hours? Or 1.4 million tapes/CDs with any musician/composer? There's a huge difference.

Re:Wow. That was a fucking cool interview.

[crimsonandclover]

"The statistic about *ONE* unsigned artist is particularly sobering.....
And you aren't the least bit suspicious that that number is cooked up?"

It makes sense though. Given a palette of a hundred bands that are widely hyped, household words, and a thousand complete unknowns, what will the average consumer on a dialup connection download? Whose got time to read ALL the Slashdot comments?

I can usually tell a song I'll like 10 seconds into it. But it's the whole file or nothing. So do you bet on the unknown?

"Please accept my resignation. I don't want to belong to any club that will accept me as a member."

Metallica's response and MTV special, coincidence?

[ocelotbob]

Did anybody else manage to catch the special MTV had on Napster yesterday? While reading Lars' responses to this interview, I couldn't help but notice the similarities between the responses he gave on the special and the responses to /. Yeah, he does have a lot of good points, but I think that there is just a little bit more than just coincidence that he responds to the interview after the special on MTV came out.

Re:OK for me, but not for you.

[tchuladdiass]

>If you want to look at the real culprits. I'd go >for the record labels. How much does it cost to >produce, package and market an album?

This was addressed in the interview. Basicly, the record company looses a lot of money on artists that don't go anywhere. Therefore, the $17.95 you pay for a CD goes to not only pay off the marketing/promotion for that artist, but also for the money lost on all the other artists the record company signed, which don't make it.

Re:Either/Or

[tchuladdiass]

The problem (preceived) is due to the fact that this is a transcript of a phone interview. Written language and spoken language are presented in two uniquely different formats. Especially during an interview situation, where thoughts are spoken as they occure. I'm sure that if you hear an audio version of this interview, it will make a lot more sense than the transcribed version.

For other examples of this, take a look at the transcript for some Barbra Walters interviews (or turn on close caption on your TV). The person being interviewed sounds a lot dumber in the written transcript than in the audio/video recording.

You guys don't get it, part I and II

[croot]

I thought Lars' comments were pretty lucid and well researched, considering his admittedly weak knowledge of technology and the Internet. This interview really helped me to understand Metallica's viewpoint, and, judging from interviews I've read over the last ten years, it's pretty consistent with their ideology. They come off as the control freaks they've always proudly admitted to being, rather than the greedy corporation I'd feared they had become.

Two things:
1) I agree with Lars' statement that it this issue is about the scale, rather than the physical act of copying the CD. Making a tape for a friend is cool, disseminating it to everybody on the planet is wrong. I don't see the hypocrisy in this.

2) You grammar critics are idiots. These are not essay questions. It is a transcription of a phone interview. Have you ever actually *listened* to somebody talking? Grammar rules do not apply to speech. Read the Nixon tapes, or the transcription of any court session. Nobody sounds bright when their words are documented.

Re:Scale makes it wrong?

[ortholattice]

If Lars admits to having made a single unauthorized copy of music from a friend, which he has, then he is a hypocrite. He even implies it's semi-acceptable, which to me makes his argument invalid. Sure, it's onesies and twosies on an individual level, but you have to multiply that by the number of individuals. (Unless he, as Lars, thinks he's somehow special -- I particularly like the condescending way he puts down his gardener and pool cleaner. I'm sure many a struggling artist has cleaned pools, and talent does not necessarily equal appeal to the masses.) Why is it (kind of) OK for a million individuals to obtain copies from a network of friends but not OK for them to get the same thing from a network of computers? Pot...kettle...black.

When I was in college before the internet it was (almost) as easy to obtain just about any music you wanted from a network of friends, and many students built up taped music collections that way. On the other hand many others (including myself) liked the feeling of having the official physically packaged product and would purchase at least the ones they liked the best, despite their easy availability. I don't see why this would change. The "degradation" argument doesn't hold because these would all be first-generation copies, which were practically indistinguishable (except to a few nitpicky audiophiles) from the original.

Comparing Napster to email spam, as one poster did to argue that it's the scale of things that counts, is not a valid analogy. The first involves a private exchange between two consenting individuals. The second involves an involuntary intrusion into your space.

I don't see that widespread free distribution is doing any more harm than playing the song over the radio. If anything it's helping them IMO. It's free publicity, and the more publicity the higher the likelihood that some individuals will want to purchase the official package, go to concerts, buy souvenirs, etc.

Recording industry profits are at an all-time record level. The only "evidence" of harm I've seen wass a recent survey showing a small decrease in sales of stores near colleges. Well, record stores have also lost most of my business simply because it's so much easier to find and order over the internet, and certainly college students are more internet-savvy than the average person. A valid study would also look at internet purchases by these students.

(Disclaimers: As more of a classical-music type, I do not like Metallica's music and in fact rather dislike it. I just accept it as a fact of life that I'll be around people who do, and do my best to tune out Metallica's noise which for me is a kind of auditory "spam". I also tend to hold the philosophical view that a private transaction between two consenting individuals should be a private matter, a view that is sometimes at odds with copyright - and other - laws.)

Re:Wow. That was a fucking cool interview.

[AltGrendel]

Then why don't they try and cut a deal with Napster? This is a great oppertunity and it looks to me like they're going to throw it away. Yes, they should get paid for their work. But I think they're reacting like someone that owned a horse and wagon when the car started becomming popular. They aren't thinking about the potental here.

Protesting Bono Act to get musician royalties

[EricEldred]

A musician might consider carrying out Lars's concept of "ownership" of "property" to its ultimate conclusion.

In France, in 1847, two musicians, Alexandre Bourget and Victor Parizot, refused to pay for their seats and for their drinks in the cafe des Ambassadeurs, because they were listening to their own music without getting paid for it. They subsequently formed the first collecting society to channel royalties to artists.

May I suggest that if authors and artists and musicians wish to reclaim their rights in the U.S. they deliberately emulate the brave act of these two musicians? Copyright law in the U.S. since the Bono Act of 1998 exempts bars and restaurants from having to pay such royalties. No doubt it would get some media attention if instead of suing Napster and their customers, some musicians instead dined at restaurants that played their music, and then refused to pay the bills, even going to jail if necessary?

(I have never heard Metallica's music, but if it is ever played in bars somewhere in the U.S. then this is something to consider. Or Metallica could sponsor such an act by lesser musicians.)

FINALLY!!

[fscking troll]

THANKS LARS!! FINALLY!! will you whiny little pirates shut the fuck up now. its stealing. end of story.

Re:Metallica displays a complete lack of clue...

[kz45]

here is all I have to say: napster fucking deserve what they get. They even say on the front of their website, thet they are for the artist,copyrights,etc,etc. When metallica asked them to do something about it, they quickly responded with: what are you gonna do? ban 300,000 users. They called their bluff. And Metallica IS still anti-corporate...this time they're fighting napster(what do ya know...a corporation). It's funny to see the argument out of one side of the slashdotter's mouth: how bad the corporate world is, and out of the other, the support of a corporation like Napster, who is taking(or allowing the taking of) the rights of the true artists of this world. It's truely hypocritical, and shows the lack of intelligence or experience.

Re:Metallica displays a complete lack of clue...

[kz45]

it amazes me to see the level of stupidity of slashdotters as a whole. First you act so immature (not a suprise, since most slashdotters are between the ages of 12-15 anyway),close-minded, and like complete assholes. Then you try to pass it off as free speech. The GPL is no different from the copyright in my mind. If You can go against the artists wish, and freely distribute their Mp3's, I guess I can start doing as I please with GPL'd code.

Lars had a very intelligent(more than 99.999% of the posts here on slashdot) take on the whole Mp3 scene, but no-one here seems to see it(maybe its the facism/brainwashing ie slashdot effect). "Metallica are just sellouts","metallica doesn't understand the Internet". Metallica DOES understand the Internet. They just want to protect their rights as an artist(hmmm...sounds almost like slashdotters protecting GPL from corporations.......). The fact that they banned 300,000 users is the fault at napster. Metallica was just calling their Bluff. the brainless followers(99%) have no clue what free speech is all about.

what shows me that the community is TOTALLY fucking brainless, is when the FSF is followed like a religion. They fucking sold/licensed code to Motorola. When it all comes down to it, you guys are the pawns in a large game of chess. Slashdot preaches their OSS/FSF gospel, you follow it to the tee, and they make money.

here is the conclusion: if you can't respect the rights of others, don't expect anyone else to respect yours. The OSS community will lead to the END of FREEDOMS, filled with a modern version of communists, socialists, and liberals.

sure, you might think corporations and copyrights are bad, but it's ok if 1) someone from the OSS community makes tons of money from a corporation 2) patents/copyrights are gotton for the "good" of OSS. Without the corporate world, you would not have slashdot, the internet, your computer,etc.,etc.,etc.


I think the idea of open-source is great, but not if it includes the theft of property.

Re:Legal/Illegal does not equal Right/Wrong

[mbaker]

> *Everyone* acts and thinks this way, if the
> laws actually reflected what was right and was
> wrong, then things would be different, but they > don't. Assuming all Napster users are hurtful
> pirates really doesn't jive

There is no absolute right or wrong, I'm afraid. It's not the point of law to reflect an absolute right or wrong, but rather to maintain an average sense of order and equality amongst the citizens.

You may feel perfectly justified in breaking traffic laws on a highway, but would you suggest that it's acceptable to speed in a residential zone? It's all fine and dandy, until someone's child or pet is turned into a pancake, because someone thought a Children at Play sign meant accelerate to warp three.

I would agree that traffic laws regarding highway velocity may be unfair, yet to say it's alright to disregard traffic laws if you feel like it, is a short-sighted and lazy approach to fixing your problems. You feel like speeding on the highway, and someone else feels like speeding through a residential area. Neither of you thinks you're going to hurt anyone, and that the law is unjust, but you must certainly see why it's not a good idea to "just do it."

No, a better approach is for people to abide by these laws, regardless of their personal feelings, and to work to change the laws they feel are unjust. It's much easier to just attempt to ignore laws, isn't it? That doesn't get anything done, either. So a lot of good that mentality does.

> People will always put their morality in front
> of the law and I can't blame them as the law
> usually serves the power-strictures, not the
> citizen. Breaking laws that you think are unfair
> and limit your freedoms is perfectly
> healthy, if we were all law-loving automatons

No, people put their id in front of the law, not their morality. This is hardly healthy.
The law is there to protect you, your family, and your friends. If you don't participate in it, don't be surprised if it doesn't reflect your ideals and freedoms.
Our laws are certainly broken in many places, but blindly following impulses, instead of attempting to change minds and laws doesn't help one's cause any. It just feeds the id.

> we'd still be in the midst of slave owners,
> theocracies, and illiterate life-long sweatshop
> workers.

It's law that set slaves free, and it's the work of amancipationists and civil rights activists that set our minds free of slavery. They certainly violated many laws in the process of freeing slaves, but simply shipping slaves to Canada didn't help the populations of slaves still working the fields.
I'd also venture that fighting civil rights injustices is certainly much different than changing traffic laws.

We also still do have life-long "sweatshop" workers. Why? Because either people violate the law and import and use illegal immigrants for labor, or depending on your definition of sweatshop (I think most factory work should fall under that term, since it's so horrible) it's still perfectly legal to provide less than acceptable working conditions for factory workers.

The U.S. is hardly a paragon in civil rights, since id-driven people often put themselves before others. Only through changing minds and changing laws will it get better, though. The next big thing will probably be equality for homosexuals, or perhaps finishing off giving women equality.
Then perhaps we can work on the equality of the working class. Sigh. So many things to fix.

> If you really want to convince the MP3 trading
> community to stop what they're doing you have to
> prove that the current copyright laws are more
> helpful than hurtful and that the industry
> doesn't artificially inflate their prices. Good
> luck with those two.

I'm certain that no one will convince impulsive people, that have little or no respect for others' rights, that they shouldn't "trade" others' work.

It also doesn't matter if the recording industry "artificially inflates" their prices. Simply put, it's their products, and they have the right to attempt to charge whatever they feel they're worth. You don't think that car you bought cost the manufacturer $20k, do you? Everyone deserves to earn a living.

If you, however, are unhappy with the cost or unfreely redistributable nature of most music, I urge you to stop participating in the system entirely, and to create and promote freely redistributable music. Instead of attempting to steal from recording industry, help construct a free music community. I certainly think it's the more noble thing to do. And in the end you get to know you helped set peoples' minds free.

Good for the bunch.

[liposuction]

You're right, but keep in mind the fact that if HE can copy cds and cassettes, so can everyone. Sorry if there's a lot of people in the world. 1.4 million or only 5; it doesn't matter. If he can do it, we all can.

Frankenstein's Monster was pretty bright...

[Astin]

Bear in mind that the original frankenstein's monster started off with the mind of a child and soon taught itself how to speak, read, interact, etc.. It was actually quite intelligent.

Lars seems to have some idea of what's going on, and sees the potential, but unfortunately lacks an inside view. He even states they aren't very net savy, so they don't see the whole picture like a regular user does. That and the answers were obviously not prepared.

Re:Frankenstein's Monster was pretty bright...

[dagdaj]

I agree with you there. He seams to have a slight grasp on what's going on. And I have no problem with their action.

For a second, I thought he'd tell us how much they make off the sale of a $20 CD. I've been peppering the RIAA "email" link with that question for a few weeks now.

Labels and record companies will always exist...but it won't necessarily be Sony, BMG or any of the other RIAA bedbuddies. It will be places like MP3.com, Amazon.com (you watch...they've already started publishing books...why not music?), or just about anybody else out there savvy enough to use online resources to promote music. Sounds like Metallica didn't get much support for the label. Ten bucks says they're scared to stir the pot and allow artists to find out they can do better "outside the box".

Bottom line...if I buy a CD from say...an MP3.com type company for $5...maybe $4 of it goes to the artist. If I buy it from Best Buy for $20 and the artist only gets $2. It won't take long for the artist to realize they only need to sell half as many to make the same amount of money. And I'm betting they don't even get $2 for each CD sold.

Have you stopped beating your meat?

[Anonymous Elf]

Agreeing to an interview is not agreeing to answer every question. It would of been nice if he had mentioned that he wasn't or couldn't answer the question, but that is different.

MP3s are not high fidelity

[cenobite]

Speaking as an audio freak, MP3s are *never* CD quality sound. There are audible artifacts even at high quality compression (128k +) rates. You just don't hear them much on computer-quality D/A equipment and computer-quality speakers and amps.

But if I were to burn a CD from decompressed MP3s and play it through my Audio Van Alstine D/A, AVA tube-mosfet hybrid amplifiers and Klipsch speakers, I would be really annoyed by them.

Biology

[Thing 1]

My brain doesn't "charge" my feet for resources that my heart sends to my feet.

We're becoming a global organism. Get with the program.

--

You gotta put some of the blame on *US*

[JordoCrouse]

Thanks for jumping through the hoops that were needed to make that interview happen. The fact of the matter is that Lars is dead right. Remember, there are many parallels between what Metallica does and what we do as software programmers. We both put our heart and soul into developing software (or music). Some of it is promoted by big corporations, and some of it is "unsigned" and given to the world free of charge. Some companies get super pissed when you copy their software, and some of us live to put the GPL at the top of our source code. Some bands hate it when you copy their works, and other bands give it away.
The problem is, that we geeks often have trouble understanding why someone would fight tooth and nail to protect something that others believe should be free, because in the 30 some years that *INX has been in vouge, thats what its always been about!!!! And we bring that to everything we do. We think software should be free, so we stick it to Redmond, and we develop a free UNIX like kernel. We think music should be distributed free, so we invent Napster.
Whats more, we did it so damn fast, other industries were caught by surprise. There are no other industries on earth where the major driving force behind the technology believes that information and/or products should be free, so they never even thought that this would be a problem for them until it was too late. Now, we have dozens of services, and 30,000 pissed off Metalica fans.
You can say all you want about the record companies, or the evil empires, or the assholes on the bands, but remember this: They all have their own dedicated rules and customs. When we were first developing the Internet, we were shunned... nobody wanted anything to do with us. So we did what we wanted and we made our own rules. We did it well enought that the rest of the planet has come knocking at the party. Now, how are we going to bring everyone together? I dunno, and its not my job to play refree. I guess I will keep writing free software, and paying for my music. Maybe that way I won't piss anyone off.
Love and kisses: JordoCrouse

Re:No understanding of OSS *or* the internet

[Reality Master 101]

...but there's never going to be a company that you can sue for damages.

So they just sue you personally. Note they don't have to sue everyone, only a few in a high-profile way.

--

CD vs MP3

[jonfromspace]

Saying that MP3 quality is as good as CD is like saying a DiVX ripped Movie is as good as the origional DVD. Sure, mp3 quality is pretty good, but it is NOWHERE near CD quality.

Just my opinion

The Media is the Money

[i-Chaos]

Most certainly, if I went into home hardware and said that their screw-drivers were over-priced, I could not walk out that door with a bunch of screw-drivers which are unpaid for. Hell, it won't even be justified. But what if I brought a camera and took a picture of the screw-driver, then went home and made one myself? Who is going to come to my house to check whether or not I actually bought my screw-driver from a store, or infringed on some sort of tool patent by making it myself using someone else's design? The only way to stop that kind of infringement and return money to the "source" is to put a surplus on the materials used to make the screw-driver. At that point, a company would have to ensure that manufacturing costs will be covered by the sold price, but they won't have to pay any visible royalties to the designer of the tool because they've already invisibly paid when they bought the materials. Of course this wouldn't work for the manufacturing industry because steel can be used for millions of different purposes, but it easily applies to music (and even books) because CD-R media can only be used to infringe on 2 different types of copyrights - software and music. Mostly, we're afraid of people who simply copy full albums off the net and burn them onto CD. So, why not put a tax on it, then redistribute the tax back to everyone? Of course, the only problem is that you need to hire an entire council and staff to figure out how to redistribute the money, so at the end, no one gets money back (take, for example, the new tax imposed on photocopying in Hong Kong. Everytime more money comes in, they just hire a bigger staff and give everyone a raise. Writers don't even get back $2 a month!) Think about why you would rather buy a book than download and print it - it's more expensive. If there can be a compromise made so that original CD's could be sold for less (say $10) and music-quality CD-R's could be sold for more (say $8-$10 from the $2 that it is now), then I would MUCH rather buy the original CD. I mean, let the geeks (no offense)who like to be permanently attached to their computer to listen to music copy it onto their harddrives. Fact is - they can't bring it around everywhere and actually "have" the music to do as they please. MP3, as a technology, is not a bad thing. I remember when I used to actually copy the "good" songs from CD's into WAV's on my computer so that I can actually do playlists (those were the days...). My 800 MEG harddrive on my laptop was MUCH cheaper than a 10 disc changer. Another alternative would be to sell CD's and sell more MIX CD's. I mean, a record label should also be a manufacturer and sell customized CD's (customized and ordered via net or touch-tone phone) using all the artists under their label as the selection base. Have your fresh-new-artists' music as bonus tracks so that you spend less on advertising. Have banners across the top of your web-pages as advertising for yourself or others to fund your web-pages. Don't bitch about spending money on publicity! Christina Aguilera is doing a damned good job being featured on M$WMP website (did you see her SKIN? It's unreal!). Anyway... rant is over, nothing is flamebait, and trolls were all snipered by elven rangers. I digress, need coke (the black liquid kind).

"Unknown Artists"

[sizzla]

Since by definition an unknown artist is, well, unknown, who the hell is ever going to find their songs?

How about live shows, word-of-mouth, media exposure.. ?

For an artist to be TOTALLY unknown, he/she would have to live in a cave, as far as I'm concerned..

You can't even get signed to a major without doing your grassroots promotion first - unless there's some producer who has come up with some "marketable concept", like a so-called boy band and your hired to be part of that..

E-mail and web sites are making it easier to globally promote and distribute your product on a low budget (as we all knew already).

A piece of music has to reward its listeners, though, for this networked word-of-mouth promotion to get flying. On the other hand, if you just want to give many people a piece of *ish nobody really likes, then - well - you do need a corporate marketing budget.

Remember Mahir, a global celebrity? He didn't need a corporate funding to get rep.. I'm not saying artists should try to be more like him, but his case demonstrates the of the power of e-mail and web site.

Re:Either/Or

[ThePretender]

Not to turn this WAY off-topic, but you ASSUME I was blasting him because I am anti-pot or something... um, let's just say without a lot of detail that's a big ol' NO. BUT - I am anti-generalization so I had to chime in. It was probably a joke anyway (hence my original preface).

Re:Either/Or

[ThePretender]

Hopefully that was a joke, but if it wasn't we'll give YOU a break too for being an over-generalizing, non-contributing simpleton.

Re:Definitely (not)

[Warpedcow]

It's not your $1000 stereo, its your computer. If you compare a 256kbps mp3 to a CD on your computer, even on a $10000 stereo there will be nil difference. But compare the mp3 through a $1000 computer to a Cd through $1000 Cd player, both hooked up to a $1000 stereo, and the difference will be astounding. MP3s suck for quality. Period.

Street Performer Protocol

[travism]

I think the Street Performer Protocol is intersting enough to merit its own discussion thread (separate from the whole Metallica/Napster issue). Would someone a little more "in the know" about this thing put together a summary and submit it to /. please?

analog is OK, but digital not? WRONG!

[travism]

Lars (and the record industry in general) seems to be of the opinion that it's OK for people to make an analog copies of a song and give it to a few friends, but it's illegal to make a digital copy and post it on the Internet.

So the question becomes, where exactly is the line between OK and illegal? If I make my digital copies that don't sound good (8kHz mono), is that OK? What about really high quality analog copies? Or is the point more that each successive copy must be of lesser quality than the previous one? If that's the case, how many errors do I need to introduce in the copy for it to be acceptable?

When you stop and think about questions like this, hopefully you see how ridiculous this argument can get.

The bottom line is, it's either OK for me to copy your music or it's not. The medium shouldn't matter and the quality shouldn't matter.

Re:Hmm...

[Darth_brooks]

He seems to have a better hold on it than most of the people working in the college and university IT departments that are causing much of the uproar. Perhaps you should leave your scissors at home, you seem to have cut too much out of the article.

Re:can we now have a chuck d interview...

[asdffdsa]

Yes. It was an interesting show. Unfortunately Chuck D and Lars just talked past each other the whole time. Lars essentially granted Chuck D's argument that Napster can be great for unknown bands who would otherwise be dominated by their labels. Chuck D didn't really address Lars's argument that Napster removes all control that an artist would have over his or her work. Neither really refuted anything the other said.

Re:Hmm...

[AquaVortex]

We own and control these masters, we feel that we're the ones that have the right to decide where they get used. It's a little bit, what we have called the Book-of-the-Month scenario, which is this whole thing about, it sort of ends up being the reverse; we're the ones who look like assholes for chasing after what we feel, for getting off the service. It's a little bit like the book-of-the-month analogy, where you get a book sent to your mailbox once a month. And if you don't return it within 7 days, you have to pay for it. Do you know what I mean? Are we assholes for wanting to get off this service that I was never asked if I wanted to be part of in the first place?

For all the work that's been done in the grassroots tech community to promote the use of opt-in email lists rather than unsolicited spam, doesn't this sound like a plea along similar lines? At one time or another, I'm sure that most /.ers have complained about being added to a service that they didn't authorize. Sounds like a similar fundamental issue here.

-AV

Re:Hmm...

[AquaVortex]

I don't believe so, and my reason for this is as follows: Napster's business model is based upon piracy. If there were no piracy, Napster would be so insignificant that it would not be commercially viable. If any ISP's business model were based exclusively on sustaining spam mailing lists, I would criticize them as well.

Very very interesting...

[botkiller]

I find it very very interesting that Lars says that he does not even really know what Napster is, nor does he really know how to use the internet other than *cough* AOL. It's good to know that someone who "goes after" anyone who "fucks" with them has not done his homework on the technology that he is fighting. I'm glad I never bought a Metallica album...

A rambling responce

[Legolas-Greenleaf]

Lars made a point regarding the price of CDs...

And people who live in a Western capitalist society, where most things come about marketplace and fair competitionin(sp!) the marketplace, and that's what ultimately dictates these prices.

If people are getting MP3s instead of paying for the music, wouldn't that be the market dictating that the price is too high? You could go after the people who are pirating the music (which, if there were 300k people on Napster that were caught with just Metalica, that's a lot of people), which is a bit futile, since there will always be an underground. Or, you could go after the root of the problem, which would eliminate the need to bootleg.

Personally, if wasn't for mp3s, I would have never heard of electronic music (Prodigy/Underworld/Fatboy Slim/DJ Quicksilver/etc). This sort of music is admittedly out of the mainstream. Name the last time you heard Underworld on the radio (all we have is all Britney Spears, all the time.) By sampling this unpromoted music as MP3s, I went through the trouble of finding the CD, since it was better quality, had liner notes, helped the artist, etc.

The point of my ramble? Maybe groups like Metalica et. all should find out what is causing an underground revolution like mp3s/napster (although, i remember the days of search engines and ftps, before the dark times...) If they can realize that the market (and most people posting on this are in free market economy countries) wants lower prices, and the ability to sample music, there would be no need for a musical underground. And we'd all be happy.

And, in response to saying that MP3s are like stealing an Expedition, instead of just not buying the cd, paylars put it nicely when they said...

Until I can pay for my groceries with a pirated MP3 file... ;^)

Just my $0.02 CDN
-legolas

i've looked at love from both sides now. from win and lose, and still somehow...

Freedom of Information

[yogensha]

I am a Metallica fan. I probably always will be. I must admit, I was furious when the news broke about Metallica providing 300,000 names of other fans who wanted to share their love for Metallica with others.

Alas, the other side of the story breaks. I'm not as angry as I was before. Lars claims that this action wasn't about money, and I beleive him. He says it's about wanting to control what is his, and here is where we disagree.

I beleive all information should be free. Most /. readers will agree... I mean, it's all about open source right? The whole concept of "intellectual property" befuddles me. The _only_ way to keep information under control, Lars, is to keep it to yourself.


Abstainer: a weak person who yields to the temptation of denying himself a pleasure.

Re:Oh dear

[Clothos Maximus]

A good guideline is, never assume the other person is an idiot if you're the one who fails to understand them.

I did happen to understand what he was talking about as being a direct reply to what he was asked, and on a personal note, thought he was making some excellent points. I still think the whole affair was a bad move on their part, although I'm not so certain they lack justification in what they have done anymore.

Re:GO METALLICA!

[desolate]

There will come a day when some of the open-source software developers will gain enough popularity that they could attain the right to sell out and "enhance" the licensing aggreement to make it illegal to install there software on more than one machine or refuse to publish source code. This is where the Music Industry was back in 1989. They were fighting Phillips-Magnavox on releasing an affordable ($700) home stereo cd burner. Claiming that the tool would be misused by the consumer and that the consumer should be punished for crimes against the industry (sounds like an Adobe press release)... I think Lars actually made some sense in the interview even though 19 years of Jack Daniels and 3 foot bong hits have wore him out. I belive that mp3's in at least half of the cases are illegal. We need to figure out a way to steal them without getting caught is all. In two years all the companies will have control of the mp3 format. Napster will be bought out by Acme records and be highly profitable or absorbed alltogether. The war is on right now. You are a felon if you bought micro-lost office and installed it on your machine at home AND at work. You are a felon if you show a cable tv sporting event in a business. You are a felon if you copy your records/cd's into an mp3 format and trade them. what we need are ftp web rings that pop up over night and dissappear in days. I'll get back to you...

It does NOT matter if you own the songs.

[k0001]

Now I find myself kicked off of Napster for downloading Metallica songs legally.


Napster has two parts to it, a search portion that allows you to download songs from other users, and a library portion that takes the songs you've downloaded and makes them available to anyone else who searches.

If you own the song through prior purchase of the a recording, you may (I'm not a lawyer) have the right to download a copy of that recording, but you do not have the right to redistribute it to people who do not. Napster software has several ways to make this easy. You can either place your .MP3's in a new directory that is seperate from your downloaded music directory (which is shared by napster), or even easier, you can sent the number of uploads allowed to zero.

I imagine NetPD only can search what is available for download by users, and by having your .MP3's not in a shared directory you are not making any available. Therefore you can download all the recordings that are rightfully yours, not re-distribute them, and listen to them, all within the limits of the law. Or atleast away from any viable method of catching you.

Anyone who was banned from Napster obviously had to make the files available for download, or the search would not have found them. They were therefore not banned for downloading copyrighted materials, but for distributing copyrighted materials.

I agree if everyone did this, there would be no Napster network. But it does work.

Lars is a pretenious bug eyed freak

[Kingmojo]

I wonder if Dalton Trumbo would have ever given Metalica Permision to rip off "Johnny Got his Gun" for their song "ONE" -To be safe however I will wait until Lars is dead to trade any of songs on Napster. I wonder if Napster has thought of making this a subscriber based service - the memebership dues go to pay the royalties of the songs that are traded - Metallica has shown us that it is easy to track what songs are traded, so it shouldn't be too hard to correctly distrubute royalities. This format would also allow the unsigned bands to share in the profits if they so choose.

Re:Scale makes it wrong?

[deepakhj]

You are dead on. Exactly what I thought. My friend's have lots of copies on tapes. The only reason we don't do it anymore is because we were forced by music companies to USE CDS. That's why we copy CDS NOW. It's so stupid. I remember at warehouse the whole store were tapes and one aisle was cds. Now it's the other way around. What the f*ck do you expect people to be copying? He doesn't understand that if your friends copy, then you can bet others do, and it's probably a much more significant amount of people who copied tapes than he states. One of my friends has like 100s of tapes. But now she burns cds rather than tapes.

Reason for AOL/Time Warner merger?

[TechLawyer]

I do not think that Gnutella and FreeNet will allow for the kind of widespread music theft that the RIAA fears and some in the user community eagerly await. Virtually all Americans who use the Internet access it through a large ISP (AOL, Earthlink) or a university. It is naive to think that AOL will not monitor data traffic through it to see who is trading Time Warner music files, whether through Gnutella, FreeNet or another service. It is also naive to think that the big ISPs and the universities will resist any demands by the RIAA to monitor data traffic and take action against users who are pirating music. I believe this may be the future action that Lars discusses briefly in the interview.

Public view on Metallica.

[nephren]

I've been a huge Metallica fan for ages, and when I heard about this lawsuit, I had a feeling that this was going to be a massive mistake on their part. They were just starting to get past all the taunting and whatnot from the conformist masses who say they "sold out" because they don't sound the same as they did 10 years before, and now they go and jump back into the public eye with something that's as controversial as suing a company, beloved to millions.

People should keep an open mind and be willing to listen to both sides, and reading the previous /. posts, I must say that I am quite impressed by the opinions of my fellow /.ers. A surprising majority of the posts concerning Metallica vs. Napster has supported Metallica to some degree.

I sometimes start a conversation about this on IRC and just observe everyone, and I can tell who really knows what they're talking about, and who should just shut up, namely the people calling Metallica 'faggots' or 'assholes' because they think Metallica is going to shut down Napster, because they're just listening to the masses without actually thinking through what Metallica thought when they decided to follow through with this. It's too bad people will judge something that they have no understanding about.

I listen to Metallica because I enjoy the music and I'll listen loyally until I don't like it anymore, not because they sue a company online.

Re:Metallica should do a deal with Napster.

[ThreeBlindTwice]

That is a good idea in theory, but does it not go against that whole idea of mp3's and even the internet itself?
We are now a community where sharing isn't looked upon as a sign of weakness, and profiteering is a thing that , in some circles, could be considered a four letter word

Greed has no place on the internet and if napster were to make a deal with the devil (ne:Metallica) then it would only cut its own throat by bowing to the greed that is common place outside our "blue lagoon" that is the internet.

Re:I am just providing a service . . .

[ThreeBlindTwice]

It's not a question of napster at all or using it "to exchange INFORMATION instead of MP3's"

Mp3's have been traded since the beginning of time (metaphorically speaking) its not a napster issue is a $money$ issue.
All napster has done is provide a meeting place for those who wish to trade their mp3's and since there is no central point from which napster operates, the policing of what metallica asks will be an exercise in futility for it is quite easy to rename a file

The time has come or the profiteering to stop, We're going to obtain free music one way or another and the only ones that it will suffer from it will be the gluttons record exec's and the megalomaniac bands who are more interested is profit than riffs.

In closing i would like to pose a question to all slashdot users:

Who are the people that are getting upset the most about their inability to charge for the drivel the try to pass off as art?

And to the user who posted the above intellectual ooze:

Which metallica album roolz the best? (Gramatical error intended!)

Counter Suit?

[skfcleary]

Metallica & Dr. Dre claim Napster has cost them sales. Tom Petty, The Offspring, Public Enemy and thousands of signed and unsigned bands think of Napster as promotional tool. If Metallica wins the suit and Napster is shut down, can the bands that have lost their promotional tool sue Metallica for loss of sales or loss of potential sales? It would appear that every major label artist that has a dip in sales in a post-file trading environment could sue Metallica. A counter suit by unsigned bands for preventing them access is inevitable.

skfcleary

"We fought on the beaches of Normandy so you could buy all your products from four companies."

anonymous (but not for long) CEO of a Media Conglomerate

Re:One major point...

[flybait]

Thank you for pointing this out. If I'd read one more comparison of mp3=CD, tape=crap I would have posted myself. Mp3s sound great on my Rio or the Bose speakers on my PC; but, try running the average 128Kb mp3 through your receiver into some good speakers--it sounds like shit! It might as well be 8-track. If I find music on the Net that I like, I buy the CD. /flybait

An Idea: Semi-OT and Blatant Plug :)

[EddieLawhead]

I think more bands should boot over to www.knexa.com, put their stuff up and let the marketplace decide what it's worth. They make cash, we get the mp3's we want. It's perfect.


Check Out Knexa.Com

Re:GO METALLICA!

[Nexist]

I agree. I have little sympathy for people who protest not being able to steal materials.

I have about 30 Gig's of MP3's. Every single one of them is legal. I either own the CD or they are in free distribution (I love MP3.Com)

There was this book I read a long time ago called teh Borribles. It had a cool proverb which went something like "You cannot lose that which was never yours". (The Borribles were eternal children that lived by theft).

Civil Disobedience

[ctf]

It sounds like most of the comments about the interview belong to the subset of people who were kicked off of Napster. Look folks, regardless of whether you think the law is wrong, if you break it, you have to take your punishment. Argueing against the law is great, starting legal action is even better. But civil disobediance, while a lot of fun, has some consequences. Let's not get in a huff because you were caught; civil disobedience wouldn't be any big deal if there weren't consequences for it.

I applaud Mr. Ulrich for coming straight out and telling us exactly what's on his mind. While I would certainly like to be able to download music for free, there are several important issues he raised that I haven't seen any real answers for.

First, it's hard to contest that a lot of smaller groups could be seriously hurt financially, if a big band doesn't step up now.
Second, he made a very good point about Napster. While it may be tough to prevent people from downloading songs from specific artists, they haven't even tried. They could at least prevent someone from downloading a file with the word 'Metallica' in it, especially after the overwhelming evidence that illegal downloads are taking place. While it would be a simple step to change the name, this would prevent a lot of newbies from downloading. My father called me yesterday, wanting to know about this 'new thing called MP3' - I doubt he'd think to look under abbreviatted names. The other side of this is to consider that the programmers of Napster likely designed the program so it would be hard to trace in this fashion - it wouldn't have added much work to the original program to add one or two features (perhaps a checksum of a particular MP3 - if that MP3 is in violation of copyright, the checksum is added to a security database).

Again, however, this seems to boil back down to civil disobedience. If the guys at Napster truly want to change the way music is distributed, that's fine and dandy. However, breaking the law, no matter how ill-conceived the law may be, will invite consequences. If they're just trying to IPO & get rich off of other people's work, that's another story. I remember the furor on the net back when someone started selling user-created Quake levels without asking permission, and I can't see much difference between these situations.

I don't use Napster, simply because I don't listen to music on my computer. But I love the idea behind it. I'm glad that Metallica's focus is banning the spread of copyrighted materials, rather than destroying Napster. Not that I think shutting Napster down is entirely possible; the best comparison I can think of is Napster as a Head Shop. Sure, you can use a water pipe for tobacco (read: 'legal purposes'), but *very* few people do. However, Head Shops have been around forever, providing a service for people who *don't mind paying the penalty if they get caught*.

-ctf

Metallica should do a deal with Napster.

[Moderation abuser]

Basically.

Napster have a fantastic distribution channel. You notice that all the people downloaded the MP3s from Napster, not elsewhere? (I know it's distributed)

The problem is with charging.

Basically, Napster create a private area where files can be stored and downloaded from. It costs 20c for each download from that area, they monitor the number of downloads for each file and pass a percentage (50%?) of the 20c/download back to the relevant band.

Users get a login account and passwd and they 'bank' $10 with their account on Napster. Each download they perform from the private area removes 20c from their banked $10.

Metallica _could_ be making 10c * 700,000 every day...

Re:Get the users leave Napster Alone

[RingTailedLemur]

True, the person who chooses to download music that is obvously under copyright is at fault. HOWEVER, Napster is designed in such a way that it almost encourages this. I don't think its totally unreasonable to modify the tool so that it is less easily abused.

Re:Executive Summary of Lars' Concerns

[RingTailedLemur]

Moderate the above down please!

If anyone hasn't read the article, they should damn well go back and do so before posting.

Re:Journalistic ethics

[killmenow]

after I explained the nature of a Slashdot interview, and how the questions were gathered and chosen, as well as the fact that he was free to be as candid and discursive as he'd like, [snip] ;) Lars seemed impressed by the forum that Slashdot offered and called it "a nice setup" for an interview.

Did you miss that or what? I think you're totally off base. I applaud /. for putting it out there for what it is without editorial mangling.

Most "reputable journalists" print/air exactly what their news directors tell them to...which is all too often EXACTLY what their corporate sponsors, political friends, et. al. want them to air.

Thank you /. for displaying that NEWS is supposed to be direct dissemination of FACTS...and that bull@#$! editorializing and [snippage] equates to SOMEONE ELSE deciding FOR ME what IS and IS NOT relevant to a given issue. ... I really don't want to get into how messed up "real news" is here... Suffice to say: I can decide what's relevant for myself. Put it all on the table and let ME decide how I feel about it.

OK for me, but not for you.

[molda]

Nice interview, but for the last question and answer. I take it by that it's ok to copy tapes from your friends, but not from the internet. However if I have a tape and lend it to a friend who lends it to two friends ad infinitum, there will soon be more than 1.4 million copyright infringements. just not as easy to catch as napster users.

Re:OK for me, but not for you.

[molda]

minidisc to minidisc can be done, cd to cdr can be done, cd to minidisc can be done. There is negligable degredation across these media. How many people do you know with any one of these devices. It won't stop people copying music. If you want to look at the real culprits. I'd go for the record labels. How much does it cost to produce, package and market an album? how much do they charge? and how much does the artist get?

Re:OK for me, but not for you.

[whimmel]

Remember there is a tariff paid to the recording industry for every blank tape and recorder sold. See earlier articles about tacking this same tarif on blank CDR's, and the uproar at the suggestion. I propose a 0.50/month tariff on internet access to be paid to the RIAA. Have it come out of my AllAdvantage account.

Re:OK for me, but not for you.

[e13ven]

Every analog cassette taper I ever met who was serious about collecting noted the gen of a tape from its original source(usually a dat). There are litteraly tens of thousands of deadheads with quality tape collections. Testimony to the fact that 1.4 million high quallity tapes could be disseminated in short order. A cassette recording of a master source sounds way better than 128 or 196 mp3. I would rate a 256 mp3 in the same category as a master or first gen tape. I haven't ever downloaded a 256mp3(only made em).

Re:OK for me, but not for you.

[Hogringer]

I agree. Lars mentions that it is ok to bootleg tapes and copies of live performances. If I borrowed a vinyl record and made copies of it on tape that is ok. He is concerned with 1st generation digital recordings. If I make a copy using "less than CD quality" then that would be ok? It is not the same right? Less than the perfect digital quality? I feel that if I go to work and work for 1 hour I get paid for that hour. Artists should get paid for their work. But if I buy a CD I now own it. I feel I should be able to do as I please with it. Can I buy a Metallica CD and loan it to a friend and he burns a copy. Is that ok?

Re:OK for me, but not for you.

[MushMouth]

Remember there is a tariff paid to the recording industry for every blank tape and recorder sold. See earlier articles about tacking this same tarif on blank CDR's, and the uproar at the suggestion.

Re:OK for me, but not for you.

[seebs]

Minidisc to minidisc can be done, as I understand it, but it costs extra.

The media are getting cheap, though - not much more expensive than tapes, and they reuse better.

Your point about taping is good. If five of my friends and I share all our vinyl, we're still buying one album per five people. If a million people and I share all our MP3's, we're talking about one album per million, or maybe a little more. Big difference.

Re:OK for me, but not for you.

[stab]

That doesn't really work out.

The key point with transferring tapes or other analogue mediums is that they suffer from degradation when copied. So you COULD lend it to your friends, but after about five friends have passed it on the quality would have degraded so badly that it isn't worth it.

The music industry came close to facing the MP3 problem with the Minidisc format, since that is digital. They staved it off temporarily by slapping the "no minidisc to minidisc" copying rule on, which prevented easy transfer. That, and the fact that the Minidisc media itself it relatively expensive.

MP3s are unique in that they can be transferred ridiculously easily, and suffer no loss in quality when going through the transfer to different people. The music industry is quite justified in their fear of this new format I think.

--
Anil Madhavapeddy

Re:OK for me, but not for you.

[RichDice]

That's a very shallow analysis of the situation, and one that Lars addressed directly and powerfully in his interview.

First, the tape copying example you use is not the same threat (or perceived threat) to Lars et al. as is the copying of music in a digital fashion. Tapes aren't worth copying after the 5th generation or so, meaning that you're limited to about 62 friends being able to get a copy of the tape at all, let alone a good copy. And those friends aren't really able to give copies of these tapes to other people, once again because of analog degradation.

But secondly, and probably more importantly, the internet is a distribution medium _far_ more powerful and quick than you and your buddies dubbing a few tapes. You aren't limited to the number of buddies you have, you aren't limited to speed of transportation (e.g. when's the next time one of your friends is hopping a flight to X random city on another continent? and does he remember to bring the tape?), etc.

Please don't interpret this posting as to say that I don't think that there's an issue worth exploring in great detail with this whole Metallica / Napster legal battle. I just think that your example of buddies copying tapes being "more or less the same" as Napster in terms of being an effective distribution network is very weak.

Re:Either/Or

[GeekBird]

...if they streamed videos and MP3s it would be a killer combo.

Ahh, but then f*cking MTV would get their knickers in a twist, and we'd be just as bored with it.

Re:One major point...

[t0m f00l]

Irrelevant. The quality is good enough for the vast majority of listeners. If not, they would just encode it in 256+kbps, as opposed to the 192kbps average encoding rate of group rips today, and the 128kbps and 160kbps encoding rate of the vast majority of mp3's out there.

Re:Grammar

[t0m f00l]

Thank you for that trite jab at a recorded conversation.

Re:Legal/Illegal does not equal Right/Wrong

[t0m f00l]

Morality is not universal, because order is not only created by biological determinism, but social constructs. This is obvious to you.

However, I differ on your understanding that we as humans are willing to change our minds in this case if prevented with a logical flow of ideas. The reality, however, is that we follow law because of consequences if we break it. I download music off the internet for free, from a large band that either has a ton of money or is in a far off place, and there is no way in hell that anyone can arrest me for this behavior - or I go buy it in a store for 15 dollars. Let's see. Hmm.

"that the industry doesn't artificially inflate their prices"

Well this is already obvious. There are multiple intermediaries here all gleaning a profit. Customers are obviously willing to buy these products because they would have nothing else otherwise. Large record companies also collude to raise prices through forcing recommended and minimum retail prices. These intermediaries obviously are interested in money. They have no interest in the bands. This is why volume and the lowest common denominator are stressed. It is also why there is a lot of money in promotion, demifying, and engineering acts. Without the promotion and demifying, they are just another music band. That's how advertising and promotion works. Lurking behind every major act, there are a number of decent unknown bands.

Of course, in the case of mainstream music, which is mostly nonsensical lyrics and sex appeal, you are nothing without promotion. They can't rely on regular social congregations like techno/trance does, and they can't rely on crazy youth social movements like punk and goth do (and interestingly bands of this genre do very will with promotion over the internet).

Re:Wow. That was a fucking cool interview.

[t0m f00l]

Yes, you have a good point sir. Variety is not exactly conductive to current record corporation practices. This is not exactly their fault, as they can't throw a ton of money into promoting everyone - but we still do not hear the variety on the radio or outer music outlets. Therefore if we are not given this variety by music companies, we will seek out this variety through other channels as we become aware of that which is available. This, of course, is not a rationalization of stealing, but a logical explanation of my current behavior in sampling music over the internet for free. Given perfect information, I now make much more rational choices - as opposed to running out and buying a cd after hearing one song, or terrible clips from a few select songs off cdnow or amazon. This is, again, not conductive to the business model of large record companies, as they often rely on imperfect information and induced purchasing behavior, through hype.

Re:Half-off-topic: Contempt for non-computer-peopl

[t0m f00l]

"But I also believe that the jokes are symptomatic of a tendency to assume that one's own field is the important one, and that it's not that hard and people could do it if they really tried"

Why yes. Mathematicians make fun of physicists for their tentative theoretical non sense (did you hear the one about all the physicists that were hired to calculate hedge funds?..), then there's the physicists who are explaining everything in the universe, so everyone else is "just a stamp collector". And then there's ...

Re:I have to say that I agree with him...

[t0m f00l]

They could also drive these news systems into the underground through the use of fear. They could use fear by threatening a number of users or their ISP's. This fear would drive this congregation of people to split up into secretive servers, possibly closed or password protected sites, etc, just like IRC and FTP. I'm guessing the napster community has, also, in the past been self protective through errant assertions that it is right because of the big evil record companies looming over head, ready to steal your money out of your pocket, as well as the artists pocket.

Re:Either/Or

[t0m f00l]

The statements regarding journalistic integrity are noted and appreciated. The political fervor is, I think, kind of un-needed to drive this point home, but this is an open forum after all.

Re:Either/Or

[t0m f00l]

"While you're at it ask him if I can put it up on Napster"

AHAHAHHAHA. I almost chocked on the food I was eating here after reading that.

Re:I have to say that I agree with him...

[t0m f00l]

Please follow this simple causal relationship.

(1) Piracy is stealing.
(2) Owners of copyrighted material can't go after all that steal.
(3)Napster is easy to use and therefore is a congregation point for many.
(4)Most of the mp3 trading on napster is of illegal material.

(1) makes legitimate (2). (2) can't be enforced for all. (3) makes legit (4) and gives an easy attack point for (2), which is covered under law.

This is simple. If you have any further questions I will write in simple terms.

Re:I have to say that I agree with him...

[t0m f00l]

First, thanks for the ad hominem bull shit. It's not my fault you cant follow a simple string.

"Wrong. Illegal copying is not 'stealing'"

Under copyright law it is, especially given the scale. Fair use obviously doesn't apply in this case.

"This isn't about enforcement. This is about the moral status of data copying"

The moral status of data copying ... blah blah nonsense. There is already sufficient law to establish the fact that fair use is limited. You sending mp3's to 3000 people on the internet is not fair use. You giving your friend an mp3 or cd is fine. They can't enforce it anyway, so there is no point. This is similar to software. You letting your friend borrow a game is fine. Letting him install it and give it back is obviously illegal, but given the scale, it can't be enforced. You cracking software and sending it to thousands of people on the internet is obviously illegal and on a scale that can be enforced. You haven't stated anything yet that can sufficiently invalidate this claim, unless you think that the owners of copyrighted material are selling you a license to copy and redistribute their material.

"This is your conclusion? The justification for law is its ease of use within the context of specific circumstance? "

Napster exists solely to profit from software that makes easy the proliferation of illegally copied music on the internet. This is on a scale much larger than fair use.

Re:I Expected Lars To Be More Of A Dumbass

[t0m f00l]

Most music that people trade there is obviously commercial and copyrighted. The creator of napster knew this when creating it. It would not be popular at all if it only had the music that was on, say mp3.com, and a bunch of bootlegs. If their intent was to really stay within the law, they would ban all users trading copyrighted material of which there is no permission for mass redistribution.

Re:Today's UF comic

[t0m f00l]

Yeah and many politicians went to harvard and Dr. Laura is a doctor. Credentials doesn't mean intelligence. Not that this person doesn't have intelligence, as I am fully aware of the pared down writing process on the internet; It goes something like this: thought -> keyboard -> post. This is slashdot. I actually enjoy posting semi-moronic material.

Long live pseudonyms!

Re:Wow. That was a fucking dumb interview.

[t0m f00l]

Hey, nice posturing without saying anything of use at all.

ENCORE

Re:Wow. That was a fucking dumb interview.

[t0m f00l]

Check out his web page. It's fucking hilarious. (notice the org). This is, of course, assuming you aren't a troll.

Re:Wow. That was a fucking cool interview.

[t0m f00l]

I agree and have reiterated this many times in my other posts.

Re:Is Lars a Scientologist?Re:He speak english rig

[t0m f00l]

Yeah, I'm sure Mr. Hubbard had an amazing omiscient control of all knowledge, bestowed upon him by little green aliens.

Re:Definitely (not)

[t0m f00l]

Ok, so why would this 1000 dollar cd player make the sound so much better?

I'm obviously no audiophile, but either are most people.

Re:Lars: (an MP3 == master (?!?)) = problem

[t0m f00l]

Close enough to CD quality that the average person does not notice. It also does not degrade when copying. Thank you, Good bye.

Re:Lars: (an MP3 == master (?!?)) = problem

[t0m f00l]

Close enough to CD quality that the average person does not notice. It also does not degrade when copying.

Thank you, Good bye.

Re:Lares=Hesher Retard

[t0m f00l]

Please explain yourself and I may reconsider my valuation of your being a moron.

Re:I Expected Lars To Be More Of A Dumbass

[t0m f00l]

No, I'm sorry, napster is built to facilitate piracy. They may pretend that it is just an unwanted unpredictable result, but then they would be liars.

Re:I have to say that I agree with him...

[t0m f00l]

I completely agree with you here. Mr. Ulrich certainly understands that this is an issue of scope. This scope is achieved through an easy to use program that allows thousands to congregate and trade pirated material. If napster were destroyed, it might at least temporarily prevent the average user from using such networks. IRC and FTP certainly have a learning curve that most casual users would not traverse. Copy protection is supposed to stop the majority from stealing. There will always be the few and there will hopefully always be fair use.

Translation: defeat napster and other copyright pillager tools, and you defeat most users.

At least, until someone makes something like gnutella on windows and makes it easy.

Re:My note to Metallica.com last night...

[t0m f00l]

'Real' revenue is created by large ad campaigns and promotion that grabs casual listeners. Value added products would only attract a certain demographic, which precludes sales volume.

Re:Either/Or

[t0m f00l]

Although somewhat interesting, the market for legitimate internet based music is somewhat out of reach at this moment due to demographics, potential price points due to free-the-information ideology, and lack of quality hardware to transfer these audio formats - which aren't available yet in somewhat secure incarnations - in the hands of the masses in any acceptable quantities in relation to regular revenues. Of course someone has to beat the path -- but they can't do that yet until the secure music technology is there.

Since this is the internet, there will no doubt be many enthusiast sites introducing hack 42, to "secure" music version # whatever. This is fundamentally different than regular channels, as television music is a one way medium which is obviously interested in keeping industry order.

Re:I Expected Lars To Be More Of A Dumbass

[t0m f00l]

Not really. Open napster. Look, I'm downloading copyrighted music.

Re:I Expected Lars To Be More Of A Dumbass

[t0m f00l]

Ok, so:

Napster allows you to download bootlegs, so downloading the copyrighted stuff is OK too?

The vast majority of users on napster are trading in pirated wares. This is rectified by napster either banning all users who traffic in such files, or shut down altogether when they get sued into oblivion -- btw, setting a not too nice precedent for other industries to jump at.

Kudos to Lars for aggreeing to be interviewed.

[Jetifi]

It's fairly obvious this is something Metallica have chosen to do. How many PR types would agree to have a band in Metallica's position be interviewed by /.? I just wish he'd get to the point instead of talkinglike a machine gun.

Crypress Hill present - ODB and Machine-Gun Mouth!

most MP3s are a BAD photocopy at BEST!

[davhol]

i am perpetually amazed by the stupidity of the common man. be it napster-nuts or metallicatz, they're all missing the biggest point in all this mp3 noise.

the VAST majority of Napster and other sharing programs have files encoded at a bitrate 128 or less. 320 is perfect. 256 is considered anal and a waste of time to download. 192 is the highest you ever see on napster.

what is 128 kbps out of a total of 320? less than half the quality. claiming that a 128 kbps mp3 is the SAME as a CD is just plain vapid stupidity. i laugh till i hurt when people claim they are REMOTELY related.

try this: go find a reference book at the library, wipe your sweaty greasy ass all over the glass before slapping the book on the photocopier, then take a copy and hold it up near the original.

it's about the same thing. mp3 is NOT piracy. it's digital audio photocopying, and POOR quality 99.9% of the time.

thanks for letting me get that off my chest.
-dh

Lars is still a little confused

[MrTilney]

Alright, I have to agree that Lars has some good points, as I have always thought. But, now I feel the need to put my two cents in and probably get flamed a lot.

First, of course, Metallica has a right to determine how their work is distrubuted. No matter how you feel about them gouging the prices, they made it. Thus, when someone derives a profit from unauthorized copying, they have a right to be pissed. So, I'm very interested in what the court has to say about whether napster is a service, or is breaking the law.

Napster makes it a little too easy for everyone to break the law. We've probably all made illegal software copies, and traded mp3's in other ways, but Napster is the 1st program where we can all provide mp3's to others.

The real problem with the Lars interview is his view on how easy it is to copy media. You can already put a book on the internet the moment it is published (or, often, a movie script many months before it's released). Nobody does it though.

No matter how media is protected, it will be copied somehow. It's unavoidable. I have to be able to view it somehow, and so I can find a way to copy it. Eventually, it comes down to hoping people use the honor system. And I seriously debate the example of a band going from 600 CD sales to 50. If people copy 1.4 million mp3's in 48 hours, that band is getting the best promotion it ever could.

I have one final point. How can NetPD tell that you are copying a Metallica MP3? The file name? Since there are so many ways to encode an MP3, literally thousands of different MP3's could come out of each CD track. Do they download some and compare to these? Is thinking it is a metallica song when I download enough for me to be guilty of copyright infringement? What if we all took a legal mp3 and renamed it Metallica - Enter Sandman or something else? If it was a general napster user protest, then how could they tell if it was a real Metallica MP3?

comparison to tape copying frequency flawed

[noidentity]

GrnHrnt wrote: [intro snipped] Have any of you (Metallica) ever copied a tape, record, 8-track, CD, etc. from a friend? This is an infringement of copyright isn't it? I don't mean to make you seem evil, but is it simply the scale of Napster/mp3's that is of concern?

Lars' response: Yeah, I mean I think we answered that before. Of course we have, ok? And of course it's a valid point. The bottom line is the size of it. The size of it and the quality of it. When we go in, and check Napster out, we come up with 1.4 million copyright infringements in 48 hours, this is a different thing than trading cassette tapes with your buddy at school. I mean, 48 hours! So it's the quality, the quality and the scale.

Here I think two different kinds of data are being compared. It's like saying "you know, a person only has a few kids on average, but here there are millions of kids being born in a 48 hour period!" Well, yeah. This is a union of all those people having a few kids.

A more useful comparison would be to some central real-time updated database of all the tape copies occurring. But even that doesn't go far enough, because people have gotten over the novelty of tape recorders, and there are more attractive options to copying now. Go back in time to when consumer tape recorders weren't generally available, somehow distribute millions of these "bugged" tape recorders to consumers in a two-month interval of time, then see how much copying is going on in a 48 hour period. That would be more meaningful. But even then, it wouldn't account for the differences in the digital medium.

What also needs to be accounted for is what this data represents. The dynamics of digital copying are almost fundamentally different than that of physical copying/purchasing. With these digital sources, it's often cheaper (time-wise) to collect a whole bunch of it then sift through it later when it's all right there ready to be listened to immediately (think instruction prefetch in a CPU or a web browser with image loading on, for other examples of this pattern). Doing the same with physical media would be quite costly. One is much less likely to make a physical copy or purchase they are fairly sure they want the material, due to the general inability to recover the cost of acquisition, if the material turns out to be undesirable. So this data point of 1.4 million copies is just that, 1.4 million transfers of the songs. The number of people keeping and *listening* to these songs, i.e. those who actually collected one of them for keeps, may be drastically less.

Overall, I think this answer is very shallow. It builds up a seemingly-rational argument that provides emotional energy ("I mean, 48 hours!") to support the position.

The real difference between mp3s and tapes

[painecave]

To those who didn't know (which looks like most of everybody):

There is a significant difference between tapes and mp3 that has nothing to do with quality and distribution that people seemed to have missed (but I'll bet you the record industry hasn't). And that is:

Every tape (and tape recorder) you buy sends money to the Record Industry (I'm not sure which specific org, but royalties are payed to someone and distributed). Meaning that when you copy a cd or a record onto tape, using a tape recorder, you have sent some small chunk of change there way.

This is why the RIAA is trying to prevent computer cd players from playing audio cds. CDROM makers are the only product makers who can play music who DO NOT pay royalties.

At the root of every evil, you find money.

-The Cave

Some thoughts

[Simon Coldwater]

1. The difference between quality in mp3s and in CDs is roughly equivalent to the difference in quality between recorded cassette tapes and tapes purchased from the band. (I think Lars' whole bootlegging argument is invalid)

2. No one mentions that *very* *very* few people will actually download an entire album in mp3. (theories: the entire CD sucks [not worth $15], it's a pain in the ass to download an entire album on a modem, most of the mp3s floating around are mp3s that are offered free *anyway* from places like mp3.com)

3. Very few people have the ability to play those mp3s anywhere but their computer (which likely has rather shitty sound anyway). Which means they are probably going to buy the CDs that they really want (car, home stereo). I know there are people who hoard hundreds of mp3s, but I also know that most people can't afford more than a few CDs each month. Basically this leads me to believe that the only usefulness of mp3s is as a sort of demoware. I personally own about 30 CDs. Whenever I have a party the only music we listen to is on those CDs. Three of the CDs (Bloodhound Gang, Ayub Ogada, the Ataris) I only bought *because* I heard some mp3s of their music. Before I did any buying I download as many mp3s from each artist(s) as I could, which allowed me to chose which album I wanted (which wasn't necessarily the album with the original song that caught my interest).

4. Someone is thinking, "yeah, but you can record mp3s onto CDs." True as that is, recording CDs is still an imperfect solution. It's not as good as buying CDs. The CDs I've created only work on about ½ of the CD players out there, they're this nasty green color, and they don't have the liner. This is still a problem for the RI though, and I don't know what else to say about it.

You have to respect Lars

[riflemann]

I am very impressed with the fact that the interview was so candid and casual. In these times is is almost universal that someone discussing legal issues would consult their lawyer and have carefully written responses. But not Metallica - all the ums, 'arrs' and general method of interview has made me respect them so much more, and diffused ideas about the RIAA being behind all this.

Cheers to them for their honesty!

It still begs the question though - where are the other Metallica members in all this? They seem to be much more silent than Lars, who almost seems to be going solo.

But it IS advertising!

[Fittysix]

I one went and downloaded KoRn "Falling away from me" before the album was released (the band released it as MP3 but the record company stopped them) and i liked it... The day the album was released i bought the CD On a side note i would like to add, how many people actually download the WHOLE CD. it's not practical unless u have DSL or cable, so you get this one song, like it, you buy the CD. I usually do unless it's one of those 1 hit songs
------------------------------------------- ---

Articulation

[hockeygeek]

Is it just me, or is does it seem like Lars is an inarticulate moron, incapable of coherently stringing a thought or sentence together? If he'd been in my public speaking class, the professor would have been all over his ass for "you knows" and poor segways! Next time can we interview someone better able to respond in an intelligent manner?

Re:Wow. That was a fucking cool interview.

[spinor]

I wonder how many unsigned artists renamed their MP3's 'Metallica' or used Metallica songnames in an effort to get people to download their music because of all of the publicity surrounding Metallica and Napster that week? Just a thought, but you never know..

Is everything in this fight misguided?

[TinoGirl]

I'm not really one to jump on bandwagons and think that things are as simple as first impressions make them seem. I read an interview off the Metallica site ( http://www.metallica.com/news/2000/000503.html ) which, towards the end, points to what I believe (at this point) to really be the actual core problem. An unleased recording called, "I Disappear" had been leaked from their studio and made its way onto Napster. Courtney Love had said something in her interview that made me believe she was referring to this. It sounds like they had big plans for this recording and had pretty much been twarted in their plans by the "early release". So this opens up a whole new can of worms, if this is the case, was this what really spurred Metallica into such a frenzy? And, if this is the truth, maybe they are barking up the wrong tree and should be suing whoever was in charge of security of their unreleased recordings. But then, I can think of a lot of "self-preservational" reasons why they wouldn't. I've been around this scene since the early 80s (I saw them for the first time when they warmed up for "Raven" and had no idea who they were at the time) and had the understanding through different sources that Metallica really are just a bunch of jerks, so really this move didn't come as any big shock to me. I'm not really saying that to slam Metallica either. I'm just testing out a theory. Cya'll Tino

Re:Lars makes some good points ... and misses a fe

[Junior J. Junior III]

How many of these bands will really take off thout the promotion of the record companies?

There are other ways for music to become popular other than to have some corporation shove them down your throat out of sheer profit motivation and without regard for the actual quality or meaning of the music. There HAS TO BE. I'm sick of the radio playing shitty music that I hate, and I don't necessarily have the time to go digging in the local underground scene in the hopes that I'll meet someone who's more connected than I am and has heard of some new band that doesn't suck. Why not take advantage of technology that can bring music that doesn't suck (and some that does suck, let's not discriminate) from all over the world? But freeing the music is part of this process, but not the entire solution. Just give me a feasible way to search it, sort it and pre-evaluate it, and I think we'd have something. Only then can culture begin to evolve freely.

Get the users leave Napster Alone

[shinoda]

My only problem is the condemnation of Technology. Napster can't stop users from passing stuff around except by banning them when they are notified of the problem. The users ARE LIABLE FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT. LEAVE NAPSTER ALONE THEY HAVE DONE NOTHING WRONG.

what is at stake?

[jazzkat7]

Of course I understand the argument that you would want protect your goods/services/music/etc. from being stolen..
The fact that when you see a $16 dollar CD in a store, and you choose to either buy it, or not buy it, not steal it... That's a very credible argument
- However, I would like to see one authoritative example of how the trade of these mp3's are actually hurting sales. I've actually seen that due to exposure to a wider audience, CD sales are going up. I know myself that I have downloaded mp3's to see if it is material that I would want to listen to, and then have bought the CD.

Is Lars protecting his CD sales(of which may not need protecting, otherwise the CD companies would be taking action), or is he just trying to show the world what a badass Metallica is?

-JK

Re:Wow. That was a fucking cool interview.

[Luminous]

I'm not going to come out defending Metallica completely but it isn't their responsibility to turn this into an opportunity. I agree that the way we think of the music industry is slowly dying and these lawsuits are the beginning of the death spasms, but the rights of the artist to control his/her work have to the paramount. Expecting Metallica to suddenly learn a new technology, to throw out the advice of their managers and Industry groups in order to embrace a new and untested way of doing business is a bit absurd. Napster, if it wants these attacks, no matter how unwarranted, to cease, needs to develop a business model that allows Metallica and any other artist being traded on Napster to get sum compensation. Essentially, without those artists, Napster wouldn't be as popular, thus Napster owes those artists something.

Re:Either/Or

[jsydik]

I think that making this available in audio format would be important to cover a number of points:

1) I think that (good intentions aside), the choice to copy spoken filler verbatim will likely backfire. Slashdot has gained many users in recent months, including many casual observers. Without understanding of Slashdot's (unusual) interview policy, misinterpretation seems quite likely.

2) Not able to speak for Lars, I'm not convinced I would be thrilled to have that as my only form of response to a forum known to be potentially rabid (Was there a way to clear the final 'print' version with him?);

3) Slashdot is a media outlet in a period of fantastic growth. The maintainers and users appear to advocate the spread of information to the greatest (and clearest) degree possible. With that in mind, I think that not only this, but very probably any audio interview done by Slashdot (with permission of all involved) should probably be audio archived if possible for future reference. Slashdot interviews have changed from semi-novel looks at the inside of the community to fairly respectable candidates for primary source usage.

I think his points are valid

[eatlunchmeat]

I was willing to go along with everyone and say Metallica was trying to stifle technology by trying to ban users from Napster. Lars however does hit the nail on the head when talking about future possibilities with digital media and the Internet... Although I do not think MP3's equal the quality of CD's I do think as technology marches forward and the media and transfer of data improves it will affect the entertainment industry. This includes more musicians, filmmakers, and authors. I think Lars and Metallica should be respected for the fact that they are bringing a real concern for artists up, I don't think the band should be vilified for wanting to know more about a potentially dangerous career threat. Anyone on Slashdot that questions his motives should think about it realistically, if someone could download everything you have worked on (we are not talking about open source you have done) and they could get it for free, you would be more than a little bent about it as well. Lastly don't get me started on taping records; it is a completely moot point. Someone could trade tapes with everyone they know and still not come close to reaching the amount of people the Internet has access to.

{principle}?

[init-me]

Understand one thing: this is not about a lot of money right now, because the money that's being lost right now is really pocket change, ok? It's about the priciple hmmm...about principle? The bottom line is the size of it. The size of it and the quality of it.When we go in, and check Napster out, we come up with 1.4 million copyright infringements in 48 hours, this is a different thing than trading cassette tapes with your buddy at school. I mean, 48 hours! So it's the quality, the quality and the scale. hmmm...not about principle? Seem to have a bit of a conflict here. If it is about principle then how is the principle of copying tapes for a friend friend any different than downloading an mp3 file from a friend? (napster=dual tape cassette player with high speed dubbing) if you think this is about principle as mr lars said then I am afraid he is yanking your chain.

1.4 Million?

[hayek]

I have serious doubts there were 1.4 million infringing downloads of files that are on average 6MB in 48 hours. In fact, I doubt if all Napser users combined have downloaded 1.4 million files since the service's inception. The 1.4 million must be the number of metallica mp3 files they saw indexed during that period. Maybe Lars needs to hire better advisers.

lack of knowledge on the issue

[rchetype]

I think that Metallica's lack of knowledge on how Napster actually works is what is hurting them. Napster doesn't really have a way of preventing anything from being downloaded (as is evident from Wrapster). Sure, they can block all files that say Metallica in them... so what does the user do? Changes the file name to Metalica, or M3tallica, or whatever he chooses. Napster can't do a thing about that due to the inherent limitations of the format. Should Metallica be going after Napster, or perhaps the people who made the MP3 encoders? Or... or... or... the list goes on. They're not only fighting an uphill battle, the hill is basically upside down and they're hanging from the grass

Personal Hell

[crazywackfunky]

I could see my personal hell involving Lars talking to me while I was strapped to a comfy chair. All of his answers seemed like incoherent undirected rambling. I love it.

Re:Wow. That was a fucking cool interview.

[TobyOne]

I agree with seebs and believe he has picked out the two most important points raised by Lars. The first is that people should expect to have control over their intellectual property. That is incontestable. Of course it could range from relinquishing control; 'yes I put my work out there for anyone to do with as they please' to 'those who wish to enjoy my intellectual property must pay'. Then the buyer can decide. The second is as important. Without publicity and promotion unknowns will stay unknown. At the moment publicity and promotion cost money. I'm not sure how that can change. That seems to necessitate the need for a middle man of some kind. Finally, how much should it matter that a person is not particularly articulate. If that person has good points to make the requisite effort should be made by the reader or listener to discern those points from amongst the chaff. It is a rather ugly class of snobbery to dismiss a person's views just because they are not expressed clearly. That is a kind of censorship. Who on the internet supports censorship?

Re:Wow. That was a fucking dumb interview.

[umrgregg]

I think you hit that pretty much on the head.

The economics of Piracy to the Pirate

[carbonfour]

I am a Metallica fan a student and a napster user. I also didn't do to much homework in microeconomics so please excuse my terminology.

Any good has two costs, explicit and implicit costs. To buy the Metallica S&M CD there is the $16 in monetary cost which carries the implicit cost that you could have ben oing something else in the time it took you to run to the store and to earn the cash. To pirate the S&M CD there is no explicit cost, it costs no money; the implicit cost can be measured in the lack of a phisical CD, lyrics, and booklet, the hassle of running searches and assuring quality, and depending on the person, principle an guilt.

When the total cost of a CD is less than the total cost of pirating, people will buy CDs. Always.

Why do I pirate? Because the sting of doing something I beleive is immoral, and the time spent downloading over a narrowband connection amounts to a lesser cost than 2 hours labor at a resteraunt job.

Perhaps a person of higher morals would consider working hours far less of cost. Or a person with a higher salary would only work 30 minutes and consider breaching his moral code a greater cost.

The only effective way to stop pirating is to
* Decrease the explicit cost of the music
The implicit costs are impossible to decrease
Lars said it was a seperate discussion, I agree

* Increase the implicit costs of pirating
This can be done through awareness "Pirating is wrong campaigns
Or by creating more hassle through relentless legal persecution.

There is the economics, solutions are a little more difficult.

my.mp3.com

[master2b]

. . . a system that gives consumers instant access, perfect quality, convenience, and acknowledgement, and the artists the satisfaction of being heard, being paid, and being loved

I think my.mp3.com has been a great attempt at this . . . although they just got housed in court and I don't think its perfect quality.

-yogi

Art or commodity

[Nuuu]

I think Lars has it backwards. When you place a price on art at all, you devalue it. I'm sure most people would agree that record companies have shredded what we could consider the "musical artform". I am truely dissapointed, as a metallica fan i always looked to them as a beacon of freedom and musicians who still wrote for the sake of art not profit. The greatest artists in history died penniless, the greatest pieces of art are in museums for everyone to see, many of the most famous poets, Emily Dickenson for one, published almost nothing in their life. It was only after their death that others found their art and gave it to the world. Those are the true artists of our time, and i thought Metallica was one of them, but now we find that they are angry because too many people are experiencing their art in it's truest form. The purpose of art is to give your soul physical form, be that through music, painting, poetry, and when you put a price on it, you put a price on your very soul. Metallica has betrayed art.

the fine line

[jasinner]

First, I feel that Lars handled the interview really well. He proved in stating his point without aggrevating the hardcore "free everything people" (which I am not one of). There is a fine line between what should be free and what should not. That is how America works. America dances on the line between anarchy and a totalitarian government. That is also the problem with free vs not free. Some things should be free and other should not but there is a fine point. Too much for free and we might as well live in a communist country. Too little and we might as well life in some other evil country. What is comes down to basically is that the internet is international and each country is different. Because of a majority of the world has some kind of socialist ideas, they expect things for free over the internet which directly conflicts with capitalism. The same can be said for opensource (I refuse to ad a tm to that crap). What is the line there. I know why people want so many freedoms on the net now. They are afraid that it will be taken over by various goverments, namely the us, and they are right in that. I know that given the first chance, the goverment would snatch the internet up in a second. I also know that I would like to make a buck off things that I make. And not just a buck. If the idea is good enough, I deserve more. And if I make too much because my idea is too good, they my company will be broken up into two or three different companies. Just as the US had to find the fine line between too much and too little freedom, so too must the internet and copyrights. If somebody wants to make something for everybody to use for free, good for them for being so generous. But if someone wants to make a buck off of something, they should be able to with no problem.

Re:A very interesting question

[tableau20]

One thing I think you are overlooking -- people really do like what other people like. Everyone (yes, even you) like to know what other people are talking about, even when they are talking to you about some dumb tv show or a top 40 song.

Whether you engage in that sort of behavior or not, the sort of mass media culture that is around these days is pretty enjoyable to a lot of people. And to a lot of people listening to a good song is worthless unless other people have hear of it.

Re:Anonymity in copies; freedom of music

[emgoldman]

Well, besides scale and quality (and digital rips | digital copies at least have the potential to sound as good as the originals) the other factor involved in Naptster (and net copying more generally, as in hotline) is anonymity. When I used to get tapes of records from my friends, that was just it--they were my friends, and the tapes were a labor of love or at least friendship. Likewise, I made lots of tapes for my friends, some requested, others just because I had to turn them onto some music I liked. When I use Naptster (or gnutella or websites or hotline) I generally have no clue who is providing me with the music--and it doesn't matter. Likewise, people are constantly downloading stuff from my harddrive and I make no effort to monitor them, let alone get to know them personally. Home taping has a self-limiting factor, in the size of friendship circles. Even old-fashioned "taping trees" (designed to maximize the convenience of making lots of semi-anonymous copies of live bootlegs) tend to limit at a small size (relative to sales of the same artists' major-label releases). I do think that people are using Napster at least some of the time to avoid buying CD's of songs that they might otherwise buy. And I agree that the artists who originate the music should have some right to say whether and how that music may be distributed, and especially that they deserve a cut if someone's making money off the distribution. If you want the equivalent of free software (as in speech, not just beer), then join the folk music movement. People there share songs because they like to play them together, and to hear how the songs grow and change as they get passed from player to player. But taking prerecorded music from the musicians withouth their permission is something like theft (even if it doesn't leave the artist with an empty warehouse).

My Comment on Piracy

[stral]

Piracy exists... It is virtually impossible to stop, so maybe we need to find other ways to influence people to not pirate music/software/whatever... The first industry to realise this I think was the computer games industry. They knew everyone was pirating their stuff and no matter how many ways they tried to find to stop people copying the games, people still copied them. Their solution... I think ID Software was one of the first... release DEMO versions of their games... Then people played the game, when they liked it they went and payed for it. Maybe musicians could try this strategy also? I know some "mainstream" musicians have released mp3s... maybe if big bands released their singles as mp3s on the net and then people could go buy the albums in store? It would be similar to the concept of radio I think... you hear a song on the radio you like so you go buy the album.... What do you guys think?

Labels gamble too much

[helljammer]

These labels need more competent people to scout the new artist pool. Lars says one in ten new artists make it. In an interv iew with ABCnews.com, Tom Silverman of Tommy Boy Records states that part of his testimony to congress was that less than 1% of releases are profitable. Unless I'm missing something this seems to be a staggeringly poor success rate. If this is actually the case then I believe they are gambling too much and too often. This must be where that extra $10 or more per album goes. To pay for their losing bets. They need to shape up their operations instead of being reckless with consumer money.

a few questions/statements. thought provoking!

[m0rblet]

let's make a few short statements: cds are too expensive! so... get your music for free, using mp3. suburbans are too expensive! uh, you can't really steal a suburban. lars, suburbans and music are not equivalent in monetary value or in any other way, shape or form, other than being some sort of packaged product. next statement: the current state of the mp3 situation is a direct result of rampant tyranny exerted by the recording industry of america for over 15 years. rip everyone off for that long, eventually they'll tire of being ripped off? next statement: downloading mp3s devalues the work of the artist. your work isn't worth $20, lars. cds cost $1 to make, but are priced at $20. why? what is it worth then? i don't know, but you'd better figure it out. end statement: the recording industry has been ripping off consumers for far too long. it's not just that they continue to do this, but that they continue to do it with PRIDE. lars, you're standing in front of a freight train. move, before it runs you over.

What about out of print stuff?

[slick_rick]

I grew my hair long to Metallica. I worshiped them when I was 15 (anyone remember Cliff?). Ten years later, I would really like to listen to my old favorite, "Jump in the Fire!". But how? The EP is out of print. Same goes for much of the music I like ( like Motley Crue Decade of Decadence). Give me a web site where I can pull down my favorite tunes of yesterday at a buck or two a pop and we will both be happy.

Re:Oh dear

[idontregistertopost]

The subject he was trying to explain IMHO was that napster requires no personal links between people to share music, a musician such as this will perform and compose for the benefit of his fans and his own needs to retain fame/status. Many of the people replying to this topic will never have created anything that another person wishes to listen/read let alone copy, perhaps there is an inherent jealousy and as such satisfaction in depriving the owners of such of work from the appreciation show in a willingness to pay for it. Napster is not a brilliant file sharing client, it is good at finding mp3's though. The more serious sharing facilities, such as setting up a private gnutella network or direct connect , allow you in some cases to copy a persons entire music collection with full albums and usually a common bitrate. If you can find someone with similar or equally eclectic tastes and are able to copy their entire collection then a serious threat to the music industry will exist. Perhaps in 5 years time people will "own" collecions based entirelly on copies, nevar having purchased or benefited the orginal owners in any way

IMHO - Lars, Metallica, Copyrights and Napster

[REO]

Well, I must admit that being kinda' on the edge between both a musician/composer and techie, some of the generalizations here are leading to misinformation on both sides. Not that I'm saying I know all and see EVERYTHING clearer than anyone else... many of the comments and responses I have read are things I totally agree with, some are not. Being individuals, I'm sure that's the same for all of us. I feel I have some experience in both fields (20 years IT - 25 years music - concurrent, not consecutive !)

OK, Lars and the band (including mangers) are right to be somewhat concerned about illegal copying... that's a no-brainer from the business side for sure.

However, basing your entire argument on thet fact that YOU (Lars and Co.) think it's wrong for someone to take something of yours without permission (and it is !) and then turning around and saying it's OK for YOU to do it to someone else's material negates the argument right there !!! A stunning example of hypocracy at it's finest, wouldn't you say ? This also seems to confirm that the lawyers had nothing to say about this interview ! ;)

Someone mentioned the only difference between Napster and cassette "home-recording" is that you can quickly track Napster ! This is very true as it is alomost impossible to track something that is done outside of cyberspace !

As well, working in a home project studio of my own, I can tell you that a red-book CD is recorded at 44100Hz, 16 bit, stereo which comes out to 1411Kbps (check a CD through winamp or something that gives you the stats to see what I mean !).

From a size aspect, you're looking at around 10MB/minute of recorded music... so a four minute song would be around 40Mb in total !!! That would KILL a modem ! In fact, it would probably bog-down even a cable connection for a while !

Like the cassette copy, the average MP3 is NOT an exact copy of the original. Converting a song from a "fixed" (physical) media to a WAV or MP3 file allows one to transcend the physicality of the "product" ... that is what you are used to receiving for your $16 ... to a form that eliminates the need for "brick and mortar" stores, trucks, manufacturing plants, liner and CD cover artists, ... the list goes on ! This is NOT necessarily a bad thing UNLESS you get your livelyhood from one of these sources. I think the physicality will still be a requirement in order to keep some value to the product. But the artists still deserves to be compensated. Does anybody really think artists should not be compensated for their work ? Is it all really just "background" sound to you and not worth anything ?

I was hoping that would be considered rhetorical but then I realized some folks have every right to answer "yes". Such is the world - if we were all the same, it would be boring !

A new model is required for this new age... a new business model so Lars and Co. can keep feeding himself and his family. Would people be willing to give back something for downloading the Metallica stuff ? I don't know... maybe there's something you could do for them, you know... drop by their place and wash the limo or trim the lawn ? Hey, if you are a musician too, could you offer to give them your CD for an even trade ? Or let them know that you'd be willing to play at their next party ?

This would be like a "barter and trade" idea and it is far from a new one. In fact, did it not lead, eventually, to our current money systems ? Something about it being too difficult to heard sheep or goats or something some several hundreds of miles away ... a note that represented the value was sent instead !

One model I heard of, also not an original idea in of itself, but put into the context of the Internet, was for a band to offer a membership or subscription to their music. The fan pays, say, $15 per year and they automatically get the most recent CD and access to the band's catalog. Add a few of the incentives suggested by other posts here, you could have something that may just work !

Bottom line, and I agree with Lars here, "PLEASE JUST ASK ME !" Let me know what you're doing with my recordings because they are mine afterall. 'Course, it would help if the band was more accessible but a million or so folks pounding on your inbox might cause a few problems, too ! I'm sure had Napster or My.MP3.com talked with the musicians and the RIAA in general, this may have turned out to be the next big step in the industry instead of the legal quagmire it has become.

And the lawyers laughed on....

Thanx for reading!

Ron O
http://www.capitalnet.com/~reoslund
http://www.mp3.com/rono
http://www.rosyjo.com
http://www.mp3.com/rosyjo

Metallica Rules!!!

[Slick Eddy]

All these idiots that now hate Metallica can KISS MY ASS AND LICK IT CLEAN!! Metallica is just trying to protect their product. Think about it, if you were a band, and you found out that you lost 1.8 million sales in 48 hours wouldn't you be pissed? I know i would, so I hope that there are still Metallicaholics out there.

Re:mp3 only affects the big bands!

[Slick Eddy]

FUCK YOU, YOU ARE A HOMO! They are just trying to protect there product!!

Not as smart as you think

[cmajor]

Although I respect and agree in principle with your point of view, it seems to me that you're not as smart as you think. Let's face it, even though you have the rights of your creative work, you've already lost control of them. Even if you are sucessfull in shutting down Napster, other file-sharing apps will take its place no matter what you do. And the next generation of these apps are even worse to shoot down with lawsuits since they will be faceless. So forget about protecting your catalog and think about the future! You claim to have seen 1.4 million dls of your songs over 3 weekends, right? Then go to Napster and work out a business solution around the number of dls. Fans would love it! This will encourage other acts to follow and you will come out of this as a heroe. Now about the high-ground principle of keeping control of your future creations. If you think that that's the business model you want, encript all your work from now on. Many encription solutions are already available now and more will come. So instead of focusing on destruction, focus instead on construction. Forget about the way things were done in the past and start moving forward while you still have time.

Take no chances for a change

[cmajor]

I also got tired of getting crappy CDs with just a couple of songs I like. Now I only keep the ones I fully preview and like for sure. The rest I recycle...

Cmajor
TopHitsCDs

Lars, Lars, Lars...

[jboyd99]

I am a HUGE Metallica fan. I own every album, and I just shelled out $300 for 4 tickets to this summer's opening show (Ticketmaster -- now there are some crooks). I respect where Metallica is coming from, but I think they're very misinformed about the technology here. This is an unwinnable fight. The cat is out of the bag, and people will continue to trade MP3s with or without Napster. I wanted to comment about Lars' statement that only established, financially secure bands could escape the need for the record companies' marketing and promotion support. Lars, have you forgotten your own band's history? Metallica was selling a LOT of music before they'd even had radio play in a time when most chart-toppers were making MTV vidoes. I think Metallica is forgetting the value of word-of-mouth. And that's really what Napster and similar software is. Free advertising. I have and will continue to download Metallica tunes, and I will continue to buy their CDs (or DVDs or whatever is next). If they manage to get Napster to block all songs with "Metallica" in the title, I assume the vast network of fans will be smart enough to trade the tunes using another name, say Britney Spears. What musicians and record companies ought to be doing is transitioning into a business model that does not rely on how many copies of the music are out there. You still can't trade a live concert experience over the internet, or T-shirts, books, videos -- well OK you can trade really bad quality videos. It was only about 100 years ago that NO ONE was getting filthy rich selling copies of music. Why? The technology didn't exist yet.

Re:CD boycott??

[WalterSobchak]

Perfect idea! Let's decide on a day, on a week, on a month. To make a point, I personally would commit to not buying any new CDs for a year (and neither download MP3s). But we need to get going, and it is going to create a bigger impact if it was publicised. Being just a meek geek, I ask you, oh mighty slashdotters: How do we get started?

Re:My note to Metallica.com last night...

[kyoryu]

It seems that this whole issue is revolving around a number of different points, and people keep arguing different ones.

First, those people who are arguing that Napster is a good thing, and that they have some moral right to download music from Napster need a serious reality check. You have no rights to this music. You have no rights to music that you are copying from friends. Period. Sorry about that, but that's the way it is. At the end of the day, Napster exists to make money. They are doing this by providing a service allowing users to easily copy copyrighted material back and forth. They are making money by assisting others in illegal activities. This is a Bad Thing(tm).

The second point is that the music industry had best wake up to this, and adapt or die. The prevalence of this is not going to go away, and it will not be stopped. Anybody in the computer game industry can tell you this, as they have been fighting this for the past twenty years, and have never come up with a way to prevent the transfer of copyrighted software. NEVER. And I'm willing to wager that the computer game industry knows a hell of a lot more about computers than the music industry.

There are probably a lot of ways to do this, with the idea of value-added sales being the best (IMHO). How about a simple utility to let people that have legally bought CDs the ability to download them at will, so we never have to worry about losing them? Anyway, this is not the place for that discussion at all.

The third thing, and possibly the biggest topic of discussion, is the mistakes that Metallica has made in this whole issue. They found something out, charged into an area where they knew next-to-nothing, and got smacked down hard. Don't get me wrong. I support Metallica in the idea that others should not be profiting off of their copyrighted music. However, they played directly into Napster's hand. Napster's method of policing (give us a list of accounts and we'll ban them) has the wonderful side effect of pitting performer against fanbase. As soon as Napster made that challenge to Metallica, they won. If Metallica backed down and did not do this, did not follow through on the posted methods for dealing with copyright infringement, they knew that any lawsuit that they might make would get thrown out of court. On the other hand, if they complied (which they did), it would be incredibly simple for Napster to spin-doctor the issue into 'Metallica vs. the fans' (which they did.) That's why the Napster guys were chuckling when they said 'bring us a list'. They knew Metallica could, and they knew that either way they wouldn't lose.

Now that is a sleazy tactic worthy of Microsoft itself.

Kyo

Re:Oh dear

[vi0lit]

The word is 'senile' and I certainly hope that others took more time to actually read what he said. I was very upset with Metallica in the beginning. . . "What, I've already bought most of their albums on cassette, I can't copy it off the 'net now? They want MORE of my money?" It's their stuff. It's theft. I can't argue with that. In his place, I would feel the same way. Being a writer, it is imperative that my stories are my property.

Re:Oh dear - God Metallica sucks even more.

[vi0lit]

Metallica in many of their songs talks about personal freedom and personal strength. Almost a 'survival of the fittest' attitude. And I will refer to songs: "Of Wolf and Man", "Don't Tread on Me", and even some on . . . And Justice for All. Nothing that Lars said was a contradiction to this motto. Taking control and taking care of themselves is what made them who they are. The undertone of this can even be found in Kill 'Em All. They are not pro money, they are pro-Take-Care-Of-Myself, which is a good attitude for anyone that really wants to achieve their dreams. I suppose these attitudes are only 'cool' when they are in the form of rebellion?

Re:Lars is an idiot

[vi0lit]

1. Lars is not an English expert. He's a drummer. 2. I have unsigned music that I (used to) put on Napster and it is of a genre that is currently pupular without much variety: Swing. Most of the song titles had the word 'swing' in them. I got one upload. Lars is correct in saying that this is not the best way for an unsigned band to 'get out there'. Of course, there's always the exception, but in general, it is not going to get an unsigned band very far. 3. If you want a Ford, you pay what Ford asks you to pay or you dont GET a Ford. (Or you steal it and take a risk.) Owning a car is not a right, it is a privilege.

Oh dear

[Anonymous Coward]

Shit, an all out effort to ignore Metallica and look what happens. Isn't that right dave.

Re:Oh dear

[joepeg]

Oh dear is right. I have the worst headache now trying to comprehend Lar's incoherent ramblings. Did he actually answer any of the questions asked? I am not about to re-read that jibberish and risk losing any more brain cells.

If at all possible, please stick to requesting written, prepared responses. Especially when you advertently seek out the prose of an bumbling idiot such as Lars.

Hey lars: sue me, please.

Either/Or

[Anonymous Coward]

Either whoever interviewed Lars decided to be "creative" with the resulting answers, or Lars needs some hyperactivity meds.
Anyone from /. care to comment? Seriously - I can't follow half of the answers Lars supposedly gave... and I've seen the guy talk in person - one of the more concise/clearly-spoken people I've met.

Re:Either/Or

[Roblimo]

Well, Lars and the other Metallica guys were upset about the criticism they got over their "too slick" answers in the famous Yahoo! chat interview they did. And Yahoo! got heat for the slickness, too.

Now Slashdot gets criticized for running a verbatim transcript of a phone interview that, like it or not, makes it clear (by its roughness) that Lars was speaking for himself and wasn't sitting on a legal or PR puppetmaster's knee.

If accurate interview transcripts are now considered unethical journalism -- especially when the interview subject has agreed to have his or her answers transcribed and published verbatim -- than we need to rethink the concept of ethical journalism.

I'm sorry, but I will continue to believe that accuracy is the essence of good journalism, and I will continue to detest articles that are rewritten press releases, interviews that are laundered to make their subjects sound better than they do in person, and all the other tricks that make news (and newsmakers) look "slick" at the expense of truth.

But don't worry. I'm not young, and all the guys my age will be dead or retired in a decade or two.
The spinmeisters who come after us will do what you want; make everything look all fresh and pretty, because they'll want all subscribers to the one remaining TV/Internet/Print news source (after all the mergers) to be happy, happy, happy with Hereditary President George Bush IV* (who will never make a mistake during an interview, as far you will be allowed to know).

I sure as hell hope I die before this happens!

- Robin

* no partisan insinuation meant; it could just as easily be Hereditary President Gore. Or, since the two families have children of about the same age, perhaps it will be the GoreBush dynasty running things, with Rupert Steven Murdoch-Case III as press secretary. Either way, I'm sure all the news will be much better-organized than it is now, and all the reporters will have good teeth, blow-dried hair, and will wear makeup whenever you see them, as will everyone they are allowed to interview :)

Re:Either/Or

[DJerman]

IIRC, Lars has a contract with his label. This probably excludes other distribution deals, so he probably can't hire these people until his contract expires. He's already said he'll probably or certainly be cutting out either the label or the retailer or both when the contract is up.

Re:Either/Or

[IO ERROR]

Um, before you put up an MP3 of the interview, shouldn't you ask Lars first? Because, you know, it is his creative work, he spent a lot of time and creative energy to produce that interview, and it isn't right if you use it in ways he didn't intend without his permission.

While you're at it ask him if I can put it up on Napster.
---

Re:Either/Or

[Rei]

"I think a very very valid thing the other day, that all the people, that are sitting right now, the Sean Fannings of the world, and the guy in Ireland, and all these Internet guys that are sitting there coming up with all hese programs and all this stuff, you know what? The record companies should have hired those guys 5 years ago. That is the biggest single fuck-up that they did, was basically letting those guys get to the other side."

Albeit a bit misstated (the whole "light side" and "dark side" thing, which further shows his lack of personal knowledge in the subject), this quote is perfect.

Metallica - take a clue from this one - HIRE these sort of people, NOW! Start your own system. Don't just talk about how its the future - make it the future! Get with net supportive bands, like Limp Bizcuit (sp?). Get as many groups together as you can that are free to distribute their msuic without the RIAA's control, and form your own system. You can afford it, software isn't that expensive!

Think about this: If people had a service, where, at any time, ever, they could download music from their favorite bands, without having to search, with nice software designed for it, maybee even having the capability to burn a cd as soon as it gets to their computer - any music they want - for a yearly fee that was half what they annually pay for their limited supply of cds - do you think there is anyone in their right mind who wouldn't sign up? The more a certain artist is listened to by each person, and the wider the audience range (the more people) that listen to it, the larger the percent of the profits they get. You could even scale it logarithmlicly so lesser known artists get more of a share of the profits than they normally would. This would be a truly wonderful system!

If each person had a unique code, and its transmission was kept secure, it would be really hard to fake interest in the music that isn't there - to crack a million codes can *not* be a simple task.

You could do this, and finally break the artists free - encourage new growth, encourage people who write music to come out there and see if people like it, and even get more money for yourself. And make the fans happy again!

Do it!

(please?)

- Rei

Re:Either/Or

[Abjuk]

But what are the chances of Linus or Stallman doing a phone interview rather than an e-mail one, particularly for Slashdot? In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if this was the first interview Slashdot has done that wasn't e-mail based. Also, the impression I got was that one of the reasons Lars agreed to this interview was that he could say whatever he wanted, unedited, for better or for worse. It's not all that easy to edit someone's answers for grammer without changing what they said into your interpretation of what they said.

Re:Either/Or

[Roblimo]

Timothy taped the interview and transcribed Lars' answers verbatim. No lawyers, no PR people. Just Lars, speaking off the cuff to Tim on the phone, totally unscripted, without "soundbite" time limits, in a forum where Lars knew he was allowed to say "fuck" if he wanted.

I'll call Thomas Edwards at thesync.com (where Geeks in Space is hosted) and see if he wants to digitize the "Slashdot Lars Interview" and put it up. If he does, Timothy and I only live about 15 minutes away from thesync, and can run the tapes over there sometime this weekend.

- Robin

Re:He "gets it", but he doesn't.

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, it sounds like they wanted (want) to work with it but were never asked. There's a slight difference.

He "gets it", but he doesn't.

[caferace]

It's enlightening to hear that he seems to understand the technology. It's also unfortunate to see that he doesn't understand the impact, and would rather try to fight what is way bigger than him rather than try and work with it.

His and the bands loss, unfortunately, in the end.

Napster is being *ABUSED*

[strredwolf]

From what I can tell, Napster's service is being abused in relation to Metalica. I mean, 1.4 *MILLION* hits. Chump change for the record company and artists, yeah, but to people having to manage the bandwidth?

I can see Lars main point: If it was a small amount, yeah, it'll generate enough buzz to get the high-quality CD out. But 1.4 *MILLION* in 48 hours?!?

---
Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com." The purpose of that site was not known. -- MSNBC 10-26-1999 on MS crack

Re:Napster is being *ABUSED*

[rograndom]

when we monitored Napster for 48 hours three weekends ago, we came up with the 1.4 million downloads of Metallica music,

I have no idea how they came up with the 1.4m number but it seems like maybe NetPD had their 500 or so bots or what ever each with a bunch of Metallica songs available and they just tracked when someone went to download from them. Now 1.4m x 2-4mb per song is a *LOT* of bandwidth (at 2mb per song it something like 16mb/sec. for the 48 hour period). So they probably just logged the user, time, etc. then killed the transfer. I'm guessing (if my theory is correct) a typical session would go like:

user: Oh, look. The new Metallica song. I will grab this.

NetPD: user name and time logged, kill transfer, downloads=downloads+1.

user: WTF? Failed download? I'll just try to get the file again.

NetPD: user name and time logged, kill transfer, downloads=downloads+1.

user: goddamn it! I'll try another source. Ahh here's one.

NetPD2: user name and time logged, kill transfer, downloads=downloads+1.

user: WTF?

repeat until user gets bored or finds a non-NetPD server.

Also Metallica only (hmm only) logged 350,000 or so user names (1.4m / 350,000 = 4 tries per user).

andy j.

Just a little point here....

[Chris Johnson]

Lars: "What you have to remember is, it's only bands who are fortunate enough to be at the level that we're at that have the option of maybe circumventing the record companies and the retailer."

Hi Lars! Good to hear from you. Now, look at _this_:

mp3.com/ChrisJ Go there- and just for the sake of argument, pick up "Dragons" (a pretty innovative electronic album I did- you ought to appreciate the time signatures, nothing is 4/4. Plus the sound is fully professional)

Got it? Good. Lars, I just circumvented the record companies and the retailer- all without stepping on _your_ rights one bit. How's that grab you?

I'll be more specific- hope you guys get to read this, you're clearly sharp enough to understand what I'm telling you. Lars, the mp3.com contract is an experienced musician's wet dream- try comparing it to, say, farmclub.com's contract! You continue to own your music, and in fact you own the mechanicals. You get to back out and mp3.com LOSES license rights if you do, save only what they need to sell or use any existing materials (and they print to order, so there wouldn't be much of that). Here's a big one that you'd know about and not so many other people would be hip to- the mp3.com contract is subject to revision ONLY with the consent of both parties (I see you nodding your head, you'd know about contracts that are unilaterally changeable without consent of the artist- part of the 'being fucked' you mentioned).

But that's only part of it: Lars, I have a fan running around evangelising my music (especially that "Dragons" album) like crazy. I've put up some posters, and got hit with an unexpected 'rip fee' that caused them to cost about 30$: this is chicken feed. I've sold some CDs, and lots of people have downloaded my music. The equipment is my hobby and avocation- it's like a guitar player collecting guitars.

Lars, I've already broken even, in a very real sense. How long did it take you guys to recoup your advances when you were first signed? You're one of the few acts that ever manage to do that, and it's because the record companies are still stuck in the mindset where you drag people into billion-dollar studios and put the result through billion-dollar mastering houses, or you don't even do anything. With that mindset, it's no wonder most artists don't recoup their advances.

Well- I grew up (I'm 31) at the end of the era where mastering records was the realm of big rich companies. I saw the rise of home recording (shitty though it was- woohoo for cassette 4-tracks! ;) ) and getting 1000 records pressed for 999$. And I watched as CDs were invented, initially so crappy, as digital recording became so widespread and the bloom went off the rose and people started trying to do better than the initial cruddy 'perfect sound forever' ripoff, and now it's 2000.

Let me tell you what I have at home, now. I'm still making payments on a 20-bit, 48Khz ADAT- eight-track recorder. It doesn't record on 50$ rolls of impossible-to-find reel-to-reel tape: it records on S-VHS cassettes that only run about $10 for 40 minutes of recording. I have plans for getting a CD-R burner- and borrow one when I need it badly enough. Blanks are a couple bucks absolute max. I print cheap art out on an inkjet printer- but to get serious, the local copy shop has a Color Laser Copier. Damn thing prints better than most glossy magazines, totally colorfast, and at just a dollar a copy plus a 14$ rip fee for when I bring them a disk with the CMYK separations on it, to use the copier as my own personal imagesetter...

Are you beginning to get the picture, Lars? This is all about your remark about circumventing the record companies and the retailer. The fact is, you and I are both old enough to remember when you couldn't produce anything but CRAP out of your home- xeroxed covers from paste-up artwork, having dual-cassette decks going 24/7, all that rot and the result always reeked of 'demo'.

But those days are GONE now. Yes, most musicians still don't have the expertise or resources or experience to put together a total package that rivals what the record companies (expensively) manage to put together. But dude- some of us do, and there will be more and more.

That leaves only distribution- and that's the easy part, there are a million 'e-businesses' dying to get anywhere _near_ the markup routinely charged by the music biz.

The fact is, Lars, everybody gets to circumvent the record companies and retailers now, and you don't even have to accept a loss in quality- DIY, or hire your own people who're good enough, and you're rolling. Copy shops are outputting printed paper as good or better than major label pressing houses. Project studios are kicking the asses of big mastering houses and 128-track monster studios (not hard- when the output media is only 16/44K). It didn't used to be that way as we both know, but now things are very different.

Good luck on getting free of your own record company entanglements- I own my masters, dunno if you guys own yours, and that could be a ball and chain for you. One thing that is very clear from hearing you out, is this: the record companies are _using_ you, man. They are letting you take all the heat for doing what _they_ want done, and they're not helping you, even. They should at least take responsibility for the fact that you're doing _their_ work. At least the old adage "no such thing as bad publicity" is still true! But you don't owe them any respect- I, like many people, expected that all this was driven by the record companies. Imagine my surprise to discover that, yes, they love seeing this happening, yes it's for their benefit, but they are letting a lot of people ruin you guys' reputation and they're not even SUPPORTING you? That's disgusting.

That changes things, for me. I have no gripe with you guys. My complaint is with the labels- my action is to MAKE MUSIC and put it out there without using them in the slightest way. Reading that the labels are letting you fight this whole fight on your own- it disgusts me. You're paying for the lawyers and stuff out of your own pockets? The labels are the primary beneficiaries, they've made God knows how much off you over the years, and they won't even cover the cost of a damn lawyer to protect _their_ interests? That's disgusting! You're being fucked- start making plans for what you're going to do when they no longer own your ass, that's all I can say.

Hope you like my tunes- feel free to make copies for your friends :)

prolly not...

[Danse]

If things continue this way, the company that invents and creates the replicator would be sued to oblivion before its potential could be fully realized.

Nah, the schematics would be posted all over the net, and we'd all be running around in t-shirts with the schematics printed on them.

Something needs fixing.. before it's too late...

[Danse]

I've been a Metallica fan for the last dozen or so years. I was really pretty ticked off when they sued Napster, because I felt they were missing the target. I wasn't one of those people who was wanting to burn all my Metallica cds and t-shirts and whatnot, but I was annoyed. After reading this interview though, I can see why Lars is upset and why they felt they needed to do something right away, even if don't think it was the right thing.

Now, I think Napster does bear some responsibility here. They operate and profit from the service they provide. They told Metallica what they would have to do (i.e. give them a list of names) in order for Napster to comply with their wishes. I think Lars is right that Napster didn't really think they'd do it, and now that they did, it's being used as a PR club against Metallica. I think it's pretty obvious that the users who were banned were committing copyright infringement, simply because they were allowing anyone to copy their mp3s without any verification of whether that person owns the right to that music.

I think the heart of the matter is that Metallica does have the right to enforce its copyrights, which is what they seem to be doing here. Unfortunately, the way Napster is set up, anyone who allows others to download copyrighted music (that they don't hold the copyright to) from their drives is potentially committing copyright infringement. Now not everyone is actually infringing, because I'm sure that in many of the cases, both the host user and the client user own a copy of the music. Unfortunately, there is no way to distinguish unless you can identify the people and verify that they own the right to a copy of the music. Since that is probably not feasible, we have a problem.

How do artists protect their copyrights without bankrupting themselves with consultant and lawyer fees, while at the same time not interfering with legitimate copying? This is something that needs a solution before the government and the RIAA get together and come up with their own solution, which I can guarantee we won't like.

Record companies...

[Danse]

The record industry doesn't seem to do all that much to sell the bands except to get them played on the radio and tv. If a band gets a decent amount of radio play, and mtv play, they get popular. Now, the record companies can fund the making of albums and videos, which is why Lars is saying that they're like banks, and that they, or some similar entity, will always be necessary in some capacity. I haven't found fault with his statement yet, so I think he's right about that. Someone has to front the money for the expensive stuff, and whoever it is is going to expect a return on that investment. You can't do it through ordinary banks because that just isn't something that they will fund. Record companies play an active role in the process, and they know the business, which is why they are willing to fund these artists. I'd really like to see an alternative to this situation. MP3.com is a good start, and it would be nice if radio stations would work with companies like that, but they don't front money to the bands for videos and studio time, and if they did, they'd probably want the control, and a return on it just like the record companies.

Re:My note to Metallica.com last night...

[Danse]

Credit card numbers may not even be necessary. Most software companies don't require them and they still manage to make a nice profit.

Re:Something needs fixing.. before it's too late..

[Danse]

You could be right. At least partially. But remember that not all performers actually perform live. Many make their music electronically and each song takes quite a long time to assemble. This sort of performance cannot be performed live. I'm sure people can think of other similar cases. We need to be fair to all types of artists. I would hope that in the absence of traditional copyright laws, people would continue to support the artists they like so that those artists have the means to continue to do what they love and keep providing us with what we want. I think this is a lot more likely to happen in the internet age when most or all of the middlemen are cut out. Music and other art ends up costing a lot less, therefore we can all buy more of it and support more artists work.

It seems like a win-win situation. I can only hope it works out that way. It's hard to be optimistic about it though. People often think only short-term and take the cheap way out. This is often enforced by our corporate culture where quarterly profits are everything, damn the environment, workers rights, etc.

It's All About Control

[SoupIsGood Food]

Lars sez that that it's all bout control. He's right. The MPAA, the RIAA, the SPAA all exist for one purpose: to give corporations and commercial entities absolute control over culture, usually with copyright being used as the bludgeon.

Here's the deal, tho...copyright law was not devised to give an absolute monopoly to those who create and distribute intellectual property. It was designed to take that monopoly -away-.

The Statute of Anne, enacted by British Parliment in 1710, marks not only the beginning of copyright law, but the fabled "Age of Reason". The Statute of Anne broke the absolute publishing monopolies granted to the Stationers, with the express intent to facilitate learning and a free exchange of ideas. Authors were granted rights to their own works, and given control of them for a period of 30 years, after which the rights would pass into the public domain. Considering the information infrastructure in 1710, this enabled philosophy, mathematics, history, science and other scholarly works to spread like wildfire through the intellectual community, ushering in the modern age.

The US constituition has a provision for copyright lifted whole from British copyright law, with the same stated purpose: to encourage the dissemination of ideas and knowledge. Over the past century, the freedoms of US citizens in regards to the public domain have been whittled away to nearly nothing by corporate special interest, returning us to a situation similar to England's Stationers prior to the statute of Anne, with important cultural and educational works .

Here's the deal: culture is participatory. People share books, movies, music, photos, magazine articles, what have you. The free flow of information and ideas is instinctual. Does lars think all of his drum work, all of the guitar riffs created by his band members, even the style of his entire band, was created in a vacuum? What if the old blues men went to court to assert "control" of how their work was being used?

I have as much sympathy for lars and their record label as I do for buggywhip manufacturers. Civilization has -changed-...technology has taken back the ground lost to copyright and reinstated the public domain by fait accomplii. It's -possible- to "fuck with" new technologies that share culture and the free flow of ideas with guaranteed anonymity, and it's something totalitarian regimes like China and Singapore are working very, very hard on. Does Metallica feel so comfortable in the company of tyrants?

SoupIsGood Food

Re:It's All About Control

[elflord]

Copyrighted works are not "ideas". One does not copyright an idea, one patents it.

And I didn't claim that copyright is designed to "make art as profitable as someone wants it". It is designed as a means of having a market place for creative works. As such, it can be only as profitable as the market are willing and able to make it.

Re:It's All About Control

[elflord]

Don't pretend that piracy is about the "free flow of ideas". You are confusing copyrights with patents. The riff from a Metallica album is an "idea", and I am free to give you a full transcription of any riff from any metallica album. *However*, the music itself is an instance of that riff, which is a very different thing. The people who talk about "information" wanting to be free are not asking for the information in question -- they are simply sticking their hands into the artists pocket. Your notion that everything is somehow intrinsically "public domain" because of technology just doesn't fly -- just because it's easy to cheat doesn't make it right. The fact that you can easily circumvent an artists primary means of compensation does not justify that behaviour.

Re:Help!

[jd]

That has got to be one of the most intelligent points ever made. You're absolutely right, that there has to be a way to resolve this, in EVERYONE's interest, rather than to deliberately have one faction trample over another.

IMHO, this is exactly what Lars was saying. He doesn't want conflict, but would rather have equal rights to everyone else.

IMHO, anyone who puts their own wants above others needs or rights deserves a visit from the Phantom Flan Flinger. (Tiswas, anyone?)

Re:Journalistic ethics

[dylan_-]

Errrmmmm ... I know you guys aren't professional journalists, but Roblimo has been in the business long enough to know that leaving in all of somebody's "You know"'s and "OK"'s in an attempt to make them look like a moron isn't good ethics.

I doubt it was to make the guy look like a moron. They said it was difficult to get hold of anyone, the interview seems to have been conducted over the phone, and you know what the alternative to a verbatim account is; clean it up, send the final version back for approval, and then post it....

Maybe they didn't want to wait another 6 months to post the interview. :-) Anyway, I suspect they asked "you mind if we just run exactly what you said" and he agreed....

dylan_-


--

Lack of a complete understanding of Napster

[Proteus]

• It's like, OK, 'It's January, my name is Napster, or I'm Sean, or whoever the CEO was at the time, we have this service, we would like to know if you are interested in being part of it.'

I think they're missing the point of Napster a bit. Napster was created with the valid purpose of providing a way for users to share MP3s of thier choice, not provide an outlet for certain bands' music to be traded.

While Metallica still has valid reasons to be pissed at Napster, I don't think they really understand how the service is intended to work. Napster is great in concept, but perhaps they do need to do thier best to filter songs from bands that request it. Granted, that can never be done perfectly, but it should be available.

On a side note, I wonder how Metallica determined that the 1.4 million donwloads of Metallica songs were _actually_ copyright violations. I mean, I downloaded Metallica songs during that period, but not any that I didn't already own on CD. Thus, none of my downloads were violations: I just didn't want to spend the time ripping them myself. How can anyone know how many real violations are occuring??

--

Re:I Expected Lars To Be More Of A Dumbass

[Hrunting]

As an example, let's say that someone posts the full text of an entire collection of novels on Usenet. The author of those novels finds the owner of the account who is responsible for posting them and, instead of targetting Usenet and seeking to 'shut it down', takes action against the individual responsible for the distcint criminal act.

I thought Lars addressed this very well. USENET is different because it's a decentralized organization. USENET is just a network, a tool that people use for the transfer of this information and no one really controls it. Napster is different. People at Napster have setup this service which they are making money off of that facilitates the distribution of this stolen material. To take Lars' Suburban example, it's as if someone setup a shop where people could take their stolen cars and give them to other people, sort of a market. If it's a free market and people are doing this there, they go after the people selling, but if it's a specially setup market owned by someone who lets this happen right under their noses and who is fully aware this is happening, they'll go after that owner. Basically, the Napster folks are making money off facilitating a large amount of provably illegal activity.

Napster is not just a provider or tool here, but an actual facilitator, and that's where Lars his making his distinction. Personally, I think it'sp pretty valid.

All Recorded Songs are Copyrighted

[Brian Ristuccia]

Thats means there were...counting on fingers and toes... 28000 copyrighted songs to every song by an unsigned artist.

All songs, including those by unsigned artists, are copyrighted as soon as they are fixed onto a physical medium. Even songs without explicit copyright notices or on which such a notice has been intentionally omitted are copyrighted under the international Berne Convention, in effect in most countries including the United States.

General Notes

[pridkett]

Seeing as I'm too lazy to reply to every comment that I've seen here, I'm just going to put them all in one post.

There seems to be a lot of comments about Lars' poor grammar and what not. Did it not occur to some of you people that this was a transcribed audio interview (but don't try getting a copy and posting it on napster). If you do a word for word transcription of most people it sounds like that.

I think Lars makes a really good point where he talks about the scale of the whole thing. 1.4 million in a weekend, I can believe that stat (some of the other ones I question). That would be somewhere around 100000 albums. Sure not everyone would buy one, but some people would.

An interesting point which he alluded to, but didn't finish is something about emerging bands. Sure it provides an excellent way to get songs to the masses. But what happens once they are signed and people continue to trade all their songs on Napster or Gnutella or FreeNet? What then? Being signed once, they are now a commercial bust with no hope of becoming a commercial success. Which, despite what your saying and cursing under your breath right now, is what it's all about.

I think that Lars/Metallic and other bands would be much more open to a system where it was done on a permission level for bands and songs. It's quite clear that Lars has no problem with people trading bootlegs so they would probably allow those on such a service, but I don't imagine he want's people trading ReReLoad or whatever the next album is, two days after it comes out.

It's clear that Metallica has done their research on this issue, and Lars' shows that (after all who would openly admit to using AOL), so we should give them some credit for that. All of you people that think the record company put them up to this should go back to reading your conspiracy books and try to figure out who killed JFK.

A matter of ethics

[acb]

"rights" may not be the most sensible way to think of what you can do with a CD, given how difficult it is to define these things reasonably. A more sensible way to think of it is in terms of ethics and honesty; in terms of morality rather than legality. If you tape a friend's CD, or rip it to MP3s, that in itself doesn't hurt the performer; though you are morally obliged to buy a copy if you intend to make a habit of listening to it. If you own a CD, lending it to a friend is OK, but putting it online for millions of strangers to download for free is obviously quite wrong.

Re:No understanding of OSS *or* the internet

[acb]

Actually, that's not quite true. One could certainly sue websites hosting (or even linking to) Gnutella, as the MPAA have done with DeCSS. Whether they'd win or not is another question, though if they stand a decent chance, the lawsuit itself can serve as an intimidation tool.

Re:No understanding of OSS *or* the internet

[acb]

Do you try to stop the specification from being spread, or do you attack the myriad clients that pop up?

Well, most war3z p1mpz aren't going to code their own clients from scratch just to trade the latest Britney album, so if the same personnel whose job it is to search for pirate sites and take them down add Gnutella clients to their list of targets, that will keep Gnutella from having too much of an effect. Network effects are both its strength and weakness, and the fewer people are using the system, the less powerful it is.

And if you start filtering by packets, what's to stop someone from releasing a trivial change to the packet format that makes it untraceable again?

...and breaking all existing clients. Such defensive mutation will fragment the Gnutella network to the point where there are many small, mutually incompatible networks, which sort of defeats the purpose.

An example: why didn't Microsoft rewrite the Windows API every year or so to lock out competitors? Not because they're nice guys, but because they couldn't.

Re:Half-off-topic: Contempt for non-computer-peopl

[Chris Siegler]

So, what is it with this? Whence the instinctive assumption that people who aren't "into" computers can't possibly understand their implications? Can non-drummers appreciate good music?

Thanks! nicely put. I think because math, csci, and programming in general are such rigid disciplines, people less knowledgable of them are at a great disadvantage. A writer might find my grammer and writing style crappalicious, but it's pretty hard to prove it.

In fact, most people who don't know how to use computers are about as smart as the people who do know how to use computers.

Yeah, and I've never understood why there is a perception that they're not. It might go back to the fact that it's hard to prove it. But people who are gifted at art or whatever are no less intelligent as a whole--just misguided:)

A link to Chuck-D-versus-Lars debate excerpts:

[freeBill]

Excerpts from the Napster debate on Charlie Rose have been posted, but the whole interview is 20 minutes long. It's available (as a video or transcript) from 1-800-ALL-NEWS (1-800-255-6397).

The cameras do record Chuck D's bemused look while Lars is trying to explain technical issues (like how MP3s are perfect digital reproductions of the original masters).

Re:Mob rule

[Skip666Kent]

This mob rule mentality that has been adopted by many here is complete bullshit.

Actually, it's not. The Watts riots are a lousy analogy, unless the looters ran around 'copying' TV sets and home appliances without so much as tapping on a window or rattling a lock.

The Boston Tea Party, while not perfect, is a much better analogy.

But there needs to be a way for people to opt-out.

Fair enough. Good luck.

Bottom Line: Metallica and EVERY OTHER BAND distributed on Napster should be forced to PAY Napster for the free exposure and mind-share their service has provided. The book in you mail-slot will self-destruct in 5 seconds...

the points that shouldn't be ignored

[kevin lyda]

i think it's great that slashdot didn't edit out the comments and left that for us to pull out what was meaningful. and for me there were three comments he made that were of perticular interest. before i quote them here, i do want to make one point: a recent entry of crypto-gram made the point that if the information is brought down to a system there's no technical way to control what gets done with it. no copy-protection, encryption, or proprietary client will stop a determined person from making a (damn near perfect) copy of it. in my opinion there are three ways to stop unauthorised copying: ethics, laws, and ettiquitte. personally i'd rather not use the law and instead work to raise peoples' levels of courtesy and ethics. i think it was larry wall who mentioned that the ethically immature mistake giving for taking? or something of that nature.

also, i'm not a metallica fan, but after reading this i have respect for lars. he makes good points. techno-clueful or no, he sees the big picture a lot better than many people who post here. here is where i think he makes his points best:

[...]
And I want the right to control what is mine. And if I decide to give
-- I respect the next guy, who wants to put his music on Napster, but I
want him to respect the fact that maybe I don't. It's that simple. It's
really the point.

[...]
when we monitored Napster for 48 hours three weekends ago, we came up
with the 1.4 million downloads of Metallica music, there was one, one
downloading -- one! of an unsigned artist the whole time. You can sit
there and talk about how this is great for up and coming artists or for
unsigned bands, but a big counterargument that nobody gets is, me and
you could form a band together, and we could like, make a demo and then
we could put it up on Napster. Who is going to give a fuck? Nobody's
going to care, because they don't know anything about what sets my and
your band out from the gardener and the guy who cleans my pool's band.

[...]
I believe ultimately -- and this is sort of what I was talking about
before -- that the hardest thing about this is to try and come up with
a system where it becomes an individual's right to choose how he will
want to partake in this sort of stuff through the Internet. That's the
hardest thing because it becomes very difficult, it's very difficult
to generalize, like I said before. It's not fair to sit there and say,
'Napster can't exist,' because there are people who would like to use
it. And it's not fair to sit there and say 'It has to exist and you have
to be part of it,' for the people who don't want to use it. That's where
it gets really tricky. There are people who are far smarter than me on
this, people that will ultimately ... I believe that five years from now,
there will be systems in place where the artists and the owners of the
intellectual property -- and remember, we're not just talking about music.

Re:My note to Metallica.com last night...

[otis wildflower]

If you had to live the life of a musician, I doubt you would be so keen on giving discounts.

If the alternative is to thumb my nose at poor college students and sow dissention in the fanbase, I'd consider educating myself in the new technology and the irrevocable changes that technology caused right quick.

It's a _tough_business_ and the fact that Metallica has had remarkable _longevity_ is a credit to both their intelligence (not "book learning") and their talent.

It's also a business that has, as its primary profit model, the control and sale of media. That profit model is now, with a keystroke, stiflingly obsolete. They did great in the past by playing by those rules, no doubt, and big respect for that. However, those rules are absolutely and completely demolished by the Internet. The question is: what are the new rules? How do I win the new game?

I don't recall Lars making any suggestions as to how you should do _your_ job or how you should be compensated for it.

Yes, but a large percentage of his income is now dominated by the rules of _my_ game, and I've been playing this game for decades. I don't presume to tell him or anyone else how to do their jobs (except for my lackeys ;) ;) but I _do_ offer insights into the nature of my game that are hard-won over years. I do so hoping that they can reconcile themselves with as little damage to their livelihoods and my community as possible. It's an 'intervention'.

It was obvious to me that he stuck to talking about what he knows, and where his knowledge was lacking he made an effort to become informed.

Very true, but it should be clear by now that his knowledge is now obsolete. His efforts to become informed are laudable, and my efforts are aimed at offering food for thought, and peaceful ways of migrating his expectations and business model to the new era by applying lessons learned in a similar field with decades of experience facing the same issues.

Perhaps you should quit your job and become a musician, tell you what, just do it for 5 years (should be enough time for someone as savvy as yourself to master an instrument and build a following) and then see if you feel the same way.

I would turn that around and offer Lars the opportunity to become a junior sysadmin and master _my_ instruments (Cisco routers, 3Com/Bay/Cisco switches, Solaris/Linux/HP-UX/Tru64/*BSD, sendmail, bind, apache, bugzilla, XFree, etc...) in order to inform his mindset regarding the internet and its effects on his field of endeavor.

At least then maybe you be somewhat qualified to have an informed opinion.

Not to sound too egotistical (egotistical sysadmin? Moi?) but I'm thinking that at some point, maybe Lars needs to worry about how informed _his_ opinion is?

Remember, and keep this in mind first: the old media pricing model is thoroughly smashed. All other constructive discourse can only start with that as the primary underlying assumption.

Your Working Boy,

Re:Wow. That was a fucking cool interview.

[Darchmare]

---
I might choose to use the word "misinformed" instead of "ignorent". If only to avoid the hostile tone of someone that may occasionally make a mistake.
---

I agree that avoiding a hostile tone is a good thing, but...

'Misinformed' is not knowing the statistic. 'Ignorant' is repeating a highly questionable statistic in a public forum as if it were fact.

Of course, that's assuming that this statistic isn't true - I find it pretty hard to believe though...

- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)

Re:Ignore Lars at your Peril?

[hobbit]

I think that he was reasonably well-articulated, but nonetheless glossed over the cruxes of the argument. Case in point:

you know, when somebody fucks with what we do, we go after them. You don't sit down and sort of try and sort of justify yourself, well, 'Maybe our time and energy would be better spent thinking about something a year or two from now.'

Otherwise known as a 'kneejerk reaction'.

Hamish

No, the scale just make it's high profile

[Pierre]

The scale get is notice but it's wrong either way.

I have agreed with Metalica's right to do with their music from the start. It just like a software developers right to choose a license for their work. I may not always like the choice but I respect it and would people to do the same for my work.

I think it's clear in this interview that Lars is being hypocritical when it comes to copies. An illegal copies is an illegal copy. It doesn't matter how good or how bad your Xerox was.

That is the thing that bugged me about this interview. He flips back and forth from strong ethical arguments to strong cash flow arguments. It's my work I should have control over it's distribution to Well that's different it was an analog copy.

come on...

Record Companies: Death of...

[FFFish]

"...record companies will never be
completely extinct, for one reason and one reason only, that there will always be a need to develop younger artists"

There are artists who 'groom' or, shall we say, 'venture captilize' new artists. They have their own labels, help these up-and-comings learn the ropes, etc.

Seems to me that there are enough successful bands that this sort of a model could be used to completely eliminate the big record companies.

--

Grammar

[Signal 11]

Let me just say that, after today, I will never ever criticize any of the slashdot authors again for grammar / linguistic errors.

Re:Journalistic ethics

[deusx]

Lars' own words (emphasis mine):

... But I should also say that we are, we're also, this is going to sound -- make sure you don't edit this! -- we're also, I know this is going to sound like we're full of ourselves, but I know we're also quite smart ...

This is more a transcript of a conversation, and I think I can accept that without thinking Lars was intentionally made to "look like a moron".

So, I'd say that respecting his wishes to forego anything except minor editing shows very decent ethics.

Re:I Expected Lars To Be More Of A Dumbass

[elflord]

So? I'm still not dispossessing you of it; I'm possessing myself of it

OK, I acknowledge that a deadbeat is different from a thief (-;

Actually, the economics of it are simple enough for everyone to understand. Let's say that authors are, in total, payed the same under the new system as they are now. In that case, people would, on average, spend the same amount of money.

... but the way the costs were distributed would change.

However, they would have access to orders of magnitude more information.

There are already public libraries and radio shows. I doubt that it would make a whole lot of difference.

A person could have every piece of music ever recorded in his personal collection.

(a) The utiity of this would be somewhat limited.
(b) Not really true anyway, because you'd still need to pay for media asnd distribution.

Once again, problems which are impossible for me to address, as you failed to list any of them.

Allow me to spell it out to you -- when you have a self selected sample, you have big problems. I thought this was self-evident. For example, how many people would be prepared to write down on their tax form that they purchased 100 pornographic videos last year ? Basically, what this idea says is "give up your right to privacy or we'll retrench your favourite artist". I think that if you have a lot of people refusing to cooperate, then it is a big problem. Of course, if almost everyone cooperates, it not a big problem. If you ask people to put this kind of data on their tax forms, you'll have a lot of people that will refuse to do so.

In the example with the scientist, typically, they will be funded by a university. This works well for scientists. It also works well for musicians, some of whom are also publically funded ( again, by universities ). However, I don't see why this model need be practised to the exclusion of the copyright system. BTW, with the inventor, what you are forgetting is that they could patent their invention. This is how companies protect their inventions. So in short, there are also systems in place to protect inventors ( I'm not going to discuss their effectiveness ). The difference in this case is that patent protection which is applicable to scientific discoveries is considerably more far-reaching than copyright protection, and if it's abused, it is more of an obstruction than a benefit to inventors. OTOH, copyrights are rather narrow -- it is quite difficult to independently create a work identical to an existing copyright work.

Re:I Expected Lars To Be More Of A Dumbass

[elflord]

Public libraries are very limited. Radio even more.

Sorry, I just disagree. When I was in high school, I listened to all the jazz classics, and they were all at the public library. They also had all kinds of way-out genres of music. I don't think radio is that limited. Many radio stations, using something rather similar to this "street performer" thing you are so fond of, are able to offer a broad range of music. If there was a dearth of good member supported stations, this would IMO be strong evidence that the "street performer" model doesn't work. BUt IMO it works pretty well for radio stations.

b) The infrastructure that will be in place in one or two years will be capable of streaming music into homes for a low monthly fee.

Maybe for upper/middle class Americans who live near the city, yes. For most people, it won't be.

And the problem with allowing the scientist to copyright his discovery is that it will increase the number of people who will be bald and have scales on their faces.

Simply put, NONSENSE. Anyone can write a review of the article that the scientist publishes. Of course, if they invent a cure for something and patent their invention, then that's a different thing altogether. But copyright itself does not impede "the flow of information", it simply impedes plagiarism. I am not violating a copyright by reviewing or summarising the findings of a copyrighted work. BTW, scientific articles are usually copyrighted to the journal in which they are published or the author.

It is better than not for the scientist for him to be able to extort a price based on the utility of his discovery (rather than the cost), but he is in no way entitled to this.

You are talking nonsense. Copyright does not enable him to extort a damn thing. Anyone can read his paper until they understand the phenomenom, and write their own article and release it to the public. This is not a copyright violation.

It appears that you agree that there is no difference between authorship and other public goods (as you have listed none).

In the example you mention ( a scientific discovery ) there are several differences.

This seems to me to lead to the conclusion that authorship should be encouraged by society by whatever means is most beneficial to society, and that authors have no rights beyond that. Do you agree?

You could argue that all rules should only be made for the benefit of society and noone has any rights beyond that. And maybe that's good enough for the average Marxist, or utilitarian ( who are both concerned primarily with the "good of society", but measure this in different ways ) The problem with this is that it sets the scene for a "tyranny of the majority". So I don't really agree with your point of view. The fact that something might seem "better for society" is not in itself a justification. However, I think that in this case, what is good for authors is by and large good for the public. I consider copyrights to be good for both. Tax-dollar funded music is also good for both, but it's not a replacement for the copyright system IMO. The "street performer" idea is interesting, but in practice it doesn't seem that bands have had success in raising much funds this way. The model does work quite well for public radio though.

Re:I Expected Lars To Be More Of A Dumbass

[elflord]

t's not *used* for radio stations. Radio stations are based on advertisements, who pay based on ratings.

Have you heard of "member supported" radio stations ? These radio stations basically get their income by panhandling for donations from subscribers, who are usually the listeners. Such radio stations typically offer a more diverse selection of music, and do a better job at catering to niche markets.

The point is that your previous justification of copyright applies also to the discovery. In order for you to be consistent, you must support the ability of the scientist to prevent other people to use his discovery for their own benefit.

No, I don't "have to" support this. The problem with this is that the protections the scientist would enjoy are considerably more far reaching, and indeed could serve as an obstruction to scientists working independently. So in this case, the "protections" given to the scientist could infringe on the rights of other scientists.

Re:I Expected Lars To Be More Of A Dumbass

[elflord]

Let's not pretend for a moment that there is anything "peaceful" about what is in fact a large scale attempt to circumvent the artists primary means of compensation. There is nothing "peaceful" about dispossesion. What we have here is an unruly mob who commit their acts of dishonesty by stealth, and then claim that their acts are somehow "peaceful" by virtue of their stealth. To me, it seems that their acts are "peaceful" in the same way that a cat burgalar is "peaceful". Sure, the law is not a moral absolute, but "information wants to be free" is certainly not a moral absolute either -- actually, it's usually used as a justification for freeloading. BTW, look up "information" in a dictionary. Music does not really qualify.

I am not even going to address your garden analogy, other than to point out that analogies are great if you don't have a real argument. A piece of music is not a garden, and it does not immediately follow that what is ( or isn't ) true for arguments somehow applies to music.

Re:I Expected Lars To Be More Of A Dumbass

[elflord]

There's nothing in principle wrong with circumventing peoples' means of compensation -- especially when those means require the use of force.

The very notion of property requires the use of force. The notion of "money" requires laws that forcefully obstruct you from counterfeiting. The fact that force must be used to protect the copyright holder does not mean that there is somehow something "wrong" with copyrights.

As for "nothing wrong with circumventing people's means to compensation", well I don't see how it's substantially different from theft. Circumventing a moral obligation to compense is IMO morally equivalent to outright theft. And yes, if the author wishes to choose the copyright scheme as their means of compensation, then I believe there is a moral obligation to recompense the author as required by the copyright. I think this case is made even stronger by the fact that copyright seems to be the most effective means of distributed payment -- it is the only one in widespread use today.

but to a certain extent we can say that if your occupation couldn't support you on a free market, you have no place complaining when it fails to support you

I don't see how copyrights are an obstruction to a "free market". You could use the same reasoning to argue that laws forbidding counterfeiting are somehow an "obstruction" to the free market. The fact that an asset is intangible does not mean that the law should not recognise and protect it. It seems that some musicians survive well in the free market -- consumers are certainly free to boycott bands that don't use the "street performer protocol", but it seems that consumers are voting for the copyright system in droves, with their wallets.

By the way, I am very glad you raised the notion of free markets. Tell me this -- if the "street performer" thing and all these other freeloader-friendly models are really superior to the copyright model, why haven't they prevailed, when the current law allows copyrights and other models to co-exist ?

Information is a public good.

Copyrighted works are not really "information". And I don't see why they are a "public good". I see this point of view as one step away from simply declaring that "property is a public good". Sure, it's tempting for someone who produces no creative work to claim that creative work is not something that one has the right to receive compensation for. But I think that this viewpoint smacks of an utter disrespect for the value of creativity.

Re:I Expected Lars To Be More Of A Dumbass

[elflord]

The point is that government-enforced monopolies require a force of a different kind than defensive. They require force taken against a peaceful action

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree here. As I've mentioned, I believe that this government action is defensive, because the action of illegaly copying is not at all peaceful. Rather, it is aggression by stealth. The stealth element does not make it peaceful. Dispossesing someone is an act of agression whether you do it quietly or loudly.

Money is, really, a type of contract. The reason it can't be copied is that one cannot sign another's name to a contract.

A software license is also a type of contract. Like money, copying restrictions are necessary to make the contract work.

Obviously you know that the purpose of copyright abolition is to make information more freely accessible to people. The less profitable nature of the creation of information is merely a side-effect. Why would I want authors to make less profits?

I think this says it all. You want to disposses the authors of their creative work and give it back to the "comrades". This kind of Marxist rhetoric has its place, but that place is not in a capitalist society.

No, my proposal is that the current solution in place is an action of government, in spite of the fact that it is not treated as such by people such as you

THe SEC regulations are also put their by "acts of government", but this does not mean that they should not be there. I would ask you what you propose in the place of the copyright system. It's not good enough to advocate vanmdalism of the current system if you are not willing or able to come up with viable alternatives.

Actually, I don't. What are you trying to say? That if I don't like the laws, I should move?

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that the current system fosters creativity, and your Marxist rhetoric taken to it's extreme does not. I am pointing out that the end result of an application of your ideas are probably not something you or anyone else will want to live with. Sure, in the short term, the rioting masses, like the LA mob, will get a cheap thrill from the fact that they can disposses others. Unfortunately, dispossesing others does not generate creative works, and while you get a short term flood, the long term effect is quite the opposite.

As for you having "the might", sure you do. This further advances my case that your actions are not at all peaceful. You are using your might to disposses others, in much the same way that the LA mob did. You are no more peaceful than the thugs who broke windows and looted stores, even if you have more stealth than them.

That's exactly like something I proposed earlier in this thread (RMS's suggestion)! Go look it up.

I will. I bet that if RMS likes it though, it's a freeloader-friendly idea. Freeloader friendly ideas simply are not viable, because once you allow freeloading, you provide disincentives to pay up, namely "why should I if I don't have to". Unless you fund it through the tax system ( which is the solution to the policing problem you raised earlier )

It limits what two consenting adults can do alone in a vacuum.

If one of the consenting adults is the copyright holder, this is false ( otherwise, the copyright holder could hold out until the other guy pays up ). On the other hand, if neither is, then you are still wrong, because they are not "in a vacuum" -- the copyrighted work is there as well.

I don't see how extending the realm of government subsidies of the arts to popular music would create any more of a problem.

How do we decide who gets funding ? There are definitely problems using this model as a replacement for the copyright system, though I could certainly accept it as a supplement. Ditto for software. I do not object to the existence of such a system, but I certainly object to it being practised to the exclusion of the copyright system.

Re:I Expected Lars To Be More Of A Dumbass

[elflord]

I don't know what you mean by "in relation to computers". Music simply put does not meet the criteria for any definition of information I could find.

And I dispute your claim that "information is free". Firstly, it is certainly possible to build draconian measures to make it difficult to distribute copyrighted works, it's just a matter of making the measures sufficiently draconian that they're impossible to circumvent. However, most authors of copyrighted works have found that at a certain point, it's more profitable to have faith in the common decency of the user base.

Secondly, just because it's easy to commit immoral acts does not make it right. There are many immoral behaviours, some legal, and some not, that cannot be justified by the fact that it's easy, and convenient to commit them. Do not mistake expediency for righteousness.

Thirdly, the fact that something is "out in the open" does not mean that it's free.

Re:I Expected Lars To Be More Of A Dumbass

[elflord]

ronic that you use this word. Copying something of yours doesn't dispossess you of it.

On a large scale, it does -- because it reduces my creative work to something worthless. My creation is being widley used but I'm not getting payed. Does this not seem unjust ? If you put in a good weeks work, and then the boss only decided to pay you for 4 days work, would you feel like you'd been screwed ?

You're dodging the point about the money analogy not being applicable, but in any case, a software license only applies to people who agree to it.

If the license costs money, and the copier is assisting a lot of people from purchasing the license, then they are involved in the copyright violation. The people who don't buy a license are not entitled to use the software, and the people that copy the software for the benefit of such people are accessories to this breach.

Rather than answer you here, I'll direct you to my previous post, here

Ah yes, freeloader friendly. Sure to be popular on slashdot because you get something for nothing. However, the problem is that once the item can be freely copied, there's no reason to buy it. Someone can just burn "warez" copies that are just as good sound-quality wise. This is why we have copyrights in the first place.

Based on usage

You can't measure usage based on sales ( which will, incidently, be minimal since there's not really an incentive to buy it once you allow copying ). As for this idea of tracking devices, this idea is objectionable from a privacy standpoint. I don't want the feds monitoring my listening habits. This is worse, much worse, than intel's pentium III number thing. This is the kind of breach that the typical slashdotter goes blue in the face about, but I suppose it's alright as long as the end result is that you get something for nothing.

Re:I Expected Lars To Be More Of A Dumbass

[elflord]

There appears to be no relevant difference between authorship and other public goods. You have certainly had opportunity to point one out, but have failed.

I have pointed it out. The difference is that in the case of authorship, the standard that should be met is that it should be almost impossible to independently produce the same work.

Applying copyright-like treatment to other public goods shows its absurdity as a right applying to all public goods

Yes, because with other public goods, it's more difficult for anyone to legitimately claim any sort of ownership or right to control -- because it's possible, and often probable, that two parties could independently produce the same public good. Take for example, an algorithm -- it's highly probable that two people could independently come up with the same algorithm, so giving one of those parties a monopoly would clearly be arbitrary and unfair. This is my main objection to applying copyright-like treatment to other public goods.

If there is some reason people should be believed to have a right to monopoly over the benefits of their public good, you have not listed it.

I believe that someone who produces a creative work has more right to profit from it than someone who didn't produce that work. It boils down to the basic idea that there should be a marketplace for intangible assets, whether or not those intangible assets are what you would call "public goods".

Explain the criteria for deciding whether a public good should be compensated by government through forced taxation and direct payment.

I guess I could concede that ultimately, the criterion for deciding any law is whether society will benefit. The specific legislative choices one makes boil down to what you believe is good for society. The reason that we have "rights" in the first place is to create the foundation for a civilised society.

I do not believe that "direct payment" constitutes "compensation by the government", it is merely a legislative device which recognises ownership of the right to payment for a the copying of a creative work, ie it is an extension of the notion of property.

As for your question of deciding whether the benefits should be monopolized by the author, I would suggest that the only case they should be is in the case where the thing in question is really "the authors"; that which is now covered by copyright. You cannot "own" an idea in any reasonable sense of the word "own", because it is plausible and indeed likely that someone else could independently have the same idea. However, copyrighted works do not have this problem -- you are not going to independently produce a precise duplicate of a Metallica recording without copying it.

Re:I Expected Lars To Be More Of A Dumbass

[elflord]

Not really. It only requires the prevention of force. Of course, the prevention of force generally must be done via force. But no force other than the prevention of force is required for private ownership of property. This is not the case for copyright

I am not clear on how theft always requires force. Entering an open window doesn't require force. Breaking into a car doesn't require any more "force" than circumventing a technological copy protection mechanism. The fact that copyright violaters are more like cat burglars than armed robbers does not make a big difference IMO.

Copy protection is unprecidented.

I am not clear on what you mean by this. However, I'll point out that the question of copyright protection is really only an issue because it's easy to copy nowadays. Before it was easy to copy, it was less of an issue.

It's one thing to protect an asset from being taken, and quite another to prevent it from being copied.

You could say the same about money. The problem is that copying money degrades the currency. Likewise, copying intellectual assets destroys the information economy ie it makes it next to impossible for the authors of creative content to be compensated. This is why we have an "information economy" in the first place.

Well, government-enforced monopoly is not a free market.

The government have a monopoly on printing dollar bills, so you could equally argue that this is not a "free market". The fact that you recognise creative works ( or more precisely, the right to control a creative work ) as having an owner does not violate the definition of free market. It simply broadens the notion of property in such a way as to recognise that creative work does have value and can be sold on the market place.

[irrelevant analogies snipped]
If the "street performer protocol" and other methods are really a more efficient way of doing things, then surely, it should replace the copyright system -- because it will give consumers a better deal without harming the author. However, this is not the case. The truth is that these models make it easy to freeload ( which I take it is precisely why slashdotters argue so passionately for them ) and provide an economic disincentive for anyone to pay up ( namely: "I'll just let someone else pay up, since I can get the product anyway" ). Basically, these "ideas" assign zero value in an economic sense to the production of creative works. This is a problem, and the only viable solution appears to be to create an economic system for creative works, which is essentially what copyright is about.

Why would they? If the government is granting someone privilege, why would they voluntarily surrender it?

At least we agree that the copyright abolitionists are primarily trying to make life less profitable for the authors of creative works.

If everyone on the block combines to form a pool to pay a guard together, it's in my best interests not to join -- they'll pay either way, and I'll get the service either way. Etc. Information fits well into that category. It's a common problem, and the usual solution is government.

I see. So is your proposed solution in this instance "government" ? I think someone else mentioned something like "go move to Havana and listen to the state orchestra" -- kind of blunt, but you get the idea, huh ?

The problem is that with creative works, we really need some kind of market place, so that consumers can vote, instead of the government dictating the terms to consumers. In some sense, the idea of having the government directly control creative content is more of a violation of free market principles than simply saying "we need some kind of economic system to handle creative works" and inventing copyrights.

Re:I Expected Lars To Be More Of A Dumbass

[elflord]

o matter how many times I copy it, you still have the idea. You can still use it.

The utility of it greatly decreases, since the main use it has for the author is as a source of income.

If you think my undercutting your prices and beating you in business is "dispossessing" you, then.. well.. then your comments have no place in a capitalist society ;)

You are not competing fairly ! I am making a creative work, AND trying to distribute it, you are merely distributing it ( ie leeching off my creative work ). Do you see the problem with this ??? The problem is precisely that it assigns zero economic worth to the creative process -- the only way to be compensed is by distribution. The artist is doing the "real work", and yet, you are trying to argue that a random distributor is a deserving of compensation as the artist. This I find absurd.

Taxes are not "nothing".

No, they're not. But you'll have one hell of a hard time explaining to the American people why it's in their best interests to pay more taxes. One thing I really don't like about using government funds is that the whole thing would become a political football, and it would be vulnerable to cuts whenever someone who didn't like music got in. The Universities have the same problems nowadays.

Right, and in the face of that sort of competition, CD's would obviously become much cheaper than they are now.

As I said, I don't think that kind of competition is fair, because it completely ignores the fact that the artists contribution, and only recompenses distributors. The artist only receives compensation for their efforts as a distributor, but not as an artist. There's better ways of acheiving the same effect. One is to prevent record distributors from acquiring exclusive distribution rights.

Well, it could obviously be voluntary.

And as such, obviously problematic.

for the reason that you had the option of expending effort on something that is *not* a public good instead.

Well I guess it boils down to whether or not we are serious about creating financial incentives for those who expend effort on what you call a "public good". Copyrights certainly do this. A tax funded system could also do this, but it has a lot of problems -- it's vulnerable to political interference and sudden funding cuts, and the American public are not great fans of tax increases.

If I plant some trees and, through various methods, cut my CO2 emissions in half thus benefitting the entire world, do I have a *right* to payment?

The way I'd look at it is that if you do pollute, you should be penalised financially depending on how much you pollute. Since everyone does it to some degree, the "penalty" should be compensatory as opposed to punitive. It's only fair, you're trashing the public space. Now if you're trashing the public space *less* than everyone else, then I would certainly argue that relative to everyone else, you are entitled to favourable treatment, which means lower taxes.

I Feel Your Woe

[ch-chuck]

It is poignant to hear this guy standing up for the rules that every composer/author/producer plays by - and getting smeared over it - but hey, these bad boys are just typecast for it, pay up or go to hell! You want free music? Move to Havana and enjoy the state orchestra. Let's see some garage bands produce records and GPL them, that'd be cool, just don't quit your day job.

BTW - todays UserFriendly is apropos.

Re:Two points: transcript and monitoring Napster

[GoRK]

On the other hand, they could have performed a statistical analysis of files from a random sampling of users........... users with lots/few files ... high/low speed etc..... in order to determine what % were unsigned vs commercial artists...

then they set up a farm of computers that duplicate on a small scale offering a sampling of these files (or simply advertize the files for download w/o the actual files) and monitor the download requests from their own equipment..

it's statistical analysis. a measurement of this sort of thing is possible however breaking it down to say "only one" is not good form. There is probably a huge amount of error in this number. As many as 5000 or so indy songs might have been moved around and their sampling only saw one transfer.

Still, it must be said that however the measurement was taken the number of indy band songs that they saw "move" was 1.

Totally.

[VValdo]

English spoken out loud generally reads like that. Most interviews you read in magazines have all the "uhs" and little rambles cut out. It was pretty refreshing to see a totally unfiltered unedited transcript.

If you don't believe me, try this-- grab a tape recorder and go somewhere public (a restaurant or whatever) and record a conversation. Then take the tape home and transcribe it word for word.

You'll notice---

1. People don't listen to each other at all
2. People contradict themselves constantly
3. People very frequently make little sense
4. Conversation is usually aimless, fractured, and repetative.

In light of that, I think Lars did pretty well.
W

PS-- actually doing the exercise above in your area may/may not be legal. Don't get caught. (Alternately, you might go read some trial transcripts where a non-professional witness describes some event.)
-------------------

Re:He speak english right?

[jms]

Most published interviews are cleaned up. This one was obviously not. I think he made his point clear.

A sidenote -- Historians are pretty sure that the Lincoln/Douglas debates of 1858 have been preserved nearly word for word. The debates were published by both pro-Lincoln papers and pro-Douglas papers. The pro-Lincoln papers would edit Lincoln's speeches to tighten them up, while deliberately quoting Douglas word-for-word, leaving in all of his incomplete sentences and errors to make him appear to be less coherent. The pro-Douglas papers did the exact opposite. Put the two together, and a complete transcript emerges!

Not that I'm drawing any comparisons. Trust me, I'm not! :-)

Re:good point

[FreeUser]

Why? Because I suspect that number is self-limiting, in a way that MP3's aren't. Bootleg tapes of studio albums aren't that good. They wear out. Hell, I haven't personally put any music but mine on a tape in at least five years. People tend to buy CD's if they like an album... IF the copy they have now isn't a perfect, non-degrading, digital one.

I probably should have included unauthorized CD copies people have made with their CDR burners and $0.75 blank CD's when I made that point. This technology has been in the mainstream for going on three years (and I don't know anybody who hasn't made an illegal CD).

These are digital copies with no reduction in quality (unlike mp3's, which lose significant quality in the first generation). I suspect of Lars were able to count the number of metallica CD's alone, he would be horrified (and justly so).

Nevertheless, despite 3 years of widespread availability and use of CD burners, and over 1 year of widespread mp3 usage, CD sales are up.

You've got lots of ideas for how a band can get sold among the tiny little group of people who are out looking for new bands. Record companies have found ways to get a new band sold to people who are in music stores. Until you can do that in your business model, you're not improving on anything.

From the RIAA's point of view, the emerging paradigm will certainly not be an improvement over the stranglehold they currently enjoy over marketing, distribution, etc.

The reality is that the internet in general, and mp3 technology in particular, have fundamentally changed the economic landscape with regard to the distribution of mass media. Either you change your business model to take that into account, whether or not it is an "improvement" over the existing monopolistic cartel (from your point of view), or you simply go under.

Legislation, legal thuggary, and the like will do little to stem the tide. Even if the United States were to resort to extreme authoritarian measures to maintain the status quo, you can count on most of the rest of the world (Europe possibly excepted) putting up some resistence. Given the nature of the internet, even one small island refusing to go along with such nonsense will suffice to undermine the entire effort.

Enter technologies like FreeNet and begin to see how fruitless such efforts at putting the genie back in the bottle really are.

In short, adapt to the new reality or perish.

Re:My note to Metallica.com last night...

[FreeUser]

Excellent idea, and extremely well-put. But -- and I don't say this to be a jerk -- what's to prevent passing along the (say) unique serial number on your CD? Is everyone gonna bring their CD to Ticketmaster to get the discount on tix?

If the number were coupled to your credit card number (which would be needed to unlock and activate it) you would provide both a mechanism and a powerful incentive for not passing your serial number along. Numerous ways exist for doing this, from databases of registered "purchasers" (CDs) to standard public key/private key cryptography (for purchased mp3's). The latter would combine nicely with a "buy and download the mp3 now, your CD will arrive in a few days" sales approach.

Yes, there might be theft, just as there is credit card theft and fraud today, but existing law is more than adeqaute to address these issues. In any event, you can bet no one would be giving their credit card number out promiscuously.

Re:ONE unsigned download? / OT: mp3.com banned me

[FreeUser]

As an aside, my side project, XIR (xir is recursive) has banned me for making a song called "kill everyone who works at mp3.com" bad taste? sure, but it was obviously a joke and I put it in the comedy genre and deleted it when they put it on hold, but now XIR is no more on mp3.com

So is there somewhere else I could download the mp3 from? Preferably with a clear license attached, assuring me its ok to do so? I'm kind of curious to hear the "kill everyone who works at mp3.com" song.

:-)

Preemptive release.

[Christopher Thomas]

They just want to make music, want to sell it, want to have it spread. We want to hear it, obviously, and share it. Can some genius, someone with the right insight and the right knowledge, right now work a system up that puts all of this together and create a win-win situation?

Someone in a previous article suggested a solution that might help - the band releasing a lower-quality MP3 preemptively.

The MP3 would be high enough quality to sound decent, but low enough that you'd still notice the difference buying the CD. Laziness being what it is, this would stop most people from ripping the CD themselves.

The band wins because people who like several of their songs are likely to buy their CDs to get better quality (free advertising). The people win because they can listen to free songs.

Ugh, hard to read.

[Bad Mojo]

I'm not Metallica fan. I like a few of their songs. They seem to be somehwat talented. But I can't for the life of me, listen or read Lars. He's like a damned valley girl in post-op and his thought process is all over the place. It makes it very hard to even get what he's talking about other than a stream of consciencesness. Ugh!


Bad Mojo

Re:gi

[DJerman]

He indicated it was pretty low, and it's like asking a computer maker "how much profit do you make on this sale?". Fair question, but if he tells you he's given up his negotiating advantage for that next contract :-).

Kudos to Lars...

[Robotech_Master]

...for coming through with a great interview. Even if you can't agree with some things he says, he definitely had some good answers there, and if he rambled a bit from time to time, well, that just goes to show it's authentic, not a scripted party line. I think on the whole he did a pretty good job here.
--

Re:Kudos to Lars...

[Skinka]

I think this is by far the most interesting interview slashdot has ever conducted. I think it has a lot to do with the fact that it was done over a phone, not by email. I think most people really can't (I know I can't) express themselves in a written form. Face to face or even by phone, people tend to be more open and sincere (less self censorship), and generally get the message through more clearly. Also, anyone who has ever taken part in a flame war knows how easy it is to interpet bit of sarcasm in an e-mail as someone saying "you're complete fuckup, I wish you'd just shut the hell up and let the more mature people talk". If you still remember the John Vranesevich interview you know what I'm talking about (in this case the questions were somewhat offensive, though).

Great job guys, thanks to Timothy, the people asking the questions and all the moderators for selecting this incredibly good set of questions. Really good stuff!

Re:Journalistic ethics

[Robotech_Master]

Allow me to call your attention back to part of the interview--specifically, to the line I've highlighted in bold.

But I should also say that we are, we're also, this is going to sound -- make sure you don't edit this! -- we're also, I know this is going to sound like we're full of ourselves, but I know we're also quite smart.

Get it?

Besides, if it had been edited and cleaned up, then everyone would have been ragging on it being the lawyers speaking, not Lars. This way you can be pretty darned sure it's the genuine article.
--

Whose vision is Utopian?

[BeBoxer]

You say that the vision of free exchange of information is Utopian, and you're right in many ways. However, the vision that Lars has that he can actually exert control over all copies of his music is equally Utopian (or Orwellian depending on your point of view.) The simple reality is that you can exert some control in some circumstances. But, you can't stop people from simply creating a new venue for exchange that you don't control.

I think that the music industry can remain relevant and competitive, but not with it's current tact. Take Napster for example. They want to hold Napster liable for the people who misuse it's product. By this train of logic, if people were trading songs via email (a fairly easy thing to set up.), Metallica would be harassing Microsoft for making email programs.

In order to prosper in the new economy, I believe that the music industry (and all other IP-based industries really) need to adopt the following strategy.

First, use the legal system against the individuals who are illegally distributing your music. Can you stop them all? No, don't be ridiculous. But that's not the point. All you need to do is make them hide. Make sure the general public can't find them just by doing a Yahoo search. Any pirate distributor who is dumb enough to make themself easily visible and accessable to the general public is also accessable to your lawyers. Remember, the goal is not to eliminate all sources of pirated material. The goal is to push it underground so that it's a pain in the ass to find and use.

Second, make your music easily available over the Internet on YOUR terms. The public wants to be able to easily download music off the Internet. If it's not on your terms, it's on somebody elses terms. But the bottom line is that your music WILL end up on the Internet. Have a web site where your fans can easily sign up and purchase your music for a reasonable price. If you don't provide this option, they have no choice but to go to the pirates. However, if you make your site attractive, affordable, and a pleasure to use your fans will use it. Assuming that you've done your work in step one and made it a pain in the ass to get music from the pirates.

The bottom line is that the media companies cannot stop piracy. But, they can compete with it.

Re:Digital Media, Scarcity and Entropy

[Sloppy]

With the existence of digital media and the ability to create unlimitied perfect copies, the notion of scarcity ceases to exist.

The time and effort to create the master copy is scarce. That scarcity is amortized across all the digital copies, making their cost nonzero.

---

Lars has part of it backwards

[Sloppy]

Where it can affect people, where it is about money, is for the band that sells 600 copies of their CD, ok? If they all of a sudden go from selling 600 copies of their CD down to 50 copies, because the other 550 copies get downloaded for free, that's where it starts affecting real people with real money.

I would expect a former metalhead to know more about how word gets out in the underground. The band that only sells 600 copies is the one that has the most to gain from internet exposure, since they're about to go from 600 to 6000, not from 600 to 50.

I participate on a few metal-related discussion web boards. Sometimes, someone will mention a band that no one else has heard of. "Got an MP3?" someone will ask. The MP3 gets around, and the next thing you know, 20 people have just contacted their music vendor to order the CD. And then they start spreading the word...

The kind of people who are interested in a band that might only sell 600 copies, are exactly the kind of people who do have the ethical restraint to keep from pirating whole albums (unless they're out of print or otherwise unavailable), and who understand that the bands need to be nurtured. I'm disappointed that Lars doesn't seem to remember his origins.

It's only the bands that depend on commercial mass media push, that have anything to fear from the mass media losing power. 600 copies to 6000. 6 million copies to 3 million.

---

Re:All right Mr. RIAA wannabe troll

[seebs]

I never said you never said anything useful, just that that particular comment was stunningly unuseful.

Go ahead, call names. The fact is, taking people's stuff without their permission is "theft".

Metallica is not trying to "establish control over the industry". He's saying "hold on, you can't just take my stuff". Hasn't got a damn thing to do with the RIAA.

My God, it's pathetic how easily you polarize. You're all into this idea that anyone who doesn't think you have a God-given right to whatever the fuck you can take is somehow an "RIAA whore". Real mature of you. Shows a great deal of analysis of the issues.

You'll notice that Lars was speaking moderately positively of distribution channels like this if they can get the permission thing worked out. Is he saying "death to all record labels"? No, and in your eyes, that makes him an RIAA whore. I think he's just responding to the fact that he *does* know something about the industry, and you don't know jack shit about it. He's decided that he thinks record labels may be doing something useful, and that we shouldn't just write them off.

He's come to this with an open mind. You're so obsessed with the idea that anyone who doesn't want you stealing their stuff is some kind of evil scumbag, that you'll never realize that their experience might have something to show you.

I don't like the RIAA particularly. I don't think Metallica is a big fan of the RIAA. However, that doesn't mean that anything that might be of some benefit to the RIAA is necessarily wrong. Get over your attitude. You're a lot more ignorant than Lars is; he at least knows when he's guessing.

Re:shoulda known that you were a troll :P

[seebs]

Nice try. I particularly like how you copied my slashdot sig into an anonymous coward post. We all know the software appends your normal user .sig to AC posts, right?

SHEESH. I haven't signed as "-seebs" since I was a teenager.

If the best refutation you can come up with is to forge a post from me, well, that pretty much sums up your argument. "What I can do with technology must be ethical". Great logic, kid.

Re:I Expected Lars To Be More Of A Dumbass

[seebs]

Well, by the same token, it's totally unclear that people have any intrinsic right not to be killed; we created that one with law, too. :) You have to decide whether or not you like the law. If you don't, may I recommend Singapore? I think they have pretty lax copyright laws.

How about this: Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that we want musicians to be able to be professionals; that we want it to be possible to earn a living producing music. If we accept this premise, then we must resolve the question of how they are to get paid.

Before you dismiss copyright law, please suggest an alternative.

The burden of proof is on your side. The law, for all its flaws, is the best we've been able to come up with. It represents a serious effort by people who gave the matter serious thought, to attempt to come up with an equitable solution. The best argument you've had so far is "information wants to be free" - and it's not clear that this even applies, because creative works are a different category from the purely factual and informative information that phrase originally referred to.

If you think the law is wrong, provide a better alternative. In the mean time, yes, musicians have that right, for the same reason that you have a right to expect certain minimal standards from resturaunts, and the same reason that people aren't supposed to hit you with their cars. Because we all agreed to play by a set of rules.

Re:I Expected Lars To Be More Of A Dumbass

[seebs]

Well, if we hadn't created copyright law, you'd have a very good point.

However, we *DID* give the artists the right to withhold music.

You talk about "peacefully sharing information that will result in greater profits". First off, you're making a big assumption. Secondly, *IT IS NOT YOUR INFORMATION TO SHARE*.

Don't like it? Move to a company with no copyright - and not many artists.

Re:Half-off-topic: Contempt for non-computer-peopl

[seebs]

"Information wants to be free". So, we were wrong to ever create copyright law? The GPL is a joke and shouldn't be enforcable? How about a little basic consistency here.

Why do we need a music industry? Because, as a species, we're a bunch of cheap-ass fucks who would not, in fact, pay for art if we didn't have to.

Anyway, if we, as a society, have given artists control, then yes, it's wrong for us, as a bunch of computer geeks, to ignore that decision. Laws can be changed, and if the law is so obviously wrong as all that, we can probably get it changed. As soon as we offer a better alternative...
It may be that you, personally, just disagree with Lars. That's cool; your opinions are probably just as well researched as his, or mine, or anyone else's. What bugs me is the people who are using his non-techie nature as justification for trashing his beliefs. You see, he's thought about these issues too. He may have come to different conclusions than I have, or than you have, but that doesn't mean he's wrong, it just means the debate's still going.

Re:One major point...

[seebs]

Count the generations, though.

A copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of an MP3 is indistinguishable from the original MP3.

Re:I Expected Lars To Be More Of A Dumbass

[seebs]

Technology can't make copyright infringement ubiquitous, any more than it makes burglary ubiquitous.

Anyway, I'd *much* rather have copyright than some system based on taxation, because a system based on taxes will *never* support the kind of variety we enjoy today. The religious right will veto Trent Reznor's albums because they encourage gratuitous sex. Rap albums will get no funding, because some rap star says something misogynistic.

It's doomed.

Right now, it's possible for a lot of people to get paid for music. It is in our best interests, as consumers, to preserve this state until we have a *better* alternative - and not just more convenient for us, personally.

Re:good point

[seebs]

The CD's are an interesting question. I see no benefit to duping CD's; I already have the ones I want. Even then, it's still not a *distributed* medium; even if I were letting friends dup my CD's, the copies wouldn't be going to thousands of people.

MP3's are *not* widespread. Not by comparison with, say, CD players. MP3's aren't even close yet. In a couple years, when MP3 market penetration is in the tens of millions, and at least a few million of those people have portables, *THEN* we'll see what effect it has.

Also, "CD sales are up" and "MP3 is widely used" are not necessarily related. We're also, if you hadn't noticed, in a period of fairly strong economic growth, with record low unemployment, meaning, a lot of people who couldn't afford CD's in '98 may be able to now... We have no evidence for causality. (We also have no real evidence against it. My instinct is to guess that, right now, MP3's are having only marginal effects either way on CD sales.)

So, here's my question: Let's say that the music industry *can't* find a way to adapt to the MP3 thing, because there's nothing anyone cares about once they can copy MP3's. So, they go under.

What are we going to listen to? It may turn out that, once perfect copies are that easy, it's not worth it for anyone to go "pro". Touring may not be an option, if you can't make enough money on album sales to fund the marketing...

This is why I think we need to find a solution that keeps the musicians paid. The alternative might be a serious drop in the quantity and quality of new music produced.

First Sale Doctrine

[seebs]

The reason used CD sales got laughed at is the first sale doctrine. When you buy a physical embodiment of a copyrighted work, you can do *ANYTHING* with it except copy it. You can even copy it, for personal use, as long as all the copies stay "associated" with that original. You can sell a book that you've bought, even if it's in perfect condition. You can sell a CD, even if the sound doesn't degrade.

What you can't do is make copies and sell them, or make copies, and sell the original, or anything like that.

This is not the same shit at all. Fussing about used CD's is dumb; every used CD is a CD the record company *already* got paid for. At any given point, only one person owns that CD.

Fussing about Napster and MP3's is different; every new person getting a given MP3 is another *copy*, without any revenue for the copyright holder.

Not the same at all, and trying to make it look the same is either disingenuous or stupid.

Re:Half-off-topic: Contempt for non-computer-peopl

[seebs]

"freedom of information" is not a "fundemental law of cyberspace" any more than "freedom of bicycles" is a "fundemental law of guys with hacksaws".

Re:good point

[seebs]

Yeah, "do it for the love of music". That means no full-time efforts on producing albums. Crappy recordings because you can't afford studio time. Using lower-quality equipment so you can't get the sound you really wanted.

Imagine if you couldn't get paid for programming, so you were stuck using a 386 laptop running Windows 3.1, but you did it because you "loved programming". An improvement? I don't think so.

Get real; professional musicians are a good thing in terms of availability of music.

Re:Wow. That was a fucking cool interview.

[seebs]

Not especially suspicious. I've certainly never met anyone who used napster to get music that they couldn't have bought on CD.

It's easy to say he's "not the brightest man I've ever run across". Would you come out any better in a verbatim phone interview?

And I certainly don't think he's lying. Too far out of character.

Re:I Expected Lars To Be More Of A Dumbass

[Skinka]

I think this is by far the most interesting interview slashdot has ever conducted. I think it has a lot to do with the fact that it was done over a phone, not by email. I think most people really can't (I know I can't) express themselves in a written form. Face to face or even by phone, people tend to be more open and sincere (less self censorship), and generally get the message through more clearly. Also, anyone who has ever taken part in a flame war knows how easy it is to interpet bit of sarcasm in an e-mail as someone saying "you're complete fuckup, I wish you'd just shut the hell up and let the more mature people talk". If you still remember the John Vranesevich interview you know what I'm talking about (in this case the questions were somewhat offensive, though).

Great job guys, thanks to Timothy, Lars, the people asking the questions and all the moderators (for selecting this incredibly good set of questions). Really good stuff!

Digital Media, Scarcity and Entropy

[sterno]

Something useful to remember is that the existence of economies came about because of scarcity. There is only so much stuff in the world and since not everybody can have as much as they want of any of it, there has to be a way to figure out who gets what. Why does gas cost what it does? Because there's only so much of it in the world and it takes effort to get it out and available for use.

With the existence of digital media and the ability to create unlimitied perfect copies, the notion of scarcity ceases to exist. It is impossible to base an economy on the control of something that isn't scarce.

If you want to make money off of an inherently non-scarce resource, you must take a different approach. Once possiblity is to provide services that make the resource more valuable to others. Another possiblity is to artificially create scarcity.

Thus we get to the land of digital media today. Today we are entering a time when the media's scarcity is only loosely enforced by copyright due to the inability to prosecute people en masse. So, with no scarcity, money can not be made on control of the media. So, the record companies and bands can take either or both of the options.

They can try to focus more on live performances, providing was to help people manage and get the music they want, etc. They can also take the approach of creating artifical scarcity, using encyrption, etc, to prevent the free copying.

Their smartest pick will be option 1. The second approach, although creating an economic model they are familiar with is ripe for falling apart. Entropy suggests that things always want to return to their natural state, order become chaos, buildings crumble, etc. Encryption, and artificial barriers must be maintained, and they will always be try to self-destruct.

---

Lars, and the errant logic of OK/Not OK..

[Bowie J. Poag]

Bootlegging is OK.
Dubbing Metallica albums onto casette is OK.
Trading those casettes with people is OK.
But trading an MP3 is not?

What difference is it, other than the alignment of bits on magnetic surface? Would Lars be OK with it if Napster users traded MP3's of tracks ripped off explicitly off casettes?

I can understand Lars being pissed. I would be too. But the situation mandates he examine his own logic before attempting to scrutinize someone else's.


Bowie J. Poag

It's obvious that they are ignorant..

[Anonymous Shepherd]

Given his own admission. His pulling out of lawyers is not an admission of not caring, just of his reliance on the standard system, instead of trying to change the system.

At least, that's my take

-AS

Ideas

[Anonymous Shepherd]

A lot of people through out the idea of micropayments: Per minute or per song...

This isn't a bad idea, I guess. I was thinking there should be more, though, because you're paying for the distribution mechanism. What's stopping people from reposting the song back onto Napster or Gnutella once they pay for a copy? Perhaps the songs that Metallica releases should have a 'digital fingerprint', and go after Napster/Gnutella legally/technologically?

I would think membership and fan clubs, and as other people have pointed out, access to merchandise, t-shirts, concerts, etc, after showing proof of ownership, or by being a member.

Dunno, I think that's as many good ideas as I've seen today

-AS

You missed the point...

[CodeShark]

The whole copying controversy including MP3, Napster, and even the DeCSS/DVD fight comes down to one issue: analog duplication (with the accompanying degradations for every generation of the copy), vs. digital copying which is perfect in every generation.

Don't get me wrong by the way-- I'm all for downloading music and movies in a digital format, with one critical condition attached to it: that the artist and/or company representing the artist has put it up or given permission for distribution via the source where I download it.

Which IMHO may even include charging me for the download. Anything else isn't fair to the artist/company.

rights taken for granted

[logycke]

One of the points Lars makes is that people have been taking for granted their right to the free exchange of information. Meanwhile, he is taking for granted his right to own information. In the U. S., this is a right granted by Congress. It is supposed to represent the will of the people. If the people decide that it is not in their best interest for ideas to be legal possessions of a sort, then that right can be taken away.

Slightly OT musings.

[mindstrm]

People should remember one thing when discussing copyright law.
Copyright law exists for the benefit of society as a whole, as do *all* laws. This is the primary purpose for the creation of laws. The purpose of law is *NOT* strictly to 'keep musicians in business' or to 'keep the industry going'.

IF it turns out that a large percentage, say, over 50% of the music buying crowd stops buying music and starts trading it 'illegally', would 50% of society end up in court? no.. as if it is literally half of society that is infringing, then it is the LAW that needs changing, as the law exists to better society.

Re:Missing the point

[mindstrm]

He's not as illiterate as it seems. That is a transcribed audio inteview. Were I to interview you the same way, your speech would no doubt come out exactly the same way.

Copying tapes from friends is illegal still? is it? Really? I mean... it's not commercial, and it's not really wide distribution. There *IS* a legal difference between giving out a cople copies of music and giving out billions.

THE LAW is not software, it is not pure logic. It is fuzzy and open to interpretation.
No artist cares if a few people give copies to their friends, but when one person gives copies to 100,000 people in a weekend, that is totally different.

Hey... in some cities, cops don't prosecute and imprison people for minor posession of marijuana, but if you have a truckload you are fucked. Oh.. but by your logic, both are totally illegal, so both should be prosecuted.

And dude, protecting works that you have a legal right to protect is *NOT* censorship.

The flaw in your logic

[mindstrm]

I agree with your comparison on a purely technical level. Dont' shoot the messenger.

But instead of a subway, think 'trucking company'.

Now.. some drug baron uses this trucking company to transport drugs. Is the company at fault? No...

But let's say that the trucking company was started because the owners KNEW there was a huge market for smuggling drugs, even if they don't precisely know which shipments have drugs in them.
Let's say that they are aware that the vast bulk of their shipping time is being taken up by drugs, but they don't actually *ask* what is in each shipment, and pretend not to know. now this 'trucking company' is very blatantly doing something illegal. Their business is based on the tranport of illicit drugs.

Napster is making money (or at least, trying to) based on the fact that they know their service will be popular because people want to pirate music. Period. And this is illegal.

Refreshing

[MoxCamel]

This is fascinating. Before I read this, I really thought it was yet another attempt by music companies to stop/control yet another medium. And of course, it is.

BUT...

What was great about this interview (besides the free-form, flow-of-conciousness style interview, which we should see a lot more of please!) was that you can actually see Lars struggle with the various shades of grey involved with this case. I mean, how many times do you hear somebody in his position say "well, I've rethought my position on this" or "I probably shouldn't have said that".

So, while I still think Metallica needs to take a much different tack, I can really appreciate that they are truly trying to wrap their arms around this, and are trying to do what they consider is the right thing. Who knows, maybe through their continuous education on the facts, they'll see the light.

Then again...maybe it IS about the money. :-)

Re:can we now have a chuck d interview...

[Mr T]

Yeah, I want to see an interview with the Hard Rhymer.

Re:Like I said...

[Ralph Wiggam]

I will absolutely agree with you that Asian Man is an all around better label than Virgin. The point I was going for is that downloading a Johnny Socko mp3 is every bit as illegal as downloading a Metallica or Britney Spears song. That is Johnny Socko/Asian Man's intellectual property and you are using it without permision. If you want the mp3s that the band wants you to have, go to the web site, they're giving away 4 song clips off the new album along with some older stuff and one whole live show. If you want to use Napster to get free music, go ahead (I know I do). Just don't use the justification that it's ok to do it for small bands because they're not available at Wal-Mart.

-B

heh, heh.

[j_d]

Lars in a Suburban.

Re:One major point...

[sporty]

I beg to differ. Every song i've found on napster, restrict the bit rate to 128 or higher. You'll find your song.

And there are so, SO many programs to rip a cd, turn it to mp3 and NAME it for you, that it can be done on mass scale. Hell, for my own mp3 theatre at home, i've ripped a total of 7 cd's in the past 5 hours. 192 bit, hard to tell the quality difference unless you have good hearing AND a very good set of speakers.

---

More intelligent than i'd expected

[drenehtsral]

I think you're right it is a good interview. I think he brushed off the last question because he had answered it at length before. I think that the non-degrading digital copy is the issue.
I have to say that i'm glad to see that Metallica has though about and researched this, and I'm also glad that it is not the record company pushing this. The thing i think he says that is the most insightful is that the biggest SNAFU is the fact that the record companies didn't embrace the idea of electronic distribution, rather than damning it and ignoring it.

Re:Wow. That was a fucking dumb interview.

[Wah]

But like alot of people, I am sure, I read the interview, and am extremely happy that I have been given the opportunity to read about the real issues instead of just hear the spin, and I have changed my mind about Metallica.

How do you mean "changed your mind"? So instead of being greedy assholes they are now just misinformed assholes? (not looking for a flamewar, I'm just curious if that's what you meant)

And what were those "real issues", while we're at it? Was it Lars' "spin" that changed your mind?

--

Re:One major point...

[iCEBaLM]

A copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of an MP3 is indistinguishable from the original MP3.

But the MP3 (taking into account standard 128 - 160 kbps, stereo, 44khz) is always distinguishable from the CD.

-- iCEBaLM

streaming audio vs. transcription

[timothy]

Well, besides the complications of serving many thousands of simultaneous connections (which I can't comment on really -- all things are possible, after all), it's faster to read than to listen.

The recording is not great quality; analog cassette recording through a radio shack linda trip special, of a phone call is really not easy listening material;) The nature of model recorder I have is also that my voice is thunderously loud, while Lars is much lower. Not stereo, so it can't just be level adjusted that way.

Besides, my voice is not radio friendly except to the extreme tone deaf, or maybe the tone dead.

timothy

Intelligent interview

[BoLean]

The funny thing is that a lot of people percieve musicians as unintelligent. Especially heavy metal musicians. I've seen two interviews with Lars and between that and reading this interview I'm certainly impressed.

When I first heard this Metallica vs Napster thing I was a little puzzled. Most MP3's I've heard sounded really crappy, and due to the lossy recording methons, the smaller the MP3 file the lower the quality. For me MP3's are a waste of time. I like to hear the imperfections of a live performance.

Re:Half-off-topic: Contempt for non-computer-peopl

[Hobbex]

This is not about Lars being wrong because he is a non-techie - this is about Lars being wrong because he is wrong.

For an example of a non-techie who is getting a lot of respect in a related case, look at Martin Garbus in the DeCSS trial. He is a lawyer (already that should make us hate him if the stereotypes were true), he admits to knowing very little about technology, and he has litigated a lot of cases where he was defending peoples copyrights. But in this case, he gets it. I haven't heard anybody trashing him because he isn't a coder.

Lars is wrong because he claims that artists have a right to control the spread of their work. They do not - information wants to be free, and nobody has the right or should have the ability to control it. As a society, it is in our interest to compensate artists and innovators so they can work on enriching the world without starving, and in the industrial age this has been done by giving them legal control of the information they produce, but the issues of control and compensation are actually unrelated.

ps, I don't know shit about the music industry. I don't care to. I don't see why we need a music "industry", I sort of wish there was music artistry instead...

-
We cannot reason ourselves out of our basic irrationality. All we can do is learn the art of being irrational in a reasonable way.

Re:Half-off-topic: Contempt for non-computer-peopl

[Hobbex]

"Information wants to be free". So, we were wrong to ever create copyright law? The GPL is a joke and shouldn't be enforcable? How about a little basic consistency here.

In my opinion, yes. And, I have yet to hear Stallman or anyone attack us for the fact binary code based on GPLed code that is uploaded cannot be removed from Freenet. Does anybody here truly believe that distributed data networks pose a serious threat to free software because people will use them to distribute mods without source? If you do, lay off the crack pipe for a second.

Why do we need a music industry? Because, as a species, we're a bunch of cheap-ass fucks who would not, in fact, pay for art if we didn't have to.

Well maybe then, as a species, we don't deserve any music. I'll tell you what price I, as an individual who regularly buys CDs without complaining about the price, is to cheap to pay for music - and that is my freedom.

Anyway, if we, as a society, have given artists control, then yes, it's wrong for us, as a bunch of computer geeks, to ignore that decision. Laws can be changed, and if the law is so obviously wrong as all that, we can probably get it changed. As soon as we offer a better alternative...

It is neither right nor wrong since is not our doing. Nobody in particular invented the freedom of information, it is a fundamental law of cyberspace. If you want to point fingers about it, point them up - the fact that information cannot be contained without censoring people is a fact of mathematics, and that _cannot_ be changed.

It may be that you, personally, just disagree with Lars. That's cool; your opinions are probably just as well researched as his, or mine, or anyone else's. What bugs me is the people who are using his non-techie nature as justification for trashing his beliefs. You see, he's thought about these issues too. He may have come to different conclusions than I have, or than you have, but that doesn't mean he's wrong, it just means the debate's still going.

I did not see Ulrich once questioning his position that he has an a priori right to control the information. He just takes that opinion and bases all of his arguments on it. He is wrong about this, and that is neither my wish nor my opinion, but a simple fact of how the universe works.


-
We cannot reason ourselves out of our basic irrationality. All we can do is learn the art of being irrational in a reasonable way.

Trading tapes...

[drudd]

Lars: Yeah, I mean I think we answered that before. Of course we have, ok? And of course it's a valid point. The bottom line is the size of it. The size of it and the quality of it. When we go in, and check Napster out, we come up with 1.4 million copyright infringements in 48 hours, this is a different thing than trading cassette tapes with your buddy at school. I mean, 48 hours! So it's the quality, the quality and the scale.

I'm sorry, but if you had the ability to track all the trading of cassette tapes and burned CD's, you'd find that 1.4 million in 48 hours is not at all understated. Its just nobody keeps a large log of everything that gets traded.

Doug

Re:Trading tapes...

[drudd]

Ok, this is true, I doubt that many metallica tapes are traded every 48 hours (because everyone's trading mp3's :).

You also have to consider the fact that the 1.4 million figure is counting individual songs, while if I make a copy of a CD and give it to somebody else, I am giving them about a dozen songs...

Doug

Re:Executive Summary of Lars' Concerns

[Chandon Seldon]

• Napster has control over the songs distributed using their protocal
  The users are in control of what they offer and what they download.
• No technological advance can prevent them from seeing and procecting copyright violations
  Not even strongly encrypted, non-centralized, anonymizing networks.

Mob rule

[w3woody]

You know, I've read both sides of the argument about distribution of intellectual property across the Internet. On the side of applications like "Napster" are people who basically say two things: (1) I should be able to download stuff for free because it's overpriced at the store, and (2) we're a movement, and so we don't fuckin' have to follow the existing rules of the established order.

The first one sounds like a justification for theft.

And the second one reminds me of the riots here in Los Angeles a few years back, with hoards of people in Watts running around, breaking into stores and stealing home stereos and TVs. The police couldn't stop them because there were just too many rioters. And when interviewed on TV, many of the rioters basically gave the same justification: "there is just too many of us for the police to stop, and all this stuff is too expensive, so we're going to get ours and stick it to the established order."

When pressed on the second point, the reply is often about things like DeCSS and encryption technology and distributed information distribution: that is, you think it's hard now to track and prevent the virtual riot in progress, just wait until we apply technology to make the virtual rioters anonymous.

Well, the folks in Watts who rioted a few years back after the Rodney King trials could have also applied technology to make their riots even more effective: masks to hide their faces from the cameras, radio jammers to prevent cops from effectively communicating, rocks to help break into stores. But does the addition of technology justify the riots?

I think there is a time and a place for all this anonymous information exchange technology, and there are unsigned bands who would love to have the free publicity and are willing to work with technologies like Napster to distribute their music. But there needs to be a way for people to opt-out. We get pissy when we aren't allowed to opt-out of on-line advertisers gathering information on us, and we get pissy when a company steals rms's code and distributes GNU licensed software as if it were proprietary, so why should we get pissy when a band like Metallica wants to opt out of Napster?

This mob rule mentality that has been adopted by many here is complete bullshit.

Give Metallica a chance damnit

[Hard_Code]

Man, people should stop frothing at the mouth and just hear these guys out. I too was skeptical that Metallica had just been corporatized into some homogenous profit generating machine.

That's not the case.

Listen to what they are saying.

They are NOT arguing that MP3 trading or selling is some invalid activity. Hell, they even note that they allow bootlegs and couldn't give a damn what people do with them.

But there is one difference: Allowing bootlegs is THEIR choice! THEY got to make the decision. THEY got to decide who heard their music and what people did with it. Metallica is NOT fighting MP3 here. They are NOT fighting all us people who rip CDs to disk, or to tape, or even hand a friggen copy to our friends. What they are fighting is for their IP. They are fighting for the RIGHT to dictate the terms upon which their music is distributed. As they mention Napster never asked Metallica, "Hey, we have this really cool system here, do you mind if people rampantly exchange your IP on it? By the way, we would like you to have a say in the manner and limitations on which people exchange your stuff." No, that did not happen. Napster basically opened up a service which, although it may not have been designed explicitly for it, has enabled and promoted the exploitation of these guy's work. They are denied their IP and their copy rights. They are angered at Napster for denying these rights. They probably don't give a damn about the fans. In fact if they were ASKED they might have even /allowed/ this to go on. It is a matter of principal. Unfortunately, when it is not the underdog challenging it, we sometimes have a (perhaps healthy) knee-jerk reaction to discount somebody sticking up for their principals and their rights. This is not a record company issue. This is not a homogenous borg corporation issue. This is a band whom a third party didn't ask about enabling the free distribution of their stuff. Yes, it is a matter of degree. I can copy their stuff and give it to a neighbor. I can give it to the whole town. But after a certain order of magnitude increase in degree, it really becomes a whole different /class/ of problem and has to be dealt with differently. So Napster is NOT comparable to spending time and energy to make physical copies and physically distribute them to friends. Napster is enabling the irresponsible reproduction of their IP. That is their beef.

I think we should get off their case and stand behind them in saying that the definition and respect of IP rights are the most important thing in this brave new world. They are NOT on the other side of our "free community". They are on the SAME side. They want the freedom (not beer, as they say they couldn't care less about the pennies lost), to dictate how their IP is distributed. After all, isn't that what the GPL doesm in effect?

Re:Give Metallica a chance damnit

[Hard_Code]

As a follow up:

We cannot have it both ways. If we expect people to respect the same copyright that allows us to protect the IP of contributors, and keep source code open, we must also respect people's legitimate use of copyright to protect their works, whether it be by keeping them open, or closed, or whatever terms they dictate. We cannot do away with copyright, we need just reconsider what "limited time" means with respect to the market in which the copy right applies. Copyright, after all, was created for the PUBLIC good. It gives the right to creators to dictate the terms of use of the works they create for a "limited time", as an INCENTIVE to create such works. "Limited time" in the software world may need to be shortened, otherwise the public good is NOT being served. However, this doesn't mean we should rob artists of their copyright, or arrogantly expect them to work on a service-based open-source business model (what, are they going to provide tech support or manuals or something??). If it wasn't for Metallica's RIGHT to secure for a limited time exclusive rights to their own works, we'd all probably still be going to theaters and listening to chamber music for a per-visit fee.

Re:Wow. That was a fucking dumb interview.

[ddstreet]

Regardless, no one has made any sort of convincing argument as to why these users deserve free music.

No, actually Lars himself gave the reason in the interview.

Ok. Lars says that it is ok for a person to copy their friend's music. Now, this amounts to one person copying another's music using a tape deck or CD burner. This is no different than one person copying another person's music using Napster!

Lars mentions that that one person copying a friend's tape is lower quality than using Napster, but this is not a valid point; is it ok to copy a tape, but not a CD? Many people have CD burners/duplicators. If tape copying is ok, CD copying is ok too. After all, who among us can really tell the difference in a master tape and a copied tape (assuming a good tape dubber)?

Lars' last point was the quantity of Napster. This is just silly. Ok, Lars, why don't you tell us exactly what the cut-off on copied tapes is? If one is ok, is 10? Can I copy 20 of my friend's records? 100?

Re:Two points: transcript and monitoring Napster

[paRcat]

I second those thoughts!

I thought the same thing. NetPD didn't give the details about how they got those names because it's very likely that they did it illegally. I hope this comes out sometime soon.

Who knows, maybe they managed it comepletely on the level. heh.

Re:Napster == worse quality than tape

[paRcat]

um, I don't know who you listen to, but I don't think this is the norm. I've only run across 2 mp3s that I wanted that were less than CD quality. Actually, one has a skip in the middle, the other has some ne'er-do-well playing along with the song. ya.

So I think when someone says that recordings are being distributed at high-quality, they are speaking for the great majority of songs.

Maybe the genre you like doesn't have a huge following. In that case, the same people would be trading the same inferior copies around amongst themselves. With stuff that has more than a few listeners though, you can count on one of those copies, among the hundreds, being straight from the donator's own CD.

Re:One major point...

[stienman]

Then the issue isn't really that people are trading music, it's about some INDIVIDUAL who somehow obtained a copy of a not-yet-released album, and then used Napster to distribute it?

That can't be the issue, because in that case Napster isn't to blame, it's the person who originally put the copy out.

I've read enough about the issue that I consider myself well-informed. I understand that the unreleased album is the straw that broke the camel's back, but after reading all this one should also understand that that isn't their focus. If it were they could easily and quickly stop it. Instead they've chosen the shotgun to shoot the rabbit.

-Adam

The church is near but the road is icy;
the bar is far away but I will walk carefully.
-- Russian Proverb

Long winded webby awards

[British]

Just imagine a chat transcript between Jon Katz and Lars. The conversation would be a terabyte long.

Re:Long winded webby awards

[Lord Kano]

Katz:"Lars, what do you think is the driving force behind the opensource MP3 dominated, internet freedom, napsterized,internet and natalie portman influenced, hellmouth paradigm shift?"

Lars:"It's like, well you know when, sometimes you just have to, and since I don't know too much about those types of things. On the other hand James and Jason think that, well that's not exactly accurate, there was once this time that we all took this think and did stuff with it. That isn't really important here because, you know what? My dad just got this AOL account and I used up all of his free hours then he was all like, "Lars, those were MY free hours!" and I like blew him off about the whole thing. I have a little dreidle, I made it out of clay, and when it's dry and ready, with dreidle I will play. Um, what? Oh, oh, oh, the technology thingie? My managers, like said that it was, um bad for me or something so I, uh think that ahhh , I'm against it. I think?"

LK

Re:Wow. That was a fucking cool interview.

[GnrcMan]

The statistic about *ONE* unsigned artist is particularly sobering.

And you aren't the least bit suspicious that that number is cooked up?

Just think for a second about what would be involved in coming up with an accurate number of unsigned bands being traded on Napster. I think he's either a) Ignorant (he isn't the brightest man I've even run across, after all) or b) lying.

--GnrcMan--

Re:A change of opinion?

[Chalst]

You're free to change your mind. But if you change your mind at the
same time as everyone else, without any new information coming to
light, you risk being labelled a sheep.

Re:Journalistic ethics

[Chalst]

The advantage of the verbatim transcript is that not many people are
gping to think that this is the 16th version that finally made it
through a panel of lawyers review. I'm guessing Lars wanted it this
way. I don't think Slashdot are guilty of treating this interview
casually.

Both sides...

[THB]

This is an interesting view from their side of the story, and I am happy to see that it is personal, and not filtered through 10 different lawyers.

I have not been following this much, so this was the first statement that I have heard from them. It would be easy to dismiss this by saying that they don't understand napster or the technology, and because of this are making a mistake. This is not necessarily the case. The statistics that he provided we very sobering to the idea that napster helps both independent and major label artists (napster, not mp3). We must look at it from their side as well as our own, and understand that they feel threatened by napster, and when we feel threatened it is a natural reaction to fight. What tends to be ignored on slashdot is that they are legally just in what they are doing. It is their property and we must respect that.

On the other hand, I bought S&M after listening to mp3's of it, gotten from napster. I honestly think that what they are doing is not in their best interest and only time will tell. I also believe that any laws banning something like napster would set a dangerous precedent, akin to banning paint because people sniff it.

Before you throw around baseless accusations...

[SvnLyrBrto]

Try knowing what the hell you're talking about!

>the download was done because somebody wanted to
>avoid buy a CD, not because somebody wanted to
>check this no-name band out.

I happen to own ALL THREE of his CDs!!!

A quick check of his website shows that those three (self titled, Making Love, and A soceity of People named Elihu) are the only releases he's had in CD form (excepting the limited edition Fracture release).

Yeah, I downloaded some of my Atom MP3s before I owned the CDs. But if you know who Atom is, then you know that it's HARD AS HELL to find his CDs in stores! This ain't something tou can pick up at best buy, tower, or virgin. I was living in Orlando, FL at the time, and even most indie stores had no idea what I was talking about. Finally, almost a year after I first heard "Avenger", I found a guy working at DIY Records who knew who I was talking about and was able to special order them for me. And even then, it took about a month and a half for me to get all three.

And guess what? The entire time, I was downloading every Atom MP3 I could find! Not because I wanted to avoid paying for the CDs, but because I didn't want to wait till I could find a store that knew what I was talking about. And you know what else? Napster made the search easier!

So I had a few MP3s BEFORE I owned the CDs. Bog F-ing deal!!! I guess the admission I paied to see him live TWICE, when he toured through Florida, the Shirt and sticker I bought, and the purchase of the three CDs means SQUAT because I had a few MP3s before the CDs. Napster stole from Atom.

Yeah right.

You can take your "the download was because you wanted to avoid paying for the CDs" arguement and stick it up your ass!

john

Like I said...

[SvnLyrBrto]

>Johnny Socko is hardly an unsigned band.

I wasn't sure for 100% that none of the bands I listed were signed on indie labels.

But you have to admit, even though Asian Man has more quality bands signed than Virgin, that it's still a VERY small, independant, label.

Signing with Asian Man is vastly different from whoreing yourself out to the RIAA labels like virgin, sony, etc.

john

Okay jackass...

[SvnLyrBrto]

>maybe if you said it right, i bet you asked about
>"adams package" or something. hard

Okay dickwad, if I thought the name was "adams package" how did I get a search string that returned "Atom and his Package" in napster?!?!?

Now, the list of links you found with "just one search"

http://www.cpcn.com/articles/091798/ear.person.s html -- Can't order CDs

http://www.atomandhispackage.com/ -- You have to send money to some outfit in Gainsville to order CDs -- no SSL credit card option -- Yeah, riiiight.

http://www.midheaven.com/bin/state.cgi/204735628 1/artists/atom.an -- Returned an "internal server error" message

http://val.looksmart.com/eus1/eus52213/eus156227 /eus156477/eus522 -- Returns "no longer exists on our servers"

http://atomandhispackage.webjump.com/ -- Can't order CDs -- Takes forever and a day to load

http://expage.com/page/atomgo -- Can't order CDs

http://audiofind.net/atom_and_his_package.html -- Can't order CDs -- but you CAN DL MP3s

I'm not gonna bother with the rest of your links. I suspect they're just as defective as the first few. Only ONE of the links offers his CDs for sale, and that ONE just tells you to send money to Gainesville w/ NO secure credit card option. Not bloody likely.

>theres an electric fetus in just about
>every city.

Really?

(http://yp.yahoo.com/py/ypResults.py?stx=electri c+fetus&stp=a&city=Orlando&state=FL&slt=28 .538099&sln=-81.379402&cs=4&Search%A0Now=Search%A0 Now

Sorry, no electric fetus found in or nearby Orlando, FL. )

Not in Orlando.

Care to try again, asswipe?

john

They CAN'T monitor traffic you moron...

[SvnLyrBrto]

>They said they only saw one download from an
>unsigned band int the 48hrs they were monitoring
>traffic

Do you have ANY clue how napster works? I guess not, you're just another AC troll. But since you *are* just an AC, and too dumb to figure it out yourself, I'll elaborate.

Napster is ONLY a search engine. Logging on to it, as metallica claims that their mercenarys had done, you could determine how many people were OFFERING a given MP3. But you could NOT track how many people were downloading those MP3s. ALL file transfers are peer-to-peer. The MP3 files NEVER pass through Napster servers. To do what you claim metallica did, you'd have to monitor ALL traffic between EVERY ip address logged into Napster; something very detectable, and highly illegal.

YOU've exposed YOURSELF as being not just clueless, but a complete cretin as well.

john

Re:OT -- Rollins College radio...

[SvnLyrBrto]

Yeah, it was pretty sweet. I usually alternated between PRK and Real Radio WTKS. Howard in the morning, Monsters during lunch, passed on Phillips in the afternoon usually for WPRK, Drew at night, and, after thet got rid of love lines for that phil hendrie guy, WPRK again at night. All of that interspersed with TV, work, and a doven other things tho.

I moved to California about a month ago, and have been hurting, radiowise, ever since. The only thing radio stations here have on Orlando radio is better sponsered concerts and music festivals.

What REALLY hurts is that there's no SanFran equivelent of Real Radio (at least not that I've found so far).

Ameoba Records in Berkeley, however, puts DIY to shame, as much as it pains me to say it.

john

Not a dumbass... just a two-faced liar.

[SvnLyrBrto]

>In addition, the fact that Metallica only went
>after those they believed (although I still
>believe screen and file names are not wholly
>legitimate forms of proof) to be trading in
>*their* music

Oh really? Then where was the news story about metallica dropping their lawsuit against napster after the 300,000-odd users were banned?

>suggests that they are not in favor of destroying
>Napster and those like it,

Have you so soon forgotten the yahoo chat where he said that the ideal outcome would be the total destruction of napster?

He's pandering to the audience. He knows that slashdot users are more pro-technology than the common dirty metalhead type. So for a hostile audience, he tries to appear more conciliatory; whilst with their core metalhead hive, it's "destroy anything the masters don't like".

john

Re:Not a dumbass... just a two-faced liar.

[limbostar]

YES! We cannot afford to forget that Metallica is really just a puppet of the RIAA! Remember "Master of Puppets"?! THAT WAS THE RIAA SPEAKING THROUGH METALLICA!

But let's not forget that the RIAA is really a sattelite that reports directly to the US government - which is just a high-profile coverup of China's World Government, which is actually controlled by the USSR (which was never really destroyed)!

The whole thing is a gigantic plot (made by space aliens who tool around in golden landrovers on the dark side of the moon) to squelch out anything new and inventive in every industry.

Remember Looking Glass studios?! I rest my case.

Metallica displays a complete lack of clue...

[SvnLyrBrto]

>I know how to get onto AOL, and I will say that I
>have used AOL a couple of times...

So he's an AOLuser! That should be enough to show his uter cluelessness right there, but...

>Now, are we aware of the Gnutellas and all these
>other things? Of course we are, but you can only
>take it one step at a time. And I believe, and
>the people that we talk to about this, we
>believe, that the minute some of these companies
>become active

Please enlighten me lars. What company is responsible for gnutella? Freenet? FTP? IRC? Usenet?

>We believe that as quickly as they can make it
>untraceable we believe that you can find a way to
>fuck with it, and we have already heard about
>different ways of doing that.

Just what way does he know of to "fuck with" Freenet? Gnutella? IRC? Anonymous remail posts to usenet? Somehow, I have more confidence in the intelligence of the computer geeks of the world than that of lars' army of metalhead and legal drones.

>if you have the energy and the resources to chase
>'em -- and that's one thing we have is a lot of
>energy and a lot of resources

>there will never be a point where they will
>be uncatchable

Uh yeah... look at the resources to takes to trace down the author of a virus, either melissia or love bug. It takes joint evvorts of the FBI, NSA, and heaps of other police agancys to track down ONE person sending out an illegal file. Imagine going through that for EVERY metallica MP3 ever traded. Does anyone thing that then feds care to go through that much trouble? Methinks lars thinks his army of metalheads is bigger than it is. And with the advent of Freenet, it'g gonna get MUCH HARDER to track the originator of any given file.

Given enough resources, the NSA could intercept and decrypt every 4096 bit encrypted email too. Only problem is that those resources (gobs of supercomputers) wouldn't fit on the surface of the entire Earth.

>going on the Internet and getting 1st generation,
>perfect digital copies of master recordings from
>all the world,

Complete ignorant bullshit. Plain and simple. The .wav's or AIFFs are NOT being traded, MP3s are. MP3 is a lossy compression scheme and delivers far from "perfect digital copies of master recordings". You might not be able to tell the difference of crappy computer speakers, or the $2 POS headphones that come with your discman (assuming you convert MP3s to red book). But on a REAL stereo with GOOD speakers, you *CAN* tell that the MP3 leaves much to be desired! Perhaps metallica has blasted their eardrums in front of 50KW amps long enough thay THEY can't tell the difference. But on MY stereo, *I* can tell the difference!!!

That's why if it's an MP3 worth listening to in the first place, I make a point of getting the CD ASAP! There IS a noticeable difference. And if the MP3 is not worth getting the CD, it's not worth listening to anyway, and gets deleted in short order. No harm done. No loss of a sale. Too bad metalheads are too dumb to understand this.

>when we monitored Napster for 48 hours three
>weekends ago, we came up with the 1.4 million
>downloads of Metallica music, there was one, one
>downloading -- one! of an unsigned artist the
>whole time.

More lies! More bullshit! When I first started useing Napster, I was *easily* able to find MP3s for several bands I like who are NOT signed to a label; not within 48 hours, but within *FOUR* hours!!! Some of those are listed in a seperate post of mine on this topic. I won't bother repeating them. I HAVE bought several CDs from these bands... the ones that HAVE released CDs that is. Some of the bands I have on MP3 have ONLY released MP3s ao far!

Simple lies, arrogance, RIAA propaganda, or for whatever reason, metallica has displayed a COMPLETE lack of clue.

john

Convert, Mellow?

[cwhicks]

This interview is the first (and I have read about every GD one of them) that gave me an insight on what is going on in his head. (Maybe its the train of thought transcript.)
Did anyone else think he is mellowing? He seemed to be more excited about the argument itself than the points of the argument.
He also seems to be excited about the technology, which I think /. can appreciate.
Yeah, I think he is still a greedy SOB who is only concerned about money for himself, but I think now that he understands it better, he isn't as scared. I'm thinking fear, caused by ignorance and lack of control was his main driving force to start this whole thing. The first several interviews I saw with him, he was almost ravenous, spitting and foaming. Now, he can laugh about it. He had clear and lucid points, I thought.(Not a one that I agreed with, however.)
I think it has been so long since he was a fan that all he thinks about is shipping units. So when he saw people downloading stuff he thinks their point is to rip him off of units, not because they are having fun with friends, and doing just what he would have done at their age.
Or maybe he just had some good doobage before the interview.

Food for thought: unsigned bands

[gnarphlager]

I release my own cds. I have my own label. My distribution blows, and I could hardly consider myself a MINOR label. For all intents and purposes, I am unsigned. Yet (and mostly for copyright reasons) all my .mp3s mention a label in the headers (or they should anyway). So am I unsigned? Technically, no. Am I smaller than metallica? Of course. Does Lars give a fuck about anything other than his ego? evidentally not.

Re:Half-off-topic: Contempt for non-computer-peopl

[ToLu the Happy Furby]

The source code (the actual music sheets and lyrics) is out there and free as far as Lars is concerned.

Possibly. But not as far as the RIAA (or US copyright law, for that matter) is concerned, just FYI.

If Lars had a unique painting and made a few prints of it for his friends, would you complain?

If I could have enjoyed that painting at absolutely no cost to him at all, yes. The difference here is that paintings are currently scarce, just like recorded music used to be. But with the Internet, recorded music is no longer scarce. Using the legal system to force everyone to pretend that it still is distorts the market and prevents the widest possible distribution of people from enjoying art.

So the information is completely free. What are you complaining about? Oh ... wait. You want HIS compiled version of the information done by Metallica (a beowulf cluster of Alphas) not the one done by you (a TRS-80).

Um...the point of the saying "information wants to be free" is that anything which can be transmitted at zero cost will proliferate to market saturation. Thus "information" in this context is anything which can be sent over the internet--which includes "compiled" recordings, not just (equally "pirated") sheet music. Binary software wants to be free, too, and if you spend any time looking you'll find that most of it is. The difference is that software companies are much more clued-in about the phenomenon and have added many non-"information" addons to their products, like official support, manuals, etc., in an effort to slow down warezing.

Well, it is his performance, so he can do it for you at your every whim, or do it when the hell he wants and charge you for it. If you were in his shoes, which would you prefer? Honestly, now?

I don't care. It shouldn't be his decision. He should have a larger say, but it shouldn't be his decision.

This whole thing is a battle about the future direction of the law, and whether we really want to criminalize behavior which most knowledgable citizens find completely ethical and in fact engage in. As such, this decision about where to take the law should be made by society as a whole, and in the interests of society as a whole. Now, those self-interests have to be enlightened, and thus ought to include some way of solving the problem of making sure musicians still have the resources and incentives to make the best music possible. But that doesn't mean the musicians get to decide. Society gets to decide, and our decision should be what's best for us, not for Lars.

Of course, most members of society are too poorly informed to care much, and thus it will probably be RIAA dollars that decide, at least in the short term. The war on copying will likely be long and drawn out, if not so ugly (after all, I have yet to see any ideas on how to crack down on Freenet that would even come close to surviving a Supreme Court challenge).

In the end, though, enough people will figure out that this is important, and their collective opinions will make the decision. It could be that most of them will end up agreeing with you. But I don't think so.

What does Robert Heinlein think?

[Convergence]

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

Metallica violated the Prime Directive.

[ktakki]

Never let your drummer speak. Ever.

Every day, I get all the press sent to my office, I spend the first 2 hours of the day reading, catching up to date with what's going on.

Somewhere, a publicist is tearing her hair out.

A carefully crafted "rock outlaw" image is turned to ash. Lars in a suit, sitting in an office.

With bifocals, I'll bet.

k.

--
"In spite of everything, I still believe that people
are really good at heart." - Anne Frank

How did they monitor Napster?

[sumana]

I've used Napster a total of once. I'm slightly confused as to how you can tell what OTHER PEOPLE are downloading. How coudl they monitor the service to get this statistic? And weren't they manily looking for their own songs, anyway?

So, maybe he's ignorant, or lying, but maybe he's just unknowingly using misleading statistics, which isn't the same thing.

Today's UF comic

[sumana]

Here's a link to today's comic that will still be there tomorrow:
Today's UF

Re:Hom much money do you get from the sale?

[Nachtfellen]

What I take away from this interview, is that you did not, for whatever reason, answer this one question.

It is sad that this is all that you were able to take away from this interview. I was able to learn so much more from it, regardless of my views before or after reading his letter. I am pretty "middle-of-the-road" in this matter, but I would have to say that in view of how much was said in his interview, statements like this are representative of the closed mindedness of many of the participants on both sides of the fence, and are overall detrimental to dealing with the real issues at hand.

That being said, IMHO, the question of the artists stake in the sell of a CD was more of a lead into the real meat of chwicks' post, and likely more of a rhetorical question. Regardless, Lars' concession as to the artist's portion of the profits being low essentially answered the question, and the remainder of his response was at least as on par with the overall question, and its relevance to the matters at hand.

I think they are starting to get it...

[vulgrin]

1) The fact that they are recognizing that they cannot shut down the system, or future continuation of the "napster concept" is good. I agree completely that copyrighted material should NOT be shared.

2) The cat is already out of the bag, so to speak. MP3 is not going away... and there will always be software to rip them from CDs. The Napster Concept isn't going away, because it has been done, and everyone understands and uses it. They cannot stop that, and I really wish all of the over hyped media would shut the hell up and realize that. (As well as the strung out Napster users that don't get it and are just flaming angry at the world.)

3) I wish the RIAA and so forth would just wise the hell up and start looking for ways to embrace this technology instead of feel so threatened by it. Like Lars said, its chump change right now, and if the RIAA does something postitive with the situation, instead of just trying to chop the head off the hydra, then maybe we can ALL come to a compromise.

4) Metallica and other old bands should public domain some of their live concert recordings. If they don't care about bootlegging of these concerts, then do some decent recordings and package THOSE up as MP3's and put them online. a) They'll be showing that they are trying to work with everyone and b) people who MUST download it can get it in some form... and will still be likely to go buy the album.

Vulgrin the MAD

That's *exactly* how Lars' talks

[gad_zuki!]

He's just as incomprensible in person, though I'm sure its his meth addiction that keeps stopping his train of thought every 3 or 4 words.

Re:One major point...

[gad_zuki!]

Napster neatly shows you the kbs of each searched MP3, considering the standard is 128kbps which is near CD-quality you are getting a version of the music which most people can't distinguish from a CD .wav file.

Low quality MP3's are like 64 or so kbs, they're reserved for low quality live tracks. It never made much sense to me, you might as well go with a 128kbs for the best sound vs. filesize equation.

Legal/Illegal does not equal Right/Wrong

[gad_zuki!]

Legally things are either legal or illegal, but in the real world people constantly are making decisions in the "shades of gray" areas. I feel perfectly at easy doing 75 in a 65mph zone, I habitually break drug laws, and I'll download MP3's till I'm blue in the face.

*Everyone* acts and thinks this way, if the laws actually reflected what was right and was wrong, then things would be different, but they don't. Assuming all Napster users are hurtful pirates really doesn't jive much with reality, how many of these users are willing to sell burned copies or imitation T-shirts to alternative teeny-boppers? Probably none.

People will always put their morality in front of the law and I can't blame them as the law usually serves the power-strictures, not the citizen. Breaking laws that you think are unfair and limit your freedoms is perfectly healthy, if we were all law-loving automatons we'd still be in the midst of slave owners, theocracies, and illiterate life-long sweatshop workers.

If you really want to convince the MP3 trading community to stop what they're doing you have to prove that the current copyright laws are more helpful than hurtful and that the industry doesn't artificially inflate their prices. Good luck with those two.

Thank you, Lars

[samic]

It may be time for you to re-evaluate your management/legal team, Lars. Somehow, their collective wisdom failed to mentioned a few very key points.

1. Smile. Be happy. 1.4 million observed downloads of your music is the ultimate validation of what every radio station was wrong about...your music DOES appeal to a wide-scale audience. Good Job.

2. What are you doing to your own fans? Your average fan enjoys Metallica to the extent of spending, at least, $50, on the records...Is this not enough? Who are you to limit us? Your popularity and income DEPENDS on us... The fans. And yet, despite our investment in your catalogue, you will target ME? For liking your music enough to want to listen to it at work?

Screw the law, man. Metallica is NOT a secret...The people that like your music
already own it. The people that don't already own the music don't like it and aren't likely to be inclined to download it. Wake up.

3. Until you guys stop making crappy grunge records, it's probably best to avoid irritating the fans you have left...I doubt there will be many new ones (Hey, hey, hey??? Here I go now??? C'mon man. Please silence Captain Caveman.)

4. Please rethink your use of the term "art" in reference to Metallica. At one time, there was art. Now, it's primarily poppy rubbish.

Artist defined: artist n : a person whose creative work shows sensitivity and imagination [syn: creative person]

Screaming something in retard really doesn't quite qualify as art...They make Ritalin for that.

"Gimme fuel, gimme fyah, gimme that which I desiyah,"

5. We apologise if you have no sense of humor about these matters. I mean...after releasing S&M? I figured that you guys were the funniest thing ever.

Re:Wow. That was a fucking cool interview.

[technos]

A third possibility exists. That NetPD was not told to watch for such traffic, and didn't. When asked, 'Oh, btw, how many unsigned artists got traded?' they pulled a number out of their collective asses..

Re:Uses of Napster......

[G27 Radio]

A Jane's Addiction cover of 'Sypathy for the Devil', unreleased.

This was off of Jane's Addiction's first album which IIRC was only available by import initially. I was able to find a non-import version in a store 8 or 9 years ago and it's a great CD--all high-quality live recordings. Not sure if it's still available It's self-titled, available from XXX records. Also has a great version of Pigs in Zen and a cover of Lou Reed's "Rock and Roll."

I had a crowd of friends around my computer the other night that were amazed at how much impossible (or nearly-impossible) to find stuff they could find on Napster. Yeah, the bulk of what's available on Napster is so pervasive it's disgusting, but the only reason there's so much of it on there in the first place is that it's so pervasive to begin with.

numb

Re:My note to Metallica.com last night...

[G27 Radio]

I really like the ideas about Value-Adds. I do think this is the way to go. I hope that Lars & Co read your message. If they are going to try to make any software that allows the free distribution of media illegal, then I'm going to fight. It's not that I don't care about copyright, I do care, it's purely that it's so important to have software that allows such easy distribution. You've given Metallica some options to work within the current (and future) framework and I hope they're listening.

Also, I'm very glad that emmett did a verbatim transcription of the conversation. It's a little hard to read an unedited transcription, but it definately gives a better feel for where Lars is coming from. It definately makes me feel a lot better to have an honest idea of Metallica's motivations. Any chance we'll be hearing this interview on the Geek radio?

I still think Lars and the rest involved have a lot to learn, but I'm glad that they are learning something. Hopefully they'll learn not to fuck with our freedom to write software. I would stand up for their right to say whatever they want on their albums, so I hope they will learn to respect our rights to develop software for distributing music and to use it. I still get the impression that Lars does not realize that none of us gets to control what we write once it's available digitally. I suppose I've just had a lot longer to get used to that idea.

numb

Re:I have to say that I agree with him...

[AugstWest]

And any attempts to go after Gnutella (a true file-sharing utility just like anonymous FTP) will be fruitless.

Well, your IP address is always available when you're using gnutella.

I mention this only because people are genuinely starting to believe that there's anonymity involved in using gnutella. There isn't. It can all be traced.

...one thing to remember in all of this...

[AugstWest]

Lars was awfully nice about the record companies. If you go back through the history of Metallica, you'll probably find, oh, say, one or two quotes from him that weren't quite so kind.

One thing to remember is that bands/artist != the RIAA. For all of the bitching that everyone seems to do nowadays about the RIAA, noone has been as screwed by them as the musicians have.

Check out the new legislation wherein the rights to music no longer fall back to the artist after 35(?) years. The RIAA lobbyists recently managed to screw musicians out of the rights to their own material yet again, on a federal level.

So what are we gonna do? How are we going to take this medium and empower artists while trying not to feed the sharks?

Uses of Napster......

[Cplus]

As of this moment I'm downloading a 120 minute drum n' bass set. This is not something you can get in a record store. Guess who's computer it's residing on? The dj who did the scratching.

This morning I downloaded a live cover of The Who's Baba O'Riley by Pearl Jam. I have seen it on CD, but it was a bootleg sold by a company from Italy.........not a penny to the artist anyway.

A Jane's Addiction cover of 'Sypathy for the Devil', unreleased.

A bunch of freestyles from Eminem and there you have it. A collection of live/rare music that would be impossible to get without Napster.

Re:Tapes? MP3's!

[Zach]

Whoa... Something just came to me: You put this interview in MP3 format. You call it "Metallica - Slashdot Interview.mp3" and post it up for download. Within minutes, thousands of people have it in their MP3 folders. Let's say a few of those people are running Napster right then. They slap that file in their folder and *boom* that's up on Napster.

Moving on, a user (we'll call him Joe Smoe) on Napster decides to buck the machine and search for 'Metallica.' One hundred results show up and there, near the top of the list is this "Metallica - Slashdot Interview" MP3. He's curious, has no idea what Slashdot is, thinks it's a comedy deal or something and decides to pick it up. He listens to it, laughs, and forgets about it. Along comes NetPD for their weekly trolli... detective work. They find all the users possessing songs with "Metallica" in them. Again, they send a list of users who are "copying" Metallica songs to Napster to be banned. Poor Joe Smoe gets banned and is ticked. He fills out the counter-suit form and sends it in... adding to the 30,000+ people who've already sent it in.

Now, this might be abstract, but *sure* - it could happen and just goes to show that there are more than a few innocent users in the 600,000 has pulled up. Something to ponder about...

Napster is to Radio like Tivo is to Television?

[mac586]

I tend to view the MP3 world on the internet as radio. Like video/television on TIVO, I get music/radio on MP3.

I manage geeks in a computer lab, and all the latest tools that eventually get banned at work find some kind of productive life in the lab anyway. We use instant chat clients to collaborate with engineers geographically separated from the core team, and we use MP3s to entertain ourselves.

MP3s get traded amongst friends, just like Lars described. We also use napster. The stuff that gets downloaded is typically comprised of music we own on vinyl that the ex-wife dumped during the divorce 6 years ago, or stuff our toddlers ruined while wandering a destructive path through the living room when no one was watching.

We do not however broadcast our self produced MP3s the internet (otherwise our friends employed at the firewall will get pissed).

And you know what I do when I hear a track from the Who? I go to Best Buy and grab their latest release, Live at the BBC. The guys in the lab are my DJs and I tend to hear a hit several times over, Sometimes just once. Then I just have to get the entire "album" for the cd changer in the car. (the only good part about the commute).

MP3 and Napster can be the equivalent of the Record label, the marketing dept, the radio station, and the DJ. Why is this bad? Especially if the music has been mad available to us publically via radio, MTV, and the library. And, like TIVO, I get to personalize what I want to absorb while working or playing.

I applaud Lars honest discussion and his eagerness to research and understand the issues. I also respect his opinion.

I just wanted to spin the discussion in a different direction. Here a list of discussion points that I have seen yet in the this thread:

1. What if Napster had positioned itself as the next generation radio station, specializing in customized listening, and DID ask permission from artist to broadcast their tunes.

2. What measures are in place for Metallica to decide what is released for air play on the radio? What are their legal rights if radio stations play bootlegged studio material before they have authorized its release? Are there any precedents that should be transferred to the web?

3. Do recordings that have been released publically for purchase, which can then be freely played on the public airwaves, become pirated if they appear on the net? The medium has changed, but has the context?

4. When FM began broadcasting in stereo, and we had Dolby in our tape decks, did the equation based upon quality change?

Did the legal position on pirating change?

Did more "control" shift to the consumer?

Did more money shift from the consumer to the industry?

Did the shift in money nullify any perceived gain of control by the consumer?

I am not advocating piracy here, just discussion. I wanted to share some of the viewpoints that have passed through my mind as I try to make sense of the issues at hand.

Thanks for the rant space /.

Bill M.

Al Speaks

[ArtDent]

Ok, so now we know what Lars thinks. But, I think the question everyone really wants answered is, "what does Al think?"

Wonder no longer. Here are the brilliant insights of Weird Al Yankovic, courtesy of Ask Al Q&A's for May, 2000:

Jeremy McCarthy of Fairfield, CT asks: Hey Al!!!!! What do u think about Napster? I just want to know if you approve.

I have very mixed feelings about it. On one hand, I'm concerned that the rampant downloading of my copyright-protected material over the Internet is severely eating into my album sales and having a decidedly adverse effect on my career. On the other hand, I can get all the Metallica songs I want for FREE! WOW!!!!!

Al has spoken.

Re:Interesting Precedent

[JohnG]

I'd bet you could sue a gun company IF they were selling guns illegally. That is to say they were skipping the registration process and knowingly selling to criminals.
You see, buying a gun isn't illegal. Downloading copyrighted material is, so yes if a gun company behaved like Napster then yes you could sue them.

Lars says "And justice for all!"

[MindTree]

Ride the Lightening Lars! Harvest the Sorrow of all the all who were accused of stealing your music.

Do you really care about Napster or did the record company need a spokes person and you drew The Shortest Straw?

Rip out the Blackened souls of these Napster pirates and torture them till they are on The Frayed Ends of Sanity and they renouce their wrong doing and send you some money, right Lars?

Is this legit, or just some Master of Puppets power trip? Stand up you Disposable Hero and stop this, The Thing That Should Not Be.

Hell, Hit the Lights and Kill'em All. You should feel No Remorse, cuz you're justified my friend, as the poor staving artist. We all know Kid Rock was the first, you could be next! This Napster could throw you down to poverty so fast that you get Whiplash, but you know we will make fighting it as tough as Pulling Teeth.

We all should have guessed you'd be the first to make something of this with yur Seek and Destroy mentality. Don't get all Holier Than Thou because it's Sad but True, you pirate too. So, Don't Tread on Me when you're the God that Failed.

My Friend of Misery, join us, The Unforgiven! May I suggest FREEDOM FOR ALL because, in truth, Nothing Else Matters.....

Re:Ignore Lars at your Peril?

[superkorn]

Me too. He is quite an intelligent guy overall and I think that came through pretty well in the interview. He also seems to have a good grasp of what he knows vs. what he doesn't know and admits what he doesn't know, which is more than can be said for a lot of people. Granted the interview is a bit long and rambling but I think that is partly a function of its unedited nature. Would anyone have rather had a dumbed down edited interview? I would rather have it straight from the horse's mouth so to speak.

Re:Wow. That was a fucking dumb interview.

[Gorbie]

I am not sure that what Metallica is doing can be equated to a testosterone-laden pissing contest. I think Lars stated, acurately if not eloquently, that the members of Metallica feel that wholesale distribution of their music by an unauthorized corporate entity is wrong, and that they choose to fight it. This is about distribution channels and how Metallica's music travels through them. Its about their right to prohibit a company like Napster from reaping the rewards of Metallica's hard work without any accountability to the people that generated the product in the first place. Equating this to people making mix tapes for their car has no relevance here. If Record Town decided to open up a bunch of Metallica CD's in their store and allow anyone who purchased blank tapes to tape them in the store without paying, that would be a similar situation and I'm sure the band would take action. They aren't interested in getting into anyone's livingroom and stopping their fans from enjoying the music. They are attacking the corporation facilitating mass copyright violation.

Larr's is travelling up the learning curve.

[Embedded]

It's obvious from what Larr's is saying that he is on the learning curve and not scared to say it. Now that you have his attention perhaps you can offer him this bully pulpit to speak from every 6 months or so. It would be interesting to hear how his thoughts progress because he is something we all treasure, a outspoken but intelligent newbie with a obvious sense of fairness in his perceptions.

Re:Half-off-topic: Contempt for non-computer-peopl

[belgin]

Lars is wrong because he claims that artists have a right to control the spread of their work. They do not - information wants to be free, and nobody has the right or should have the ability to control it.

OK. Here is another perspective to view it from. The information is and always has been free. The source code (the actual music sheets and lyrics) is out there and free as far as Lars is concerned. If you download and actually compile (play) it yourself, I doubt Lars would care. So the information is completely free. What are you complaining about? Oh ... wait. You want HIS compiled version of the information done by Metallica (a beowulf cluster of Alphas) not the one done by you (a TRS-80). Well, it is his performance, so he can do it for you at your every whim, or do it when the hell he wants and charge you for it. If you were in his shoes, which would you prefer? Honestly, now?

Music tracks are not information that is free. They are reproductions of something unique. If Lars had a unique painting and made a few prints of it for his friends, would you complain? How about if you had the painting instead, and Lars made 5,000 prints at Kinko's (on your credit card) and gave them away to everyone who wanted them. Suppose those people did the same thing. The prints you gave to your friends wouldn't seem so special, huh?

You have your opinion and he has his. I personally view his as more reasonable, but that does not mean yours is wrong. It means that one of us is misinformed, or that we disagree on this. I try to think of things in metaphors before I make judgements, because I like to look at things in a perspective that others might see it from.

B. Elgin

Re:I Expected Lars To Be More Of A Dumbass

[belgin]

they ... feel that artists have a right to prevent people from preacefully sharing information

When did Lars ask you to stop sharing information? He wants you to stop running his paintings through the photocopier (metaphorically speaking). All of the information: lyrics, score, etc. are in the public domain or might as well be. Go compile it yourself instead.

Sure you can make a garden that you don't want people to stand on your grass and look at it with out paying. Sure you can't stop them from looking from the street. You can stop them from digging it up, taking it to the landscapers, getting a copy of it made, and throwing it back into your yard more or less where it was. Just because something is easy to copy, doesn't necessarily make it information. Information is how something is done, a description of it, the wording used, etc. Information is not the product it refers to (such as a reading of a particular piece of poetry) in my book.

B. Elgin

Re:Wow. That was a fucking cool interview.

[DrEldarion]

There is a (sort of) browsing function that I use a lot. If you see a person that has a couple of songs from an artist that you do like (or if you see them in a chat room), you can put them on your 'hot list' and view all the songs that they have. Chances are that you'll come across some sonce that you like that you never knew existed.

-- Dr. Eldarion --
It's not what it is, it's something else.

Re:Wow. That was a fucking cool interview.

[DrEldarion]

Not especially suspicious. I've certainly never met anyone who used napster to get music that they couldn't have bought on CD.

Hey, I'm right here.

There are a lot of remixes of songs out there that are pretty much only available on Napster, along with other music (foreign, mostly) that would be near impossible to get any conventional way. They're never at stores, and the only websites that I can find that have them are in Japanese, which doesn't help me much.

If I was able to actually find the CDs, I'd go out and buy them, but I resort to Napster because it's impossible for me to get the music normally.

-- Dr. Eldarion --
It's not what it is, it's something else.

Re:Hmm...

[DrEldarion]

The thing is, they weren't added to anything. Napster didn't say, "Hey, lets put these Metallica MP3s up!", the users who connected to Napster had them and were sharing them.

Using your analogy, it would be like saying that the ISP that a spammer sends mail from is at fault.

-- Dr. Eldarion --
It's not what it is, it's something else.

Hmm...

[DrEldarion]

It's like, OK, 'It's January, my name is Napster, or I'm Sean, or whoever the CEO was at the time, we have this service, we would like to know if you are interested in being part of it.' If we'd said Yes, then there's no issue, if we'd said No, then this whole thing would have never

Does anyone else get the impression from this that he has NO CLUE what goes on with Napster?

-- Dr. Eldarion --
It's not what it is, it's something else.

Re:Hmm...

[Golias]

Does anyone else get the impression from this that he has NO CLUE what goes on with Napster?

Yes.

Not to quibble, but...

[hypergeek]

'Misinformed' is not knowing the statistic. 'Ignorant' is repeating a highly questionable statistic in a public forum as if it were fact.

'Uninformed' is not knowing the fact. 'Misinformed' is knowing an incorrect, but plausibly substitutable fact which one sincerely, and reasonably believes to be true. 'Ignorant' is when one should reasonably suspect that he's been misinformed, but chooses to 'ignore' it anyway, possibly for fear of admitting to oneself or others that he does not know the correct fact, and has been tricked into repeating an absurdly incorrect fact instead.

I think it's the latter in this case. Lars & company may be royally pissed when they find out that the mp3s being traded are hardly the "pristine master copies" they've been led to believe by NetPD, or their managers, or, most likely their lawyers (the only people who can still actually profit from this arrangement).

But, by then it may be too late for them to turn around and change their minds due to the sheer momentum of the whole process. They've got to save face somehow, and they're in a position where they'll piss some segment of their fans off no matter what they do, unless they get really creative.

However I may feel about the issue at large, I think Lars, et al. have done a respectable job sorting through the information they've been presented, and the conclusions they've drawn seem reasonable based upon that information.

So, although I certainly won't buy any Metallica CDs until the lawsuit is over (I refuse to fund this legal action.), I'm no longer going to automatically change the station whenever any Metallica song comes up on the radio. As Lars has said, it's important to separate the business and creative sides of the music.

Lars makes some good points ... and misses a few

[alanjstr]

I'll start with the bad: Lars seems to think that MP3 is a perfect copy. Although he agrees that CDs are too expensive (hence the wide interest in MP3s), he has no plans for distribution over the internet (which he agrees would be cheaper). For Metallica, Napster is just the first step. They think that after that, they will go after other things such as Gnutella, especially when they IPO. Well, since AOL disowned Gnutella, there is no link to any "funding."

One great point is that downloading stuff from the internet is a privilege and not a right. He's not against the idea of Napster in general ("So you can't sit there and say 'I think Napster doesn't have a right to exist,' because there are people who want to use a service like Napster"), he just doesn't want copyrights, etc. being trampled on. People tout Napster and MP3.com for their ability to let "new" bands distribute their songs hoping to make it big. How many of these bands will really take off without the promotion of the record companies?

how am I supposed to find them?

[ArchieBunker]

Just how in the hell am I supposed to find these unheard/undiscovered bands? Napster lets you search by keyword, not genre or type of music. Am I supposed to type in random words and find bands that way?

Another sobering fact

[Lac]

I was listening to the CBC radion the other day. A pianist was talking about his personal experiences with mp3.com. He was originally very optimistic about it because his personal weak points were "selling himself" and business sense. He hoped mp3.com would free him and allow him to directly benefit from his musical talent alone.

He registered and put up a few songs for free download. The others were up for sale. He was apparently quite talented, because he quickly got to the top ten download list in his category, and stayed there for months. He was very excited about all of this, and saw possibilities for fame and an honest, hassle-free living.

After four months IIRC, he got his first check. It was an mount of just over seventy dollars. Needless to say he stopped bothering with mp3.com. He still gets fan e-mail, which makes him feel good about himself, but the man has to eat, too. So much for the theory that mp3.com is allowing artists to benefit from their art. Maybe their poster childs aren't so representative of what really goes on.

Re:I have to say that I agree with him...

[FreshView]

One thing I didn't realize, or think about, and I don't think most people realize, or think about comes back to scale. No one cared when we were trading MP3s via FTPs and IRC channels. The difference with Napster was ease of use and availability. I've tried Gnutella, but never freenet, and let me tell you. Joe Jock, college football star who wants some MP3s is not going to have much luck with Gnutella. I think that even if Gnutella lives on (which it will), it won't matter because the volume will be so reduced. Last time I connected with GnuTella, I saw about 11 terrabytes online or so. Well, I usually get on the order of 2 terrabytes on any napster server I'm on, and there are many, many napster servers. And Gnutella trades far more than just mp3s.

I think if Napster goes down, the rest will probably be left alone, though I imagine someone will go after Scour sooner or later... that should be a hell of a legal battle. (Scour is funded by Michael Ovitz)

Why are they still going after Napster?

[FreshView]

I mean, didn't they get what they wanted? I'm not sure what their beef was, I thought when napster banned the names Metallica gave them, that was all there was to it. Why are they still going after Napster?

in shock (sort of)

[doorbender]

"But the way to combat a $16 CD as being unfair is not to go out and steal it, that just bcomes sort of the anarchy, the mob rules. "

I never thought I would hear mettalica make an anti anarchy statement.

Pretty much what I thought

[Spiff28]

Lars has some valid points, this is true. I really hate to say he doesn't get it, because I do think he has a point when he goes on about Internet Extremists (hellooooo slashdot). So what I'll instead say is that he has views that differ fundementally from mine.

A record company is about promotion and not about "being a bank." There is nothing I like more than getting my music heard, and liked. The best way for me to do that is to promote it. Record companies do just that for me, so they should get money for services rendered. What we have today, sadly, is a gross deformity of a bank/business. I could go on and on about this, but then you'd be hearing more of a rant than a comment, so..

The Internet was ripe 2 years ago for bands to begin online music distribution. Now -- with broadband ever increasing and college students coming to campus with a view of bandwidth being as essential as water -- now the internet is approaching mass consumerization. Mp3.com may not have the Puff Daddy or Britney Spears (in terms of popularity) but they have a lot of music that broadband people can get pretty quickly, and easily. If Metallica had sold their stuff online before they went after Napster, I think they would have had so much less of a problem. Lars thinks that "we're getting to that point" where artists can viably disrtibute online. I think we're past that point.

Digital music distribution does promote independents. It's almost like compilation albums: if I see artists I like, and artists I'ver never heard of in the same place, you can bet your ass I'm going to check out the new people. I know I'm not alone when I say I have discovered countless artists whose work I have purchased after I heard them on MP3.

I believe we do have the right to just about anything we get on the Internet. Actually, practically an entire generation of people believe this. I don't think I have the right to the hax0r-w4r3z version of program XYZ. I do have the right to get what I'd like for what I'm willing to pay. I'm willing to pay a small amount (75 cents) per song for music I get. I can't do that yet, and because the MP3 cat is out of the bag, I'm sorry, but I'm not about to completely stop getting music until someone gets their act together. This is a generation that like it or not is accustomed to convenience. It is currently more convenient to get the music from napster than it is to put down way too much money for it. This is a backlash that's resulting from as Lars put it, the record companies' fuckup, but I think it's way past time people stopped fighting the symptoms and took care of the cause.

I agree with Lars when talks about napster and lack of permission for distribution, etc. Valid, and I agree. The problem is that it's more a matter of people's demand, not napster capability. Napster didn't put the songs there, the people did.

The way I've explain Napster to those who have asked is quite simple. It's basically a giant room where people say "I have such & such a song" and other people are asking for "such & such's song." Clearly you can't say that the room is illegal.. it's just there. Everyone I've talked to always agrees on that point. They may not be thinking, like me, about online distribution models, about convenience, etc. But they do agree, it's pretty stupid to outlaw a room.

These thoughts are my own and not karma-whoring fodder, flamebait, me-too'ing or what have you. I'm telling you what I want. Lars, in all of his research, will hopefully be checking this place out.

Re:can we now have a chuck d interview...

[Glowing Fish]

How come Chuck D keeps on getting smarter and smarter while almost everyone else in music gets dumber and dumber?

Good response.

[Danny Ra]

I'm impressed, though not at all surprised, by the quality of Lars' response, and I'm glad he gave his time to talk about these things.

It's clear that Metallica regard the Napster issue as one which concerns their integrity, and not only their sales revenue. That in itself makes a lot of the flak (I'm thinking of a certain cartoon in particular) the band has taken over this look spiteful and mean. Whatever else the Napster lawsuit may be about, it's not about Lars' personal greed.

Napster's corporate revenue is another matter. What the comparison I and others made with home taping left out of the equation was the extent to which the trading of files on Napster depends on a large and highly profitable third-party maintained infrastructure, for which there is no analogy I can think of in the world of home-taping. I criticised Metallica for intervening in the admittedly illegal activity of its teenage fanbase - the activity of swapping and listening to pirated music - which I argued was part of the culture out of which Metallica has gotten most of its lifelong devotees. I do not think that the band should be criticised, however, for holding the corporate maintainers of that infrastructure to account for the way they make their money out of, amongst other things, Metallica's music.

It's within Napster's power to make it a lot more difficult for Napster users to trade Metallica's music using their system. I don't think anyone would argue that it's possible for them to prevent it outright, but by doing nothing they not only implicitly sanction that use of their system but show themselves to be content to profit by it.

Home-taping wasn't killing music, and I doubt whether even the most unscrupulous use of Napster/Gnutella/Whatever-Comes-Along-Next will do so either, in the long run. It is more likely that they will continue to subtend, rather than subvert, the commercial culture that enables bands like Metallica to achieve the fame, stature and popularity that they now enjoy. Nevertheless, the responsibilities of corporate third-parties such as Napster should not be overlooked; and the novelty and popularity of the technology they employ should not be used as an excuse for disregarding those responsibilities.

Thanks again to Lars for showing that Metallica are willing to participate in the very necessary debates around these issues, and are not content - as so many others are - to settle for technical ignorance backed by bludgeoning legal firepower.

These other responses are idiotic

[Fas Attarac]

Of COURSE scale and quality matters. I see posts here trying to literally compare the act of 1 unauthorized copy to MURDER for God's sake.

I can't believe we have people here a) saying making a tape for your friend of a few choice songs is just as evil; or b) letting people download millions of copies of high-quality digital albums is "ok" and even "right".

You people clearly do not understand the way the world works here.. The original poster explained it best by saying there *are* gray areas DEFINED by scale and quality. Murder OBVIOUSLY is not one of them.

Re:Half-off-topic: Contempt for non-computer-peopl

[streetlawyer]

The question is surely, can drummers appreciate good music? Many of them have friends who are musicians, but that in and of itself wouldn't necessarily mean anything. And Lars, as far as I can tell, doesn't have any remotely musically talented acquaintances.

Something else to ponder.

[liposuction]

I had 4 albums (FOUR!!!) on cassette that were either old and distorted, or broken all together. I downloaded only the songs that I had already paid to listen to. As it turns out, some company all the way across the country sees this and submits my name to Metallica, who inturn, submits it to Napster. Now I find myself kicked off of Napster for downloading Metallica songs legally. Also, I'm sorry if Metallica is losing it's bread money, but I don't agree that Lars can sit there and say that he copies things illegally, but he's just one man . Give me a break Lars. There are how many people in the U.S.? In the world? What's good for you is good for everyone. That's the way the world works. If YOU can copy songs without permission, so can 1.4 million people in 48 hours. Sucks when it happens to you huh? ------------------------------- Trim the fat!!

Lars might support Napster in the future

[eh?]

One thing that I noticed throughout his responses is that he is learning as he's going... he even seemed to be thinking/rethinking his position on some of the questions.

For example; he contradicted himself on whether it is a quantity/quality issue. When discussing bootlegs, he started to go down that path, and then seemed to discard that arguement ("well it's not so much, not so much"). Though he did come back to it at the end, you can see that a seed of doubt has been planted there.

Now, I'm not an expert on the music industry, but I'm wondering, as Lars seems to be as well, why he is getting the backing of his record company on this. As I understand it, bands make the bulk of their money from concerts not CDs, It is the label that picks up the bulk of the cash. Lars describes the labels as a bank, where the money that they make from a big selling band is partially used to offset the losses from a band who doesn't sell, which is more of an insurance company paradigm rather than a bank.

Now this raises a few questions... as a consumer of band x's music, do I really want to be spending extra for a CD to support band Y, whom I (and everyone else) think sucks? The record label would counter saying that (like an insurance company) I would have never found Band X unless that label took a chance on them, like the chance they took with band y (insurance).... the question then, which many have raised, is whether we need the label to help us find the good bands? Let's look at what the internet is doing for other products... when I want to buy a new vid card, pre-internet I would go in to a computer store, see that I had 2 choices, and probably end up buying the card that was being used in one of the 'name-brand" machines... ie letting the labelled computer guide me to what they think is a good vid card... post-internet, I go onto a hardware web-site (or 2, or 3) that I have found I like (we all have our favorites) and rely on their tests to indicate which card to buy. Why not the same transition for music?

After Lars says "no not so much" in regards to it being a quality/quantity issue, he says it is a control thing, he wants to control the distribution... but he doesn't control it now, the label does (partially, let's not get into the whole issue of 2nd hand CDs, though that is of relevance here too)... and maybe Lars started to see that arguement doesn't hold either, as he then returned to the quantity/quality for the last question.

I think the lack of support from his record label has shaken him up significantly, as he says in the start of the interview, as he is defending their right to exist... which he doesn't have to be doing... as an "established band" he/they no longer need the support of a record label... now it could be they are altruistic individuals who like the thought that money being raked in from the sale of their CDs is being used to fund "start-up" bands... but, I don't think that is entirely the case (maybe partially).

If Lars continues his thinking that "What it ultimately comes down to... is 'Who controls it'?" I think he may start seeing the model where the band could have ultimate control if they ditched the label, and suplied their music themselves over the internet... You want control of what is being distributed Metallica? Then open your own harddrive to Napster access and drop your songs down there, then no one else would need to be doing it. Imagine if they did that... it wouldn't take very long for them to hear from their record company then!! Or, if you don't want Napster distributing, put your songs up, in whatever format, on your own site... if you build it they will come (sorry, if I didn't say it, you would still be thinking it)... but, whatever, although on topic, I am off point...

He is, as he says, been aware of the questions about the need for the current distribution channel, and the ability of the internet to serve as a new distribution channel...

the question then, and I think I should call it THE QUESTION, as this is the issue every recording artist is grappling with, is do they want revenue from each individual who wants a copy of their songs, or are they content with the revenue they get from concerts? He says they support bootlegs, but to what extent... I think he seems to be genuine in this support, because I think he really did rethink the 'it's the quality/quantity' issue, even though he came back to it at the end, the seed of doubt has been planted.

Well, I could go on for hours on my personal views of where the music industry is going, the pros and CONS of having the labels (do we really need the Britney Spears of the world, ie. music that is pure marketing no content?)... see I'm finding it hard to restain myself now... but that would be off-topic... the topic being what is Lars saying/thinking.

Cheers all!

A Modest Proposal

[jzitt]

Lars comes across pretty well, all told. He looks like he's been doing some thinking -- this could turn into something useful like the Bezos/O'Reilly dialogue.

One interesting point that he makes: Metallica has supported and thrived on the free distribution and trading of certain of its materials (live tapes, etc), but requests (forcefully) that other of its materials, those released on commercial albums, not be distributed. This makes sense: for example, my ensembles, Comma and Gray Code, have lotsa MP3s up for free download ( http://www.metatronpress.com/mp3/ ). OTOH, I would prefer that our studio tracks, which are or will be released on for-sale CDs, not be distributed in this way.

Unfortunately, AFAIK, there is no way to indicate in an MP3 whether it's artist-authorised. It seems to me that some combination of an ID3 field and a PGP-like signature could somehow indicate that an MP3 was authorised by the musicians. A Gnutella-like client could then check that field and alert the fan, who would then be free to choose whether to download it or not based on that person's moral sense of whether the artist's wishes are to be honored. (I recognize that it would be up to the listener whether to use a client which would honor that field, and whether to act upon that information.)

I'm just a good enough programmer to be pretty sure that it's possible, but not how to implement it. But if such a project would happen, I'd eagerly participate. (And if it already exists, I'd love to know about it.)

Any takers?

Actually his weakest point.

[Chouser]

I just put a couple MP3's up, and forgot about 'em. Last week, I got a fan letter.

I think your statements shows how weak his point about young artists is. I don't doubt that there was only 1 non-label artist download on Napster in 48 hours, because Napster is not a good forum for finding artists you haven't heard of. Try mp3.com, instead.

But his point was that young artists need record labels in order to be heard. This is so wrong. What are your chances of getting signed by a record label? From your comments, I would bet you would agree they are slim. But by circumventing classic (archaic) record labels you got heard, which is more than any record label would have done for you.

So he is wrong to think that classic labels are needed by young artists. And he said himself that as soon as they get out from under their currect contract with a record label, that they will be looking at internet distribution ideas. This obviously spells doom for classic labels.

Other than that point, however, I think he was surprisingly articulate and I can certainly understand his position. Whether or not trading music should be illegal, it currently is, and by law, Metallica should be able to seek some kind of relief. Whether or not what Napster as a company is doing is illegal or not remains to be seen...

BTW, I kept referring to 'classic' record labels, because places like mp3.com and labels like GoodNoise "get it", and fulfill some of the roles of record labels that are still needed.

--Chouser

Re:Wow. That was a fucking cool interview.

[jafac]

Like I said before, it's all about mindshare, market bandwidth.

Lars DOES have a point, Metallica IS in a special position, because they have LOTS of mindshare, mindshare that was very expensively bought by the record companies.

Where he is wrong though, is to say that record companies will always be necessary to generate this mindshare. Perhaps Napster, as it currenlty stands, isn't the best model to generate this kind of thing. But the thing is, people have come to accept this lemming attitude that the major music labels are THE authority on what is good music, and what is not. Sometimes, they hit on good talent, and it gets out. Most of the time, they do not, but it is still sold and hyped and cast upon the masses, and sorry to sound like an elitist here, but the masses buy it, and the record labels make money, and these one-hit-wonders retire, or they go on to capitalize further on their fame. It's largely this fame that keeps them going. Rarely is it excellent talent. When it is, Then, I'd say the system is working, the system is functional.

What I believe that most of us here, on /. agree on, is the philisophical opposition to the fact that talentless fucks can go out, blow a record executive, get signed, and posess this great mindshare for years, or even decades, when great talented bands are swept aside by what is essentially fasion. The mere fact that the record companies make such obscene profits is really beside the point. It's much easier to argue the ethical drawbacks to that issue, but it's not really the point. This is why you hear these intangible arguments like, how bad backstreet boyz are, or brittney spears is.

I think what we're looking for is a mechanism to circumvent the record industry's dictatorship, and a lot of us are taken with technology as the cure-all solution to this problem, because we see it solving so many other things right now.

It's true that in this perfect dream world, that a lot of crap unsigned bands will exist, and will in-effect, drown out the signal of good talent. The fallacy is that we need some kind of authority to "tune-in" the consumer to what is good and what is bad. The fact is, I believe that the strong collaborative power that the internet lends us all, can be harnessed to focus the signal that the few good talented musicians out there represents. I believe strongly that probably, some successor to Napster will be that tool - but it probably will be in conjunction with tools in other media, like TV, print, and radio, which have traditionally been the best promotional tools. They've been the defining and leading tools. I think they need to be tools that follow from what goes on the internet. The internet is where music fans will discuss, SAMPLE, read about, new music, whether it's from crap bands, or good bands, but they'll all be UNSIGNED bands. Perhaps there will be agencies that will promote the bands on the internet, radio, print, and TV, but no longer will those agencies have a monopoly on what is heard and what is not. The reason I use SAMPLE above, in all caps, is because that is the main missing element today. We can't sample the music easily or conveniently. This was the essential component Lars was talking about, the free sample, well, he's afraid that the free sample is a perfect first-generation recording. FACT: it is not. Not even at the highest bitrate is MP3 equivalent to even a CD, which also is not equivalent to a first-generation recording. Where do they want to draw the line? Obviously, what they want is some kind of technology that gives them control of distribution, (like SMDI). At the same time SMDI will let bands who want no control to free it. What they don't want is something that increases supply infinately (which is what MP3 does) because that theoretically drives down demand to 0. Demand for what? for a digital copy of a recording? Profits are made from selling the CD, and from concerts. This is the argument we've made all along. Drive demand for the digital recording down to 0 where it belongs, and you do not devalue the true art, the live performance, and collateral materials (CD, liner notes, cover art, lyrics sheets, etc.) Control the sample with something like SMDI, and the potential is that you could be paying $20 for a single you could listen to one time only. THat's what that kind of control can give you.

It's the capability to eliminate scarcity by the free copying of data, that pops intellectual property like a recording right out of the market equation. It's no longer a commodity, it's a promotional tool. Which is what it should be. It's what videos originally were, promotional tools, not actual products. Tell me Lars, are your videos currently profit centers, or losses? That should illustrate the point.

I just remembered this old Metallica song. . .

Re:good point

[Malc]

"Since by definition an unknown artist is, well, unknown, who the hell is ever going to find their songs?

That's a good point. However, you can use the "browse user" feature and browse other songs a particular person is sharing, and stumble across stuff this way."

I think that it's a very major point. I gave up on searching through MP3's for new music because there was too much choice and 99% of what I listened I didn't like or thought was sub-standard. Maybe I'm too picky. The record companies pay a lot of more to people to do this full-time. I grew up liking just about everything that labels such as RoadRunner put out. My tastes have changed now, but there is a place for record labels: they provide a selection from which I am more likely to find something that I like. If I want something new, I can look at the (generally indie) record labels and browse their catalogues.

Napster == worse quality than tape

[mysty]

With napster, the tail of the music is always cut off. Usually there is a minute or so missing at the end, more often half of it. This is of course because people's downloads are broken off halfway through, and you get proliferation of broken-off songs that way. The songs can only ever get shorter. Another thing is that the quality is usually very low, either because of the particular encoder, or because of a low bitrate. Or because of a semi-broken cdrom-player it was copied off. All in all I certainly don't agree with Lars about that Napster provides studio-quality perfect digital copies of their music. Napster is no match at all for the original cd's.
There has to be a better system; with quality checks at the recording, encoding and download stages. With download you have CRC/MD5 checks of course, but if I am going to pay for music I download over the Internet, I'm going to demand quality ensurance in return. That is one way that copyright holders could still earn money on in the future. Also having licensing info encoded in the recording, free like GPL, or for pay, or public domain or whatever, I want to be able to know what license I have with a digital music file (or movie or whatever).
-------------------------------------- ------------------
UNIX isn't dead, it just smells funny...

Hom much money do you get from the sale?

[fishbowl]

>How much money do you get from the sale of each
>CD, and how much goes to the record company?

Lars, you did NOT answer this question, or even
attempt to address the question in your response.

I suspect the reason you did not answer the question, is because you DON'T KNOW the answer.

What I take away from this interview, is that you
did not, for whatever reason, answer this one question.

Small-time bands and record companies

[daviddennis]

Ever since I heard her on a "smooth jazz" radio station in Florida, Vanessa Daou has been one of my favourite artists. She's probably typical of a whole genre of people who make a living out of their work, but stay frustratingly far from the big time.

She started a web site [ http://www.vanessadaou.com ] to sell her newest CD as an "internet-only" venture. Naturally, being a big fan, I bought it. Sadly she went back to the record companies - I assume she, quite simply, needed their promotional muscle to push the music, just as Lars said in his interview.

As a curious symbol of her return to the record company fold, by the way, her web site has turned Flash only, so I can't even view it properly on my computer! Oops.

Anyway, I thought this might be an interesting data point to confirm what Lars was saying in his interview. I'm not keen on metal-style music, but if you strip off the phone transcript sillies, I think he's smarter than most of you think. And I'm intrigued by his notion that the record companies are sleepier than ever in terms of trying to protect the artists they nominally serve. Interesting interview, Lars; thanks.

D

----

Ok, time for a compromise.

[EvilNight]

First, I'm stunned. I never would have figured Lars for a genius. What we have here is someone who is just as passionate as we are about this, and just as educated on the issue. Thing is, he is on the other side of the fence. Let's hope he will work with us on this, because the only way we will ever find a happy medium is by talking to people like him about it.

Our problem - We want to participate in a mass media digital distribution network capable of getting any media that we want, be it music, movies, text, or software, to our computers in as fine a quality and with as much speed as possible. Library of Congress on tap, for lack of a better term.

Their problem - Nobody is paying the copyright holders for the acquisition of their property, and it can potentially cause them to lose a lot of money. They don't mind that we are interested in acquiring their media digitally - hell, that's what they want. They want you to buy their goods.

Lars said it - the copyright holders must be able to choose their own terms for this digital distribution. They can charge whatever they see fit (including free) for the media. They can choose to be a part of it or not, but they still retain their rights. That is the only way a commercial service like Napster can remain legal. They have to provide a way to block media that is not supposed to be there - they provide the service, so they bear the responsibility. That's the law, and breaking it will only get you slammed into oblivion because big business runs this country.

Solution - Develop a system that allows firm control of the media that is distributd over it. There's no need to control users or invade privacy. Only the copyright holder of a piece of work should be allowed to introduce it into the system, and on their terms alone. They should also retain the ability to remove it at any time.

Why should they be required to regulate their service, when, for example, an ISP is not required to regulate Usenet/IRC? Simple. Their service exists for the express purpose of providing you with said content, a content that exists ONLY on their service. ISPs are like a phone company. They only provide a medium, not the content. If you provide content, you are responsible for maintaining control over it. Granted, it is a very gray area, and it can be argued either way, however this way would allow the artists to protect their rights, and that's how the courts are going to see it.

THIS WILL NOT STOP PIRACY. It will however reduce it greatly. Most of the people who use Napster do it out of convenience (and to try before you buy). If a LEGAL alternative exists that falls within reason, most people will use that instead, simply because it is legal and moral. Only when it is too expensive (like current CD prices) will it be shunned for an illegal alternative.

Napster in its current form is incapable of this. Everyone can be a server/client, and there is no way they can take that back. That program is released, and it will continue to serve as a vehicle for piracy until a better one comes along, just like Usenet and IRC always have. DON'T waste your time trying to control the things that cannot be controlled. Even forcing Napster out of business will not make people stop using Napster. The software exists with or without the company that created it.

Instead, design and create a digital distribution format that allows people to PAY for the property. Once that system is in place, the vast majority of the users will use that instead, cutting the piracy back down to reasonable levels (like old fashioned bootlegging). Just because some pirate steals it doesn't mean that 10 other people won't go out and buy it. Also, don't assume that the pirate would actually buy it if he couldn't steal it.

Since a system like this does not (AFAIK) exist, everyone uses the next best thing - Napster. Napster should have given a bit more thought to this before they let the cat out of the bag. They have the ability to create such a system, they just took the quick way out, and now they are paying for it.

Lastly - Some might say that this will not be any different than the currently exiting system, and if there are only a few digital providers they can do or charge whatever they want. Not true, for three reasons. First, the copyright holder should set the cost. Second, it is a lot easier to create such a digital system than it is to create, for example, a record label. There will be a lot of distributors, and consumers can choose the one they like. AOL/Time Warner will probably jump on this in half a minute. Third, they cannot justify the cost of charging $10 per song, because they never produce anything. All they provide you with is a means to download digital information, and possibly a central server structure from which to download it.

I have to say that I agree with him...

[dwlemon]

People should have a say in where their copyrighted material goes. I think most people would feel pretty bad about writing a book and then having it yanked from your hands and copied all over the place without receving a penny for any of it. ('course I stink at analogies)

Maybe if Metallica themselves uploaded a few MP3s themselves at one time, then all they would be able to say was "oops, I didn't know they would spread like that".. but they didn't.

But I also think it's impossible to control mass distribution of media now. And any attempts to go after Gnutella (a true file-sharing utility just like anonymous FTP) will be fruitless.

So what Metallica and other musicians want may be justified, but it just ain't gonna happen.

Re:Heres why dipshit

[seebs]

Compare your argument with the same argument the other way:

"The guy admits he knows fucking nothing about the music industry, yet he's starting a hugeass distribution mechanism and attempting to bankrupt a record company. What the fuck gives some goober who has no clue what he is talking about the right to regulate the administration of the music industry?"

Getting the point yet? Well, I didn't think so, but there's a reason your post stayed at 0. ;)

Lars is attempting to find a way to keep the technology from wrecking the industry he works in, not because "technology is bad", but because "people ought to be able to exercise the control we have given them by law in this country". If you're willing to be the one to figure out how new bands get promoted and paid without record companies, go make your billions revolutionizing. But don't just sit on your hands and say "it's not my fault that I steal stuff from people, it's new technology".

Lars is a hell of a lot better informed about the computer industry than you appear to be about the music industry.

Re:good point

[seebs]

I suspect that if you counted the bootlegs of concerts, Lars would be not especially surprised, and if he were surprised, it'd probably be positive. I suspect he wouldn't even be surprised by the number of bootleg tapes of studio albums.

Why? Because I suspect that number is self-limiting, in a way that MP3's aren't. Bootleg tapes of studio albums aren't that good. They wear out. Hell, I haven't personally put any music but mine on a tape in at least five years. People tend to buy CD's if they like an album... IF the copy they have now isn't a perfect, non-degrading, digital one.

You've got lots of ideas for how a band can get sold among the tiny little group of people who are out looking for new bands. Record companies have found ways to get a new band sold to people who are in music stores. Until you can do that in your business model, you're not improving on anything.

ONE unsigned download? / OT: mp3.com banned me

[dayeight]

That doesn't seem right at all.... I constantly am getting stuff from bands with avante garde names or if I hotlist someone with similiar music taste, you can find some unsigned bands as well.

And there is no bigger rush for myself, then the occasions when I type "bratwurst orange" and see my music up for trade. It's great. Uh, so check out my band too.

As an aside, my side project, XIR (xir is recursive) has banned me for making a song called "kill everyone who works at mp3.com" bad taste? sure, but it was obviously a joke and I put it in the comedy genre and deleted it when they put it on hold, but now XIR is no more on mp3.com

Re:Cooked up? More like pulled out of his ass...

[Ralph Wiggam]

Johnny Socko is hardly an unsigned band. They have one album available from cdnow.com and their new one is sold on www.johnnysocko.com. They are definatly on the lowest popularity rung of bands traded on Napster, and they're a "regional" midwest band with a real record contract.
Lars' figure of one unsigned band may be made up, but I don't think anyone could say with a straight face that legal trading of unsigned bands using Napster for publicity makes up anywhere close to 0.01% of all Napster trades.

-B

Re:Wow. That was a fucking dumb interview.

[plunge]

Regardless, no one has made any sort of convincing argument as to why these users deserve free music. The arguments here all biol down to "you can't stop us- neener neener!" and "you're stupid and misinformed." Guess what- it doesn't matter if Lars is a complete fool (and despite his relative net innocence, I think this interview showed to me that he's not)- he has a right to say what can be done with his stuff. You're welcome to hate him for it. You're even welcome to point out that such efforts don't hurt the industry or bands (which I'm still not sure about, and I don't think anyone else has a legitimate ability to be sure about either) or even that its benefical via free advertising. It's still his stuff, which was released under his terms. Maybe he's behind the times. Maybe it's counterproductive. But that's HIS decision to make. If it kills Metalica's future, maybe he'll learn. But it in no way justifies stealing. It is entirely hypocritical to claim to hate the state of the music industry and then to take their music all the same.

Re:Wow. That was a fucking dumb interview.

[RomulusNR]

Aside from half the questions chosen being pretty piss-poor and redundant (/me watches my karma drop even more), Lars' answers weren't the least bit useful.

If anything, he proved once and for all that Metallica really doesn't know what the fuck is going on. It looks more like a show of the agressive metal theme being played on a corporate stage. Lars would like it to look like its the scruffy, underdog metalheads fighting the evil, thieving corporation. And in reality its the embittered, out of touch, aging superstars against the geeks. It's feels like an orcs vs. kender battle suitable for a D&D tourney.

I don't know how Lars can take this fiasco seriously. I can understand the "I can take a dare" theory of why they went through the trouble of finding all the names. I mean, hiring someone else to find the names for them. But they have less than a passing knowledge of whats going on. It's not anything like the macho aggressiveness of a street fight, of the sort you would expect from a metalhead, but the cowardly scheming of a rich, well-connected bureaucrat (with lots of yes men) trying to... i don't know... trying to stop the X-Men, or something. What I mean is that Metallica isn't getting so much as dirt under their fingernails over this, but that doesn't stop them from parading at the front of the horde when the gauntlets are thrown.

Enough metaphor. I'm not impressed by any of Metallica's arguments. Lars' answers are full of holes, not only exhibiting his almost total lack of knowledge of even the details of the case, but also repeatedly contradicting himself. Sure, Napster trading isn't causing our income to go down, but it's the principle of the thing -- unless the trading is on a smaller scale, like the guy down the street with the Iron Maiden record; that's a different principle I guess.

The bottom line is Metallica wants to pick a fight, and they can't do it with 600,000+ users directly (their current count), and they can't do it with Gnutella or Freenet (which they haven't quite realized yet), so they do it with Napster. They want to blame Napster for what 600,000 other people want to do with their music.

Maybe they should blame Jagermeister for all those mornings they were ill and hung-over, too.
--

Small independent artists and success without R.C.

[LetterRip]

Lars mentioned the single download of a nonsigned artist, and the fact that he feels that a small band could never make it without the record industry. However, with a reputation manager, and shared interest manager, his point could quickly be invalidated. Ie, I go through a slection chart listing my likes, dislikes, yada yada, just as is done with amazon. Then, each song can be rated by the individual similar to slashdot, with an added field for additional comments (and possibly multiple rating categories.) This would allow a method for finding quality music by relatively unknowns. Giving them the full power of network effects/pulbicity without the costs.

LetterRip

Re:can we now have a chuck d interview...

[crackpot]

As many of you might be aware Charlie Rose (on PBS) had a head-to-head interview with Lars and Chuck D. on 5/12/00. Essentially, Lars and Chuck agreed to disagree, however, both were quite "eloquent" in their arguments and I was impressed with Lars' passion for pursuing a public debate. Chuck D. was equally (if not more) impressive in his knowledge of the issues (philosophical and to a lesser degree technical). I can't seem to find a transcript on the internet but if you go to the PBS site you can order the dead-tree version.

Re:One major point...

[stienman]

But it really ISN'T an issue of a copy of a copy of a copy! Every person talking in this forum knows someone who knows a person with a metallica CD. At MOST you'll have a second generation copy of a CD, which is the same quality as MOST of the metallica MP3s that are being traded on Napster. You would be lying were you to say that someone in wyoming couldn't get just as good a copy via a friend as they can get via napster.

The fact that you don't have to track down your friend for the tape and time to copy it is really moot. If you are a fan of their music, you'll buy a CD because the MP3 won't be good enough for you. If you are a casual listener, then yes, you are stealing. But you wouldn't listen to the song if it weren't on Napster, and the fact that it is in your MP3 library and you listen to it will make you want a good copy of it.

But then, this is the same argument software pirates make about pirating software: it doesn't really impact the company's profits.

I don't agree with software or music piracy, but I disagree with the methods used by BOTH sides in this 'battle'. Generally both sides take such an extremist viewpoint that one or the other ends up winning, and the end is really as bad as the beginning because the winner runs it too far into the endzone. You either end up going overboard with restrictions or you end up going overboard with liberties.

Metallica is using statistics to lie about the extent of the piracy. Napster is using the 'service provider is not responsible' lie to make it seem like they hold NO responsability for the actions of their users. The Users are using the lies that they will either buy the CD, or have it already. These all contain a good portion of truth, but they are being blatantly exagerated.

The music industry is facing another paradigm shift, and this is just one of the tiny pre-battles which are going to draw the real battle lines. Like many shifts before (shows-> pressed records-> recordable tapes-> pressed & recordable CDs-> computer manipulated and transferred, compressed digital) this one is going to be fought tooth and nail until it brings both the music industry AND the users kicking and screaming into another quiet period of peace and profit.

-Adam

Sin has many tools, but a lie is the handle which fits them all.

A change of opinion?

[Chalst]

It's funny how different the views expressed on this item have a
rather more anti-Napster quality than those in the original
interview. Is the congregation obediently abosorbing Linus' view on
the matter?

Cooked up? More like pulled out of his ass...

[SvnLyrBrto]

>And you aren't the least bit suspicious that that
>number is cooked up?

You might say that...

Unsigned bands whose songs I've DLed from Napster:

Atom and His Package
Skif Dank
Johnny Socko
Discount
Gigolo Big & the Barflies
Don't Know Jack
Nature Kids
The Savoys
Headboard
The Usuals
The Spitvalves
Edna's Goldfish

That's just off the top of my head, WITHOUT going through my MP3 folders to check. Fair bit more than one, eh? Now, some of these may or may not be associated with little indie labels, I'm not 100% sure, but NONE of them have whored themselved out to the RIAA majors.

How about RealAudio/mp3 instead of transcription?

[pkj]

Since, well, it is pretty obvious that, like, someone asked Lars the questions and then, you know, just taped or transcribed his answers. That it would make sense, you know, to just send the audio, I mean, like in Real Audio or MP3 format, instead of lots of long, rambling text that just takes forever to read.

-p.

Two points: transcript and monitoring Napster

[kniedzw]

First off, I'd like to make the comment that Lars's answers were obviously a transcript of an oral conversation. For anyone who still thinks that he was being incoherent and grammatically incorrect, I recommend that you tape a conversation between you and a friend for a few minutes, transcribe it, and read it back. It really does look horrible.

Secondly, I'm curious about Lars's assertion that they were able to monitor downloads. My understanding of napster is that the individual clients queried a centralized database of "libraries," which would then act as an intermediary between clients so that one might download from the other.

If NetPD actually did manage to monitor downloads, then that means one of two things:

• Napster has horrible security, broadcasting the actions of any client attached to the central server (which I doubt, frankly), or
• NetPD broke into Napster's computers for the information, which is blatantly illegal.

What I find infinitely more likely is that NetPD was in fact monitoring the contents of Napster's databases for instances of files with "metallica" in the title, noting the user names of anyone who had such an mp3 in their library. Thus, the claim that they only saw one unsigned artist is either misleading or an outright lie.

Further, this leads to the question about the nature of the libraries. It is possible to configure napster to not allow your computer to upload files to another client. If your client were set in such a fashion and you happened to have a metallica mp3 on your computer, you wouldn't actually be infringing on copyright, as you aren't actually granting anyone permission to download the file from you.

One wonders about the nature of this NetPD firm. ...and the nature of their tools.

User Friendly Rewlz!

[WiartonWilly]

UF seems to have a grasp of this situation. hehehe ;^)

http://www.userfriendly.org/static/

No understanding of OSS *or* the internet

[Noer]

I quote...

"And I believe, and the people that we talk to about this, we believe, that the minute some of these companies become active, when they basically come to a point that they become fully funcitonal, we believe that there will be technology and a way to go after them in the way they can invent this technology and make it untraceable."

Lars just doesn't get it, and I'm sure their lawyers don't get it either. There may never *be* anyone to sue. They can try to sue a thousand people, like the MPAA did over DeCSS, and that will only spread it around more. Maybe Gnutella has some holes that would allow Metallica to find out who's pirating their mp3s (I don't know if Gnutella has any such holes, I'm just speaking hypothetically) but there's never going to be a company that you can sue for damages. And holes can be patched up.

Sorry, Metallica, it's going to stop being possible to sue *somebody* whenever you feel you've been screwed.

Re:Scale makes it wrong?

[belgin]

I'm amazed that Lars can say that the taping vinyl is OK but MP3ing vinyl isn't, purely on the basis of scale and availability. ... At what scale does it become unethical?

One word: Microsoft.

Most people on /. are not fond of MS. Is the stuff they are doing that much worse than that done by many smaller companies? No, not much. Scale does become a factor in that one, because it gives them the power to pummel anyone who interferes with their plans.

In general, there are a lot of things that people overlook all the time. When you do those same things on a massive scale, people start to care. Kill a bug: who cares? Wipe out a healthy species: Some people are going to care. The scale at which people care varies by person. An entymologist or environmentalist is going to care about someone killing bugs long before your average yuppie. An average Washinton DC politician probably won't care until studies come in showing that many voters care about the fact you wiped out the entire population of mantids everywhere in the world and we now have locusts. It just varies from person to person and what they care about.

B. Elgin

Lars: (an MP3 == master (?!?)) = problem

[phossie]

Lars has admitted here (we all knew it) that their information is screened for them. Lars probably doesn't know how digital compression techniques work, or that the majority of mp3's are noticeably not CD quality, much less master quality.

To illustrate:

...we do not condone and want to be part of some kind of illegal trading of our masters through sources we have not authorized...

There is a difference, I think, ... comparing that kind of home taping to basically going on the Internet and getting 1st generation, perfect digital copies of master recordings from all the world, is just not a fair comparison.

Some .lawyer. decided to tell the band that mp3's were "perfect digital copies" of their masters. Not that under usual use, mp3 is a lossy compression algorithm. Why, I ask, didn't they just request that Metallica mp3's encoded at a bitrate higher than 160 be banned? Because someone told them their masters were in circulation. It sounds like if Lars knew that mp3 had a little quality problem (again, in normal use) he, and presumeably Metallica, would also have a little less of a problem with Napster.

gi

[jbarnett]

IMHO it was a really good interview and Lars seemed like he was well prepared for it, but one thing I didn't get is this question:

7) Skip the Record Company
by cwhicks


How much money do you get from the sale of each CD, and how much goes to the record company? ...

Did anyone else notice that Lars dodged that question better then Bill Clinton and Bush combined? Slick one that Lars is, have to watch him or he'll get away from ya. I would like to get a direct answer from him. Wonder if his Label has him under some non-disclose agreement about that type of stuff??

Journalistic ethics

[streetlawyer]

Errrmmmm ... I know you guys aren't professional journalists, but Roblimo has been in the business long enough to know that leaving in all of somebody's "You know"'s and "OK"'s in an attempt to make them look like a moron isn't good ethics. I certainly hope that this utterly verbatim account is at Metallica's request, otherwise it looks a bit shabby.

And bTW, what did he actually say which Emmett replaced by [fight] above. I'm guessing he used the c-word?

Re:Journalistic ethics

[Roblimo]

Lars' words were published verbatim by prior agreement. It would have been a lot easier for us (especially timothy!) if we'd gotten neatly-typed answers. But the band and their publicists wanted to make sure you knew that you were getting honest, unfiltered opinions from Lars himself, not a bunch of stock lines cooked up by lawyers.

Timothy and I both know how to edit and "clean up" an interview transcript. If this was CNN's Web site, we would have. But this is Slashdot, where we figure most of the readers like the unvarnished truth better than the laundered version.

And, if this was CNN's Web site, we would have written the questions ourselves instead of doing the "Slashdot thing" and asking questions that were written by readers and chosen (through moderation) by other readers.

Slashdot is often accused of not being the New York Times, or ABC News, or whatever other medium you happen to favor.

Guess what? It isn't supposed to be! :)

- Robin

Re:Journalistic ethics

[technos]

I actually think it's better that all of the verbal gaffs were left in. You could tell it was Lars, you could tell it was off the cuff, and you could most certainly tell there was no laywer sitting between Lars and the phone.

If they had screened the gaffs, we would have indebatably spent the next 300 comments complaining that 'Lars musta been scripted or something'.

Re:Scale makes it wrong?

[Golias]

The quality of mp3's is a great deal better than tape.

A good dub tape sounds much, much better than an mp3 rip. Anyone who has listened to both on a quality hi-fi system and thinks otherwise has ears of tin.

Of course, being a drummer in a heavy metal band for your entire adult life could make parsing out sound fidelity pretty tricky. When Lars says that mp3's are a perfect copy of the masters, I'm sure he is taking somebody's word for it; no doubt everything he hears is blended with a steady "eeee..."

I would have used more "e"s to make my point, but the dang lameness filler kicked in. :(

but that's the point

[Sister Mary]

mp3.com is for unsigned artists, yeah. Napster is a corporation looking to go ipo who doesn't give a crap about unsigned artists. THAT'S the whole POINT!!! Napster makes money off the intellectual property of others, under the current system. End of story. Gnutella and some other programs don't, which is a BIG distinction.

Executive Summary of Lars' Concerns

[Christopher Thomas]

For readers who haven't waded through the article or were confused:

As far as I can tell, the main points Lars makes are as follows:

• Metallica should decide how Metallica's works are distributed.
  Allowing distribution via Napster to go unchallenged removes this control (Metallica hadn't OKd this distribution of their work).
  
• Distribution over the 'net has a much bigger impact than distribution via tape dubbing.
  Tape dubs degrade and generally aren't spread very widely from the source. Files shared across the 'net are always perfect copies and are distributed very far afield from the original purchaser.
  
• Metallica is investigating 'net distribution options, but Napster won't be it.
  Metallica is aware of the 'net (now), but wants to retain control over distribution with whatever distribution method is chosen.
  
• The Napster prosecution was an act of the band itself, not their legal department or their record company.
  

As far as I can tell, these are the main points stated in the interview. Please post addendums if I've missed any.

Re:My note to Metallica.com last night...

[Robotech_Master]

Interestingly, some people (including a fairly well-known SF/fantasy novelist) are working up an idea to sell stories and other material on sort of a "Storyteller's Bowl" system, similar to the Street Performer Protocol. The discussion is going on over on sff.people.storytellers right now, and a website will be up at some point, as soon as they have the site transferred over to their domain host.
--

Re:Ignore Lars at your Peril?

[seebs]

I think he actually articulated very well. Maybe you don't ramble at all on the phone. I do. I talk a lot like that sometimes, when I'm not in a medium where I can backspace over things.

I think he has a damn good feel for what this involves. Napster is, indeed, totally different from home taping. It is, indeed, potentially going to screw people.

Help!

[Anonymous Shepherd]

It's very strange. It seems Lars tacitly acknowledges that he's responding out of ignorance and concern. It would seem a good opportunity to use this as a way to change the way the market works. He obviously cares, otherwise he wouldn't put this effort into Napster, MP3s, and the internet vs his music.

How is it that we can use this to our(Lars, artists, and consumers all) advantage? Is there a way to *work* with the artists, like Lars, rather than against them? They just want to make music, want to sell it, want to have it spread. We want to hear it, obviously, and share it. Can some genius, someone with the right insight and the right knowledge, right now work a system up that puts all of this together and create a win-win situation?

I don't think I am that person. I don't know how we can create a system that gives consumers instant access, perfect quality, convenience, and acknowledgement, and the artists the satisfaction of being heard, being paid, and being loved.

Anyone?

-AS

The point is: How do they get paid?

[mckwant]

At issue isn't whether, or how such things should be transferred digitally/electronically, as that appears inevitable.

What IS at issue is exactly how the artists will be recompensed for their time and effort. Well produced albums take time and money to produce. Freeloading (those that don't buy the CD) mp3 addicts use the product without paying anything back to the artist.

While Lars isn't the best spoken guy on the planet, and I'm not a fan of most of what he's saying, I think THAT's the issue here, and it's not one that anyone has an answer for yet, TTBOMK.

Re:Wow. That was a fucking cool interview.

[dirk]

The statistic about *ONE* unsigned artist is particularly sobering.

And you aren't the least bit suspicious that that number is cooked up?

Just think for a second about what would be involved in coming up with an accurate number of unsigned bands being traded on Napster. I think he's either a) Ignorant (he isn't the brightest man I've even run across, after all) or b) lying.

Let's sya the number isn't accurate. Let's say it's an order of magnitude off, or even 2 or 3. That means while 1,400,000 million Metallica songs were downloaded, 1,000 unsigned artists were downloaded. That's 1400 songs by just Metallica to ever song by an unsigned artist. Now, let's say Metallica is 5% of all Napster traffic. Thats means there were...counting on fingers and toes... 28000 copyrighted songs to every song by an unsigned artist. Which makes songs by unsigned artists statistically insignificant.

Don't get me wrong, I like Napster, and I use Napster. But I hate to see people trying to rationalize what they're doing as being the "right" thing. At the very least be honest and don't try to bullshit everyone about it.

Re: monitoring Napster

[Whoozit]

A looney idea that came into my mind when I heard their 1-download thing and read this post is:

To monitor actual downloads, could they not have made some kind of "proxy" napster client which, say, takes the list of songs some user has, posts to the server that it has those songs, and when somebody requests them, redirects the request to the original source? Maybe this is a little complicated but would give them some idea of how often music was downloaded, without necessarily "breaking into" Napster's computers.

Regarding the interview, I was also pleasantly surprised by Lars' responses, and must say that for the most part, I agree, and have for quite some time, agreed with the arguments he raises. In my opinion, the way to fight this kind of corporate greed and abuse of copyright we're seeing here is not to blatantly ignore and break the laws that have been so important in the past. I think the key is to show our non-appreciation for the abuses by refusing to spend our money on corporate products which support firms that continue to abuse user's rights. That means not buying CDs from signed artists, for example.

The fight is not to actively destroy the RIAA (and by the wayside, the artists their CD sales support, in whatever slim fashion) by pirating every CD you can get your hands on; the fight is to support in a constructive way the struggles of artists who would and do freely share their music, if that's what we truly want.

In order to manage this, however, it is of paramount importance that the freedom of the internet is maintained. The RIAA would naturally love to squash utilities like Napster, not just because they're allowing infringement, but because this distribution method spells out their doom in all its electronic glory.

My suggestion would be this: let them dig their own graves. Don't give them any excuse to attack you; Napster should live up to its claims that it is just for "struggling" artists and indie groups; why not block songs matching "Metallica" from their database, for example? As Lars was saying, he doesn't want to be the one to constantly have to search the Napster network and find and report the people trading his songs. Can't Napster compromise?

Let the Metallicas and RIAAs block their songs from Napster. All it means is that the hordes of Napster users will be left with... guess what, only free, indie music to listen to. Some of which is damned good, I might add. They won't throw money at concerts and CDs because they heard the mp3. Instead they'll buy indie CDs, t-shirts, and concert tickets. We've been using the argument that mp3s increase sales, well dammit let the RIAA prove it to themselves!!

Lets stop being hippocritical and actually act on the arguments we've been using, people! Long live free music! Down with RIAA's crap!

My note to Metallica.com last night...

[otis wildflower]

Subject: Metallica is right to sue copyright infringers...

... but truthfully, you're cutting off their nose to spite your face here. As a software nerd I believe in copyright (for it's copyright which protects open-source software licensed under the GPL, but that's a techie issue) and I think piracy is morally wrong, but at a certain point reality has to be faced. The internet, higher bandwidth, MP3, Napster/Wrapster/Gnutella/etc have all essentially dropped a large atomic bomb on the existing music business model. Like dealing with the aftermath of a terrorist act or natural disaster, people can experience denial (it didn't happen, life goes on as always), rage (those bastards! let's get them), and other strong emotions, but in the end the only useful thing to do is pick up the pieces and start again.

The medium that music is distributed on has essentially reduced the 'product' itself to software: a product which is easily and cheaply copied and distributed for essentially zero cost to the consumer. That's the atomic bomb I wrote about, when your business model is entirely media-cost based. So, this strange new world is baffling and scary, where do you look for guidance?

The software industry. That industry has dealt with the piracy problem for decades, and has evolved some interesting ways to continue to profit (hansomely!) in the face of piracy. The fundamental question to ask is, how do you keep people buying media which is easy to obtain and distribute for free?

Software companies have solved that problem by applying a concept called 'Value-Add', which means that their profits are not pinned just on the sale of the media, but on the sale of service and support based on the operation of the software contained on that media. For example, technical support and upgrades, as well as software consulting services (for installation and 'integration' into existing software systems) provide reliable profit over and above the actual cost of software. In addition, to qualify for those services, you need to prove that you obtained a legal copy of the software media, so that drives legal ownership and prevents piracy as well.

Now, you might ask, how does this apply to musicians and the music 'product'? Clearly, one cannot expect to derive value from providing technical support when it comes to packaged music, but consider what you have when you use physical media here: you can include a unique identifier on each distributed disk, which the media buyer can use to unlock additional content available to legal music owners. Some examples of content might be:

• discounted concert tickets
• discounted products (t-shirts, other records, endorsement arrangements like phone cards or consumer goods)
• access to 'members only' goods and services (such as websites, 'subscriptions', remixes, 'draft' recordings, lyrics/tabs, backstage pass raffles, etc)

These things comprise what I feel are the most obvious 'Value-Adds' to your licensed media products, and are ways which you can use to both reduce piracy and involve fans further in your world. There are many more (like pay-for-play, corporate/private 'commissioning' of work, etc) that wouldn't even apply to the traditional software business! Metallica.com could be the site that provides the value-add community (you already have a 'members-only' section, why not restrict full access to those who have a compact-disc with a 'key' on the label?) so you can continue to record and derive legitimate profit while reducing your exposure to piracy (and fan hostility)?

I realize this address is the fanclub address, but I'm concerned about this issue, and I hope that if my message has some useful points and is not entirely incoherent it might make its way to Metallica and hopefully provide some guidance on how to pursue the whole Internet/MP3/Napster issue. I feel that coming to terms with the internet in a way that faces reality in a creative way can provide opportunities that will end up proving more profitable, fan-friendly, and sustainable than the current system, at the expense of the 'middlemen' and non-creative members of the recording industry that absorb most of the margin in the business.

Hoping that your suit is on the merits of copyright and not some duping concotion by your lawyers to generate fat fees,
Your Working Boy,

Re:My note to Metallica.com last night...

[superkorn]

Anyone who agrees with this letter or found it interesting might also want to check out the Street Performer Protocol . It was developed by a couple of cryptographers and offers another way for artists to profit off their work in a world totally devoid of copyrights. Basically, they hold their work for ransom until they recieve whatever amount of money they think they can get from whoever wants to donate it. Then, the work is released and immediately becomes public domain. Check it out it's thought provoking.

Re:Wow. That was a fucking cool interview.

[Jordan Graf]

This of course begs the question, how would NetPD even come up with a figure like this? If you want to get a list of everyone who's pirating Metallica material, it's pretty easy, you do a search for "Metallica" and maybe a few other variations and then pick all the user names out of the results. You could pretty easily devise an automated tool to do this, you run the search all weekend and presto, 300K odd names.

But claiming to know how many times a track was downloaded is a much more difficult problem. You have to somehow convince users to tell you how many people have downloaded a particular title. Obviously the server itself can do this because requests go through it, but as an outside client? Maybe the protocol lets you do this, but I doubt it.

Then, to find out how many unsigned artists were downloaded, you essentially have to track every client on the whole system and how many times every track was downloaded and then figure out which tracks were by unsigned artists. This essentially means having a master list of all signed artists in the world and doing some sort of text match against all the titles listed on Napster to eliminate signed artists. I find it highly unlikely that NetPD did this. I suppose you could develop a list of "known unsigned bands" (maybe scrape it from mp3.com or something) and see who downloads those tracks, but this is hardly accurate (And a great way to undercount.)

My guess is that this figure is invented. Whether NetPD or Lars invented it, I can't say.

I Expected Lars To Be More Of A Dumbass

[Seumas]

I'm a Metallica fan, but I expected Lars to be more of a dumbass with regard to this topic.

I did not expect such candor from Metallica. Lars made points which were completely valid. As Utopian as free-exchange-of-information and globally accessible libraries of music via Napster and Gnutella and such is, it still comes down to the fact that it is their product. Their music and art.

I cannot walk into a store and say that I feel the television they are selling is outrageously overpriced, and thereby justify walking out with it in my arms, thumbing my nose at the clerks and owners.

In addition, the fact that Metallica only went after those they believed (although I still believe screen and file names are not wholly legitimate forms of proof) to be trading in *their* music, suggests that they are not in favor of destroying Napster and those like it, but enforcing copyrights which are infringed through it.

As an example, let's say that someone posts the full text of an entire collection of novels on Usenet. The author of those novels finds the owner of the account who is responsible for posting them and, instead of targetting Usenet and seeking to 'shut it down', takes action against the individual responsible for the distcint criminal act.

All I see Lars promoting is the right to do with your music as you wish. Contesting that right is rediculous. And as he points out, the fact that the price of a CD is unjustifiably high and that musicians earn a very small amount of the overall profit, is a seperate discussion entirely.

The act of music piracy cannot be justified by the legal (but unethical and grossly immoral) practices of the music industry.

I've been a Metallica fan for a long time. They're the only 'metal' band that I listen to. So I've followed this thing pretty closely and even felt rather enraged at Metallica over the way they've handled many parts of this fiasco. But in the end, their views and reasons are just. I no more want to see James' and Lars' creative work traded around like a cracked copy of StarCraft than I do anything I've written or created.

Just because Metallica is unbelievably successful doesn't mean they own anyone a damn thing. Not the record companies and not Johnny College Boy bogging down his school's bandwidth downloading Metallica's S&M. If Johnny were downloading, say, Beethoven or Mozart -- or even modern compositions or alternative music from new bands who have expressely made their work publically available without cost, then that's great. But just because Napster and Gnutella can be used for this, doesn't mean that they are being used for it. (I do not, however, support holding Napster any more responsible for this than I do the manufacturer of a newsreader program that allows you to post anything you want to Usenet -- the violation is still an individual act and should be treated as such).

Anyway, Metallica makes great music. I don't believe this should diminish their respectability as musicians or 'rebels'. Just because they don't sell their CD's with the same sort of legal agreement that would allow you to freely distribute the contents of a RedHat CD that you may buy, doesn't mean they're some sort of corporate vulture praying on music-lovers. (Their record company is a different thing all together, though...)
---
icq:2057699
seumas.com

Re:I Expected Lars To Be More Of A Dumbass

[Andrew Cady]

(Quoting Ulrich) it's about the perception of what my rights are on the Internet, it's about the perception of how people have become so comfortable with the computer as a tool that they feel they have a right to these things.

Wow. This is exactly how I feel about copyright. People have become so comfortable with copyright as a tool to reward artists, that they (artists and others) feel that artists have a right to prevent people from preacefully sharing information if that will result in greater profits. Copyright is (in public opinion) no longer a tool to reward artists, but rather artists actually own the information that they copyright. It is that attitude that allows copyright and information ("intellectual property") law to go out of hand with restrictions, like on what you can peacefully *do* with information once you have it (DMCA), or absurdly long limits on copyright, or the lack of any exceptions for people who need information they cannot afford.

(Quoting Seumas) Just because Metallica is unbelievably successful doesn't mean they ow[e] anyone a damn thing.

Just because Metallica authored their music, doesn't mean copiers of it owe anyone anything either. Sure, the law may say they do, and apparently you hold the law in some authority, but the very fact that the law (democratic or otherwise) has been so patently wrong (and contradictory) proves that in actuality it is no authority. Nobody owes Metallica anything. They don't have any right to restrict the peaceful actions of others, just to increase profitability.

I cannot create a magnificent garden in my front lawn and then claim a right to prevent people from looking at it without paying me. Nor can I create one in my back lawn and claim any right to prevent people from looking at it through whatever peaceful means is available to them, like going into my next door neighbor's lawn, who charges less than me for the service. Sure, this discourages the creation of for-profit gardens. And so it is with public goods. When public goods are necessary, and the market cannot provide them, government interjects by infringing on non-essential rights of the people, e.g. by taxing and building roads, or using the law to restrict people from seeing my garden, or hearing my music. But still, let's not forget where the rights are in this case. I have put effort into my garden, but that doesn't mean I own the view it creates, even if the law were to disagree.

Even if my work benefits others, I have no right to restrict the benefit to others who won't pay me. If I'm not comfortable with this I always have that famed third option: not working on projects that will benefit people who won't pay me.

A very interesting question

[A nonymous Coward]

If you look at the history of artists being paid, the recorded era is an aberration built on scarcity of the physical media.

Before the printing press or the record or photograph, copy protection was a natural result of the process involved. It was too difficult to copy a book or painting. Someone could listen to a storyteller or musician and "steal" their work, but it inevitably changed in the process, such that the stolen copy was noticeably different.

Artists made a living by performing or producing new material. Most producers had very little luck getting royalties, even when the concept existed. Beethoven worried about copying. "What have you done for me lately?" was the question, and the answer was, "Next show at 9." There was no concept of living off the past. They had to keep producing or keep performing to make a living.

Recordings changed that, and good communication enforced it.

The net will turn things back, with more hobby artists and fewer mega artists. The scarcity aspect is fast disappearing. Contrary to what Lars thinks, it won't take huge marketing budgets to promote artists. Reputations will spread by word of mouth, searches, and respected sites. Without marketing and retailers gobbling up 90 percent of the retail price, artists will be able to survive on far fewer paying customers. More artists will produce merely because they want to. People will support the artists they like, though nothing like the inflated way of today. Concerts and new material will become more important. Most artists will forego the expensive and lengthy editing which studios and book publishers have used to justify their huge take.

In the 1930s and 1940s, when records were just taking off, Fats Waller usually went with his first takes. In the 1960s, the Beatles came out with, what, 5 albums in a couple of years? Nowadays music is so heavily produced that bands are lucky to come out with one album a year. Is the music really that much better?

--

good point

[FreeUser]

Since by definition an unknown artist is, well, unknown, who the hell is ever going to find their songs?

That's a good point. However, you can use the "browse user" feature and browse other songs a particular person is sharing, and stumble across stuff this way.

The problem with doing this with napster (at least for those of us conscientious about downloading only music we have already paid for in another format) is, how do you tell what is legitimate "mp3.com" material, and what isn't? Other than the big-name RIAA bands, of course, which obviously aren't.

A mixture of mp3.com and FreeNet is what is needed. An mp3.com style interface, overview, etc., coupled with FreeNet's inability to be censored. No more banned music or songs, in any country.

We can't stop unauthorized recording, or trading of illegal copies, whether its on cassette tape or in mp3 format. We can, however, maximize the exposure of underrepresented bands, put mechanisms in place that provide the opportunity and encouragement for people to behave ethically, and accept the fact that teenagers and college students will get allot of their music for free (just as they do now on the radio or via friend-sneakernet and cassette), and that these same people will buy their music when they can afford it.

I think if Lars had the ability to count the number of bootleg tapes people have (live bootlegs which he allows, or copies of studio work, which he doesn't), he would be shocked by the number. The fact that such statistics are easier to track on the net than elsewhere has perhaps contributed to his sense of panic. In addition, I have downloaded numerous songs multiple times (once at work, once onto a laptop, once at home, once on a friends PC to play the song for her, etc.). Since I own the song these aren't 'illegal', or at least 'unethical' but they would certainly show up in the artist's statistic as multiple 'illegal' downloads.

I understand his fear and concern, and he has the right, however misguided, to persue whatever means he feels he needs to to protect his rights to his work, but as another pointed out in his question, he could be spending his time and energy far more wisely in developing a business model tailored to the new technical reality which has, for better or worse, completely changed the economic landscape of mass media distribution.

If Lars & Co. are wise, they or their agents will get in touch with mp3.com. Their contract may not allow them to have any business or distribution arrangement, but they could learn a tremendous amount from the conversation regardless.

In the meantime, I will personally continue my boycott of RIAA affiliated music for philisophical reasons, irrespective of how much I may like or dislike a particular personality.

Tapes? MP3's!

[seebs]

Call Lars and ask if you can get permission to release the conversation in MP3 format.

Seriously! It's a good application for the format, it'll solve the "is this really him" debate, and if he authorizes it, it's totally legit.

The cool thing is, this would be a way in which Lars could shove a rusty railroad spike up the RIAA's colective asses, by visibly and publically endorsing the use of MP3's for some purposes.

Re:Scale makes it wrong?

[seebs]

Yes, scale makes it wrong.

Is it net abuse to send a single email to a single person asking about a possible economic relationship? No.

Is it net abuse to send a few million? Yes.

Many, many, things are problems only if done on a large scale.

Most people have come to the conclusion that morality and ethics have to allow for grey areas, as something gradually shifts from harmless to harmful.

Concrete example: If I touch someone, I probably kill a skin cell. This is not a problem. If I killed enough of their cells, it would be a problem. How do you decide whether causing cells in someone's body to die is immoral? Well, you look to see if it's doing measurable damage. At some point, it's clearly doing damage. At some point a little before that, it's ambiguous, and you have to look at the context.

Bob's Nearly-Successful Band probably doesn't care if I make a copy of their band for my wife. However, if I give away thirty thousand copies that are good enough that people don't buy their album, they may be screwed.

Wow. That was a fucking cool interview.

[seebs]

Okay, quick show of hands, who believes that was orchestrated by the record company execs?

Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

I think he's got damn good points. The statistic about *ONE* unsigned artist is particularly sobering. Let me share something with you all. I write music. It's not very good music. I don't have the bandwidth to post a URL here. I just put a couple MP3's up, and forgot about 'em.

Last week, I got a fan letter. Someone liked my music. That was fucking awesome. I am also nowhere near making any sort of a living at this.

Would I like to see something like Napster make it easier for me to make a living? Yes. But I'd like them to do it by *ASKING MY PERMISSION* before letting people distribute my work.

Hell, the fact is, I'm not sure that Metallica would have said "no" if they'd been asked; if you read the interview, they're pissed because they weren't asked, not necessarily because people are copying their music.

Anyway, I'm really glad it's Metallica doing this, and not a pop band that gets its entire mindset from the record label, specially shrink-wrapped.

Not a bad interview at all; really, it frankly totally exceeded my expectations; how often do you see a public figure in a debate like this give any ground at all, or admit that the issue is more complicated than he thought at first?

Half-off-topic: Contempt for non-computer-people.

[seebs]

So, what is it with this? Whence the instinctive assumption that people who aren't "into" computers can't possibly understand their implications? Can non-drummers appreciate good music?

I work in tech support, and I laugh at all the stupid-user jokes, because I've *talked* to those users. But I also believe that the jokes are symptomatic of a tendency to assume that one's own field is the important one, and that it's not that hard and people could do it if they really tried.

In fact, most people who don't know how to use computers are about as smart as the people who do know how to use computers. Just like I'm probably as smart as many people who can perform brain surgery safely. Same deal; I haven't put the time in to know jack shit about the medical field. Now, as some people recently established, newbies tend to overestimate their understanding of a field, and indeed, many geeks cheerfully make proclamations about how much they understand about nutrition after reading a single web page.

But never forget that we, too, are hopelessly, laughably, ignorant. Maybe in different fields, but we're just as ignorant.

Lars admitted, quite frankly, and right up front, that he's not a techie. That computers aren't his thing. How many slashdotters have the balls to admit that we don't know a damn thing about the music industry?

Me, for one. Anyone else?

One major point...

[stienman]

Part of the bootleg taping issue is that the MP3s are often NOT CD or perfect copies. The fans which download this stuff, most of which are on 56k lines still, are getting cassette quality crud because it downloads faster. Someone has sold metallica a boatload of crud, Lars believes that everyone on Napster are making/getting perfect copies.

Metallica: Whoever you have chosen as you technology advisor, get a second and third opinion.

-Adam

As a computer, I find your faith in technology amusing.

Scale makes it wrong?

[meadowsp]

I'm amazed that Lars can say that the taping vinyl is OK but MP3ing vinyl isn't, purely on the basis of scale and availability.

Assuming I was incredibly rich and created millions of tapes of one of his albums and made them freely available to everyone in the world, is that the same as taping or MP3ing?

At what scale does it become unethical? It's such a bogus argument, it's almost unbelievable, it's either alright or it's not, there's no half way.

can we now have a chuck d interview...

[T.Hobbes]

... where he refutes lars?

Scale a Factor in Fair Use Analysis

[Bloo]

Section 107 of the Copyright Act provides a non-exhaustive list of factors to be examine when determining whether the particular use of another's work is permissible. They're not long, so I'll post them: "In determining whether the use made of a work in a particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include--- (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for non-profit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work." Obviously, factors 3 and 4 reflect the weight of Lars' argument. The difference in quality between a digital MP3 and a tape cassette copy of a vinyl recoring might easily fall into the scope of the "substantiality" term. Also, the NET Act (No Electronic Theft) Act amended the copyright law placing volume and dollar value thresholds for criminal copyright violations, closing the so-called "LaMacchia Loophole", which enabled an MIT student to escape liability because even though the computer service he provided (IIRC this was pre-WWW) allowed people to pirate and otherwise infringe the copyright of computer games, he did not personally profit from it. Disclaimer: I'm a lawyer but I'm not your lawyer. And I dont' practice right now anyway.

Perfect digital copies, Garth Brooks, & Metallica.

[SlushDot]

So let me get this straight.

It's okay to bootleg concert performances.

It's okay to copy an album to tape for a buddy.

It's all about quality and scale.

Sherman, set the wayback machine for the early 1990s. A new trend had started among the big retail music chain stores. Used CDs. Racks and racks of them. This got the ire of the music industry to threaten stores with no more new CDs to sell if they didn't yank the used ones. Drugstore cowboy singer Garth Brooks made himself the pulpit boy for the cause. The claim was that used CD sales is "theft" from the artists because the sound quality on used CDs degrade. A used CD sounds just as good as a new one. Brooks and the RIAA wanted to ban used CD sales or at least to 'tax' them with the kickback going to the RIAA to make up for loss to artists (/me scratches head at logic here). The issue was LAUGHED at by the public at large. Garth Brooks was seen as a raving idiot and the issue faded away.

Now it's Napster. Same shit all over again.

Control of Intellectual Property

[GrayMouser_the_MCSE]

I hope this post doesn't get lost at the bottom of the pile, but it took quite a while for me to sort through the ramblings to understand what he was actually saying. I think his main point is that the creator of a work should control how it is distributed. Isn't this the same point of the GPL? Otherwise just release open source into the public domain. The band (or a programmer) created a song (or an app) and wants to decide how it should be distibuted. I don't think that sounds unreasonable. Just because the internet is a relatively new medium doesn't mean that all laws and ethics should not apply to it. Would it be ok if I linked up my server to the internet to freely distribute all my MSDN and MCSP apps to the world (I know, who would want them... but you get the point). They may not have done the best PR job in the world on this, but I think they are working from a valid position, and taking reasonable steps to protect their works.