Slashdot Mirror
Lars Ulrich Pirates His Own Album
rudeboy1 writes "Lars Ulrich, drummer for Metallica, and long time opponent of file sharing admitted to 'pirating' his own album, Death Magnetic last year. 'I sat there myself and downloaded "Death Magnetic" from the Internet just to try it,' he said. 'I was like, "Wow, this is how it works." I figured if there is anybody that has a right to download "Death Magnetic" for free, it's me.'"
I figured if there is anybody that has a right to download "Death Magnetic" for free, it's me.
Wrong. I'm going to apply your logic here and say that the real victims are the rest of the members of Metellica that worked hard day and night to make "Death Magnetic." You would have had to buy that in a store to get it and therefore the $18 ripoff that you avoided took money away from your bandmates who did not receive the fifteen cents they normally would have from that sale. On top of that, what about the profit your label would have made or the amounts payable to the RIAA lawyers? You have stolen something physical and real from them and they no longer have it. Those sound engineers at your studio will have to eat at Olive Garden tonight instead of Buca De Beppo.
... yet the many file sharers that have no intent(or in some cases the means) to pay for it are thieves?
So Ulrich's logic is that he never would have paid for this album in the first place and therefore it's ok for him to download it
My work here is dung.
let's go RIAA!
get on his ass NOW!
"I'm out of touch with reality, and honestly, we killed off our fanbase when we starting whining about napster... So, hey guys! Look at me!! I'm relevant again!!! SERIOUSLY!!! I download stuff too!!"
Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
Instead of reinventing to look and be alternative, they are now considering the pirate theme.
if he had had any clue BEFORE he went on his insane rants, we might be in better shape and the music industry might be in better shape too.
Lars Ulrich has caused problems trying to stop new artists from entering the system and promoting their music and concerts. Oh wait, right, he's one of the few who got through the glass ceiling and has now spent the last 10 years making ever-shittier "music" while pulling the ladder up behind him.
Since Lars and the band perform the song(s) and probably have some rights to the song(s), he can't pirate his own work.
That's like saying a photographer who downloads a picture of one of his works from a gallery is pirating his work or an author who makes a copy of one of his own books is pirating his book.
But please, let's not let common sense get in the way of people justifying not paying performers for their work.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Wonder if he was as let down by it as I was! What a waste of time+bandwidth
He admitted to be downloading it. This means he was also uploading it.
Either he uploaded it illegal and must pay 10 gazillion in fines, or he is not guilty and he was allowed to distribute it and this means everybody who connected with him did so with him agreeing.
Most likely he did not have the rights himself and he can be fined as much as he ownes and then some
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
When you P2P, you not only take the data for yourself, you also help spread the data around.
So, my accessment is that I was freely 'given' the Album directly from Lars. Therefore, as I was freely given the album anonymously by one of the original artists- I didn't steal it either. That is assuming, of course, that I would bother to download his 'music'.
F'ing Metallicops, go!
up 12 days, 22:30, 2 users, load averages: 993.20, 994.21, 994.56
*makes note to limit user processes...
Lars, is that you? Oh, yeah... it actually is this time.
I figured if there is anybody that has a right to download "Death Magnetic" for free, it's me.
I thought this was one of his rights as copyright-holder of the works...
Damn you ruined it for everyone else by making a good point against downloads :)
Buca De Beppo isn't that fancy/exspensive.. damn, lol
I'm pretty sure all musicians with a big contract sign their rights over to the label. Some acts in the past have actually gotten rich enough to buy back the copyright and have exclusive control over their music, but not many do.
You are using English. Please learn the difference between loose and lose; they're, there, and their; your and you're.
Welcome to the dark side. We have cookies.
No good deed goes unpunished. - Avon, Blake's 7
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fS6udST6lbE
By stealing this song, rather than purchasing it through retail, he has stolen revenue from AT LEAST the following people:
a) The label
b) The store
c) Marketing
d) Hauliers
He is STEALING FROM THEM.
Fuck Metallica.
And how many dozens or hundreds could have connected to his swarm while he was online? Clearly he is guilty of distributing pirated material too.
He did it b/c he couldn't figure out how to get the Guitar Hero version onto his PC himself. He was fed up with the static-laden "loudness war" version that's on the audio compact disc and this was his only avenue.
At least that's what I'd like to think as it's the funniest scenario in my mind.
Intel transfer the difficult from Hadware to software, for get more power, programmer need more technology. -- chinaitn
Master of Pirates
I wouldn't bet that he's the copyright holder. That is usually the label.
"I figured if there is anybody that has a right to download "Death Magnetic" for free, it's me."
Now, I haven't read your contract with the record label, Lars, but I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that, no, you do not have the right to download the music. Your record label probably controls the digital distribution rights of the music contained in that album and, unless you got their permission, you don't have that right. Remember the war you waged for the past several years? That's what was at the core of that fight.
But, like I said, I haven't read your contract so I might be mistaken.
He should have to pound himself in the ass in federal prison.
I know there are technical issues but perhaps the Superjail people might have a solution.
I'm Peter North, and I frequently download porn.
I mean, if he'd had some insight or something this might've been interesting, but all he did was download his own album, call the process bizarre, and.. nothing.
He could have commented on how fantastically easy it was and how that ease makes it a huge temptation and had some kind of ..thing to say.. about that..
But it's just several paragraphs of fluff about how he gets together with friends to drink wine and click about web pages*, but only just now** tried to find out about something they've been railing against..
*which, frankly, doesn't exactly sound very Metal to me...
**and by now, I mean a year ago, of course...
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
Some acts in the past have actually gotten rich enough to buy back the copyright and have exclusive control over their music, but not many do.
Given the age and success of Metallica, I wouldn't bet that Lars and the rest of the band don't have a firm grip on the copyrights to their songs, even if it's through a holding company like the beetles had it done.
I don't read AC A human right
HIPPO CRIT!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIuR5TNyL8Y
Don't Download This Song!
I suffer from attention surplus disorder.
Is his right also to enter a brick and mortar music store and leave with a phisical copy without paying for it? mind you, most music stores won't mind if it was a famous artist, but what about those pretty oscure artists that most likely the store salemen don't recognize?
This is just the artists having a double standart, "if you do it, it is illegal stealing, if I do it is my right".
Saying "oh, it's just a digital copy, not the actual physical copy" goes both ways.
DON'T PANIC.
You're a douchebag and a hypocrite.
I haven't purchased a Metallica album since The Black Album and will never again. (Granted that was the last decent one they had...) You damn near single handedly spearheaded this RIAA anti-filesharing war. Out of spite and general boycott I do not listen to my old Metallica CDs, nor do I have any of them encoded to my computer. I refuse to go to your absurdly overpriced concerts. I will not download or share your music, not because of "piracy" but because I refuse to give any publicity to you or your whining old man bandmates. The "piracy" that you crusaded against made you what you are today. And here you are, yet again, showing what a fucking hypocrite you are and missing the entire fucking point of your previous arguments against file sharing. Peoples' lives have been financially ruined and had their education hampered or destroyed by your asinine crusade while you sit untouchable on your golden throne in your mansion. Fuck you Lars, and fuck you Metallica. Bite my shiney Metal-head ass.
...for libelling me (and every other napster user) as a thief.
It doesn't matter that I only ever used napster for legitimate purposes, he used his very public position to label and insult me.
It's time that he admitted that he screwed up and apologized to legitimate napster users and then maybe I'll consider once again spending some of my hard earned cash on Metallica albums or tickets. They haven't had a penny out of me since 2001. Yes, Lars, I was a fan for 15 years but just walked away when you insulted me.
Obviously this will never happen as by doing so Lars would probably open himself up to some kind of lawsuit and his lawyer will advise against it. So be it.
Apparently I haven't missed much in the past 8 years anyway.
Ladies and gentlemen,
The Metellica and its front drummer Lars Ulcer ! /thunderous_ovation
I'm going to apply a little more of Lar's logic here and say that this is like Lars walked in a music store and shoplifted the CD. No one can disagree that would be wrong, would they? Only this is far, far worse because it involves the Internet.
Adidas To Bring Back Sneakernet
After downloading it, he actually listened to the album and was like, "Wow, what a complete pile of crap! These guys suck!"
Filesharing hurts the middle men only period.
Blockbuster, Netflix, Redbox.
Filesharing is like a swimming pool in your backyard.
Even though its yours, law requires a fence around it.
DVDs are a public nuisance, too easy to share, like a non-fenced pool.
The law should FORCE a fence on DVD's. Make them encrypt or something.
Please....
In the article Lars is quoted as saying, "So we sat there and thirty minutes later I had 'Death Magnetic' in my computer."
You'd think he could afford a better connection for a than that... even with all the "pirates" stealing his paycheck.
sudo apt-get lost
Welcome to 1996!
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
<Wiggum>Cuff 'im boys. We're puttin' this dirtbag away!</Wiggum>
"Buca De Beppo" ??? What the heck is that? An Italian pedophilia clown?
So yeah, the article is blocked by work's web proxy under the category "filesharing / p2p".
The summary says he went and tried to 'pirate' his own album.
Is it safe to assume that this was just him trying to see how exactly the evil pirates are stealing his music, and that this doesn't represent any change in his position or the acquisition of some kind of clue?
The enemies of Democracy are
Who're the beetles? Are they bigger than Deaf Leopard?
Real men read Slashdot articles at -1, bottom up.
Actually there are rights that cannot be sold. A musician keeps the right to "demonstrate" his own music.
As such, there are certain rights that remain Lars's, as author of the work, no matter what he signed.
I'm pretty sure listening to his own creation falls under that one. Performing it does too.
Dunno about music, but with books, the copyright holder is the author who licenses the rights of their work to a publisher. The contract should have language in it about how or when the rights revert back to the author.
Nice way to lead by example there, Lars. After this move, I never want to even hear of your name being muttered in a courtroom ever again, unless it's me being called as a witness in the trial against you brought on by the RIAA.
Ever think that just because you think you have the right to download it still doesn't make the action anything but illegal?
In the immortal words of Red Forman, You Dumbass.
Yeah, he should have said "Carrabbas"...
Are we seriously expected to believe this is the only time Lars Ulrich has *ever* downloaded anything illegally from filesharing networks? Really? Because if you believe that, I've got this nice bridge you might be interested in...
Im not sure how the copyright for music works, but i would think if you own the CD, you have a right to the music, and downloading it would be legal, because you bought the right to have it. I would also think that Lars owns a copy of Death Magnetic.
and for the whole Napster cry, get over it, Metallica stood up for what was right and im glad they did it. just like anyone else that holds a copyright or patent on something, its there to protect you, and when people bypass that and download illegally, something needs to be done.
Also, about a week after DM came out, i googled "Death magnetic CD" and the first link was a download to the whole CD.
If you dont like DM, dont buy it. Metallica Rocks, Pirating is wrong, and You suck.
Go go Gadget Nailgun!
if he had had any clue BEFORE he went on his insane rants, we might be in better shape and the music industry might be in better shape too.
I think that's debatable and so does the article:
Of course, Napster was dead and buried a long time ago but thanks in part to Ulrich, the destruction of the service led to the creation of many others ...
For you see, once you assign a very real and tangible target to an intangible idea, you have something to work with. Someone to debate, someone to open dialogues with, someone to launch a campaign against, etc.
... as this is indeed easy logic to defeat (in file sharing, nothing physical is lost to someone). Just something to consider--without Ulrich, you may still be trying to argue against a mob of RIAA lawyers with no face or debatable ideas and the law on their side? I think we need more Ulrichs so we can start to analyze the real heart of the problem with file sharing.
I saw a short documentary on Anita Bryant created by a homosexual who was thanking her and devoting the video to her hate speech against homosexuals. Now, I'm not trying to draw a comparison between homosexuals and file sharers but rather the effect it can have to assign a face to a movement or anti-movement. With a face, you have a target and while Bryant overturned the Dade county pro-homosexual ruling, she eventually made it possible to speak out against what was once this vague idea of hatred towards homosexuals that caused very real pain and suffering.
So Lars Ulrich may have made something very tangible and targetable and debatable over what was once this ethereal idea. You may want to thank him for being such a mindless rube to create a commercial showing him steal physical things from a file sharer
My work here is dung.
Not necessarily. Ever noticed how the RIAA lawsuits always are by the record company, and never the artists? That's because the copyright for the recorded songs (denoted by a P in a circle as opposed to a C in a circle) almost always belongs to the record company. Most artists are not allowed, by their contracts, to upload "their own songs" on their own websites, for example.
The rights to the song itself, as an independent work, belongs to the composer(s) and writer(s). Different actions infringe on different rights and it's been more or less established that filesharing infringes on the record company's rights to distribute, not the artist's/composer's/writer's rights.
But I wonder if Lars knew that he most likely was seeding the album. :-)
Money for nothing, pix for free
Just like John Fogerty was sued for writing songs that sounded too much like songs written by...John Fogerty
I'll create an amusing sig when I have something meaningful to post.
If he downloaded it with BT, Limewire or other similar services, he was also distributing it for free at the same time.
If so, does that mean anyone pinched for d/l it can now argue before a jury that Ulrich was fine with giving away that album for free, that he helped distribute it over whatever service he used? That is "Heavy". (Unlike Metallica since the Black Album.)
He admitted to be downloading it. This means he was also uploading it.
Either he uploaded it illegal and must pay 10 gazillion in fines, or he is not guilty and he was allowed to distribute it and this means everybody who connected with him did so with him agreeing.
Most likely he did not have the rights himself and he can be fined as much as he ownes and then some
Even if this somehow made it to court and they settled and said that now the new album is free to download, I probably still wouldn't do it. They haven't put out a complete album worthy of listening to from beginning to end since Justice for All.
"Those sound engineers at your studio will have to eat at Olive Garden tonight instead of Buca De Beppo."
Wait, what? You wouldn't happen to be referring to the Buca de Beppo in Albany, would you? I was unaware that Metallica's sound engineers lived here.
(Or is there more than one?)
That depends on the P2P network you use and your application. Its certainly possible to download off of some P2P networks with some clients without sharing anything.
Not even the word "irony" does justice here...
Usually, your assumption would be correct, but Metallica is one of the few bands that does retain their own copyrights. This is probably why they were so vocal back in the Napster days, and why these comments from Lars are newsworthy.
I heard the interview on Eddie Trunk's XM show a couple weeks ago, and got a chuckle out of it. He could remember the name of what he used to do the download, but something he said (I don't remember exactly what) gave me the impression it was one of the bittorrent clients.
I am not your blowing wind, I am the lightning.
It's not pirating if you already have a legit copy. Not a big deal. It's just a bit less direct than ripping it himself.
Though I pirate plenty, I also do my fair share of purchasing (not to RIAA labels, but to indpendents). What people often neglect is that it costs time and money to produce any kind of entertainment output. Even if it's just a labor of love for the artists, they can't break the bank on the efforts either. It has to be justifiable to continue producing content. If you love a band, find some way to support it so that they can bring you more content to enjoy. Buy a copy of the music if it's that's good or some sort of merch or go see them live.
It's like bronzy or coppery, except it's made of iron!
s/could remember/could NOT remember/
I am not your blowing wind, I am the lightning.
I already replied to this thread but this deserves another one - the irony of this situation is simply too rich. I love the fact that Lars recognizes that Metallica's recent "music" is worthless. They used to be relevant, making some of the best rock music out there (their Black album is still one of the finer metal albums ever recorded) but they haven't produced anything worth paying for in the last decade. Good to see he agrees.
dude, you're so subversive
hey, wanna go hang out behind the school and listen to beebop music and elvis? that stuff is the work of the devil!
lars, you are truly hardcore, you are so metal"
seriously, this guy's attitude? compare it to the general attitude of gee, i dunno, maybe the general attitude of the fans of HEAVY METAL SUBCULTURE?
what next?
a fixture of outlaw biker culture complaining about loud noise?
an icon of surfer dude culture complaining about sun exposure?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
this guy is such a douche. He is a complete douche bag. So douchey that he smells like vinegar.
They're using their grammar skills there.
That's not how most music contracts work though. In the music world, you pay for the production costs and touring costs and everything else and give your rights to the music away forever. In return the label will allow you access to the distribution channel (music stores, MTV, Clearchannel venues, etc...). They will also give you a loan to help with the various upfront expenses.
Presumably bands that attempt to negotiate better deals are just dropped for another less-savvy band. Only established big name acts have the leverage to demand better terms (but it was through their poor negotiation skills that they got the gig in the first place, so don't count on it).
I read the internet for the articles.
Furthermore, when Lars downloaded the album by P2P, he implicated himself in any future RIAA witch hunts. Now when the recording industry thugs go after their latest batch of victims, they'll have to include Lars Ulrich in the target list.
If they don't target him just like any other poor slob on the internet, the RIAA stands to lose money. The industry works by strongarming regular folks who get caught downloading music, but when untouchable band members start clogging up the docket there's that much less money to be made by suing regular people.
Tell me why I should care again?
When you download without seeding, you're downloading with Hitler!
He may hold the copyright, but probably not the publishing. Plus who knows what else the label shoved into their contract?
Now, Lars could go get the copy of the masters that he has and compress that because he owns the physical media -- but downloading it via illegal means is a totally different matter.
--- these days, what with business and stuff, you gotta get your emails...
I'm mildly surprised that with this act of piracy, the universe didn't implode into a giant singularity of douchiness.
With one of the authors having exposed it for free download, I could make an argument that the album's now in the public domain.
He probably licensed the rights to the label, which would also put him in breach of that contract for making it available for download.
Oh, and he's a whiny, sandy, vag, too.
Those sound engineers at your studio will have to eat at Olive Garden tonight instead of Buca De Beppo.?
I thought the sound engineers were employees. They get paid once, for their work on the recording and don't get any royalties or other residual payments, don't they?
Now let's say you, as a singer-songwriter,musician, download one of my favorite songs of yours, "Candle in the Wind". You wrote it, performed it and played the music. Since the sound engineers already got paid for their one-time work, who's getting ripped off?
Oh, sorry, you're not eltonjohn?
If you take something without the intent to pay for it, you are a thief. The same thing is true if you walk into a store and steal an ABBA CD, just because you can, and never had any intention of buying the CD in the first place because you hate ABBA.
You are wrong about this part
So Ulrich's logic is that he never would have paid for this album in the first place and therefore it's ok for him to download it ... yet the many file sharers that have no intent(or in some cases the means) to pay for it are thieves?
1) You don't know if he would have or would not have paid for it ever.
/. crowd believe they are entitled to things for free. It is akin to lifetime wellfare members who believe they should be on wellfare for their entire lives even though they COULD work.
2) Not having the means to purchase something is no excuse for downloading it - so yes they are thieves
3) Having no intent to buy something does not give them the right to d/l it for free. A car thief has no intention of buying a car by your logic he is not a thief.
In all honesty your post took things out of context by a LOT. First I would be safe to say that Lars has copies of the music. Both originals or cases of CDs sitting in his garage so he can give them out to his friends/family/fans.
It amazes me as to how much the
Pirating is wrong...period. If you want to listen to someone's music then acquire it in a manner they allow or write to them a letter saying how poor you are and beg them to send you a copy (hey they may do this).
I do not support "The Man". I also do not support your irrational stupidity
Lars used a Ninnle Labs application under Ninnle Linux for this test, specifically, the new NinnleP2P, which has so far proven undetectable to the RIAA sniffers. That's how he was able to do it and get away with it. Gotta love Ninnle Labs!
[quote] I figured if there is anybody that has a right to download "Death Magnetic" for free, it's me.'"[/quote]
Wow Lars finally justice for YOU, or for ALL of us?
It is, unfortunately, a chain.
You replied to that article, and Lars, without using the word 'douchetruck' once. I salute you.
I like to place meaningful quotes in my sig, so people will know that I know what meaningful quotes are.
You're thinking of Klutzo.
Free Martian Whores!
They're only the band that Lead Zeppelin could've been...
I figured if there is anybody that has a right to download "Death Magnetic" for free, it's me.
Wrong. I'm going to apply your logic here...
Actually, you're wrong; Lars is just displaying his mastery of logic, trying to fool people into thinking he's okay with filesharing. See, he said "if there is anybody that has a right to download 'Death Magnetic' for free....'" There (likely) isn't. So the antecedent is false, so his statement is true.
It's never a good idea to try to out-logic a pirate.
Who're the beetles?
Obligatory YouTube video
If anything, we are in better shape now that we don't have garbage programs like Napster (really, did you EVER use it? It was shit) and rather have torrents and numerous available online music stores.
:D) without needing the establishment to back them; how has Lars prevented new artists from entering the industry?
Metallica's "whining" helped push an industry to take advantage of a new medium (yay capitalism? I digress...). New bands have more avenues than ever to promote themselves (no more Airheads-like situations needed
I love that 10 years later everyone still attacks Metallica. 1) They did you a favor regarding that piece of crap Napster, 2) They've been at the forefront of bands distributing content online to their fans pre-sale and, in some cases, for free, and 3) THEY WERE RIGHT! It was stealing content no matter how many idiotic excuses you come up with.
People who continue to bitch like a child about Metallica come off as brats who wish music was free. You want free music? Find a bar with no cover on Friday night.
I was like, 'Wow, this is how it works.'
So, are you really saying that you just *found out* how it works? So you pushed all the Napster lawsuit and all the ranting about file sharers WITHOUT knowing what you were talking about??
Damn, I perefered the old "We are evil Metallica Corp. lobying to squeeze every cent from our fans" speech that this new dumb and ignorant one.... This is so lame Lars.
Imagine Olive Garden with a table that has a Pope's head encased in class on a lazy Susan in the middle. You get to spin it around and have it stare at others while you eat overpriced and oversized Americanized Italian food, family style, with lots of other people in a crowded and campy restaurant. That's Buca di Beppo.
But I suppose the Pope's head in glass could be confused with an Italian pedophilia clown in some circles, so good call there.
I believe Metallica owns their own record label. At the very least they are big enough they could put in the contract that they own all of their works. These aren't first year rockers who nobody knows/cares about. Metallica sells out within minutes anywhere they play...a record label would screw their own mother in the face with a disease infested horse to sign Metallica.
I do not support "The Man". I also do not support your irrational stupidity
I paid $5 for Death Magnetic brand new at Hot Topic the day it came out, and it actually had a real nice package, not just the standard jewel case and booklet. Didn't seem like much of a rip off to me. Seems like Metallica is at least TRYING to give some extra value to the physical media, and now they are left scratching their heads figuring out how to beat p2p and get their market back.
Those sound engineers at your studio will have to eat at Olive Garden tonight instead of Buca De Beppo.
Olive Garden tonight instead of Buca De Beppo? Not much difference there. Kinda like McDonalds vs. Burger King.
Flexible bare-metal recovery for Linux/UNIX
Which is why music sucks. Music usually the contract actually states the label owns the copyright.
"... I'm relevant again!!! SERIOUSLY!!! I download stuff too!!"
Oddly enough, he's the ONLY one who's pirated "Death Magnetic"
Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.
your comment will be ignored, mostly because it makes too much sense.
Because this is slashdot, where the people on the internet try to come up with stuff even lamer than what's on 4Chan.
Being the middleman can be risky. You aren't in charge of the supply of the products you sell because somebody else makes it and sells it to you (and other middlemen) You can't control the demand for said products, except by advertising. Note that the most successful retail outfits are those that either (a) own a small but very reliable market of consumers (specialist mom-n-pop stores) or (b) also dominate the wholesale and distribution portion (e.g. monster chain stores).
Seriously, the very concept of wholesale-retail-consumer is obsolete for digital media. Music is not the same kind of product as groceries.
Slashdot may love getting on it's high horse and calling him a hypocrite but he probably does have the right to do this.
Given the number of times someone in a band will be required to give away their music, whether it's to contracted producers, sound technicians, radio DJs who want to be able to play some of their stuff before/after and interview or one of the many other types of people they'd work with who need their music. They will have been given permission to hand out out their own music or at the very least a 'you have permission unless we say you can't' type arrangement.
It's a bit ironic but don't get carried away. Even if by some chance he didn't have permission, the second you asked the record label they'd give him a public ok.
As he said, he was entitled. That download was authorized, no matter what the status of the site he downloaded it from. So it wasn't "piracy".
There are several layers of copyright, I will ignore fair use, since proponents of DRM ignore fair use. SR is the Sound Recording copyright, it is almost always held by the Record Company, in this case Warner. Warner is known for little flexibility with artists so I would assume they hold the SR. SR basically covers the recording. If they were to issue a remix, it would have a new SR. If I recorded one of their songs, I could get a new SR in my name. PA is the Performing Arts copyright, and is held by the authors of the song, it covers the underlying structure, lyrics and notes. This is held by (Hetfield / Ulrich / Hammett / Trujillo) according to the album notes. This means that Ulrich stole from Warner and his three bandmates. He's not the only holder of copyright for that music.
They're bigger than Jesus.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Ulrich doesn't own copyright to that album or any of the songs on it, his label does. He committed copyright infringement just as if it were you that downloaded the album.
Free Martian Whores!
It's a chain. I'm assuming that since Lars is rockstar, he probably lives in or near Hollywood, and therefore we are referring to the BdB in Universal City on CityWalk.
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
...mind you, most music stores won't mind if it was a famous artist...
Having worked at a music store (chain, not a mom-n-pop), I most certainly would have minded if any artist (whether I recognized the artist or not) tried to walk out without paying. If they could take the nebulous "music" without denying us the physical property (the CD) that we had to inventory, track, and account for - then yes. But since you can't (at this time in 99% or more of cases) take music from a music store without also taking the physical media, you also cannot take the music for free. No matter who you are.
it's distribution that's the crime, not downloading.
There is a good reason why that is, perhaps you should think about it a little?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
>>Are they bigger than Deaf Leopard?
What did you say?
I assume he owns an original version of Death Magnetic on CD (and maybe some gold/platinum version of it). If he owns the original album, he is allowed to make a copy for his own use.
Usually the artist retains the copyright on the lyrics, but the actual sound recording belongs to the label.
As others have posted, this is not the case with Metallica, who do own the rights to their work, and most likely license the distribution rights to a label.
Ever noticed how the RIAA lawsuits always are by the record company, and never the artists?
Well, it's the association for the recording industry. Other associations like ASCAP are for the artists themselves. Your point still holds true though - ASCAP doesn't sue file sharers as far as I know.
Is his right also to enter a brick and mortar music store and leave with a phisical copy without paying for it
Not unless he made that physical copy while he was in the store, so the store owner wasn't out one copy.
Saying "oh, it's just a digital copy, not the actual physical copy" goes both ways.
I don't think this reasoning holds up under examination.
Who goes to chain Italian restaurants anyway?
Who is "Deaf Leopard"? Are they bigger than Def Leppard?
...did he get it from Pirate Bay?
Seems that RIAA does not give free copies even to band members.
I speak England very best
I hate to be the one to break it to you, but Buca De Beppo is pretty much an Olive Garden with bad lighting now. Thanks Danny DeVito!
Caution: low-flying jokes, going over your head.
though thinking about it, if he downloaded it using bit torrent, and in the process other people downloaded it from his PC, then he would be breaking the law.
What I'd like to see (but never will): Every year a copyrighted work has been out, the copyright holder should have to pay 1% of lifetime sales as a renewal fee, and when they decide to not renew the copyright, it enters the public domain.
Example:
New song is released on May 1st.
Song sells 1 million digital downloads, album sells 200,000 copies, making 1.02million dollars in sales.
Renewal of the copyright on the next May 1st is $10,200 (1% of the lifetime sales). If future sales are unlikely to reach this value, the company won't pay. If they do renew, then on the second renewal, the renewal will be 20,400 +2% of year 2 sales.
Consider that now days, most music, movies, books, etc. are sold in the first year after release, and if it sells well enough up until the renewal date, 1% of sales on a big work (even half a million for a blockbuster movie) should be a pretty small price to carry over and protect prices for the second year. Beyond that, most works leave the public consciousness, and should become part of the culture.
Since we have a published confession of illegal activity, the RIAA finally has a leg to stand on. Best part is, they don't even have to rely on MediaSentry's unproven, flimsy tactics.
Finally, they can have a lawsuit where the defendant can actually pay their absurd fines. I doubt any of the money will actually make it back to him.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Is this comment permissible in the court of law? It'll be usable in all MPAA related charges, or wouldn't it?
I hear they're bigger than jeebus.
It's a restaurant, we have a couple of them in Colorado - they've even been spoofed on South Park a couple times.
Or just get it off USENET.
Frankly....I just have never found P2P faster than just getting it off USENET. I've tried BT, I checked my settings, ports opened...etc. It was just always pretty slow, and I have a decent, non-capped, business connection at home.
Besides...getting it off the newsgroups is less traceable.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
I really doubt he even has the authority to pirate his own album, does he have exclusive distribution rights to his own album? Did he download a torrent? So he was sharing the album while he was downloading? I am waiting for the RIAA vs Ulrich lawsuit, coming soon to a court near you.
Asshat!
Your are hitting the nail on the head. But something needs to be added here:
Music is actually a commodity. Really. The world is full of people who could, and would do a more or less equivalent job.
If it was a true free market situation, it would be over saturated to the point where music would be free anyway.
The major labels have positioned themselves as gate keepers and most of their work for the last 10 years has been about keeping the sender from the receiver, and maintain the artificial scarcity.
But thanks to the internet their days are numbered no matter what, and that makes me happy.
I believe two seconds of googling would have found a solid answer:
Metallica's label (for Death Magnetic) is UMG. Pretty sure Lars Ulrich doesn't own Universal Group, not even the tiniest part of it.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
If Netflix had tried to grow their company (Established in 1997 ) in a time when filesharing (napster started in 1999) was available it would have never worked. That explains why it is so unprofitable.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/marketsNewsUS/idUKN2654283620090127
ignore my research. Its still true.
The Beatles
Led Zeppelin
Def Leppard
Now, all of you, get off my lawn!
Frost: Are you saying the drummer of Metallica can do anything he want's - even if it is illegal.
Ulrich: I'm saying, if the drummer of Metallica does it, it's not illegal.
Copyright would mostly apply to the person that provided it, correct? So could it not be interpreted that Lars implicitly authorized the person SHARING it to breach the contract?
It seems to me that copyright only restricts you from distribution, not from acquiring something.
SYS 64738 NO CARRIER
You write that off as an advertising expense. Go watch Corner Gas - The Taxman here for an explanation of how it works.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
WHOOOSH
Stupidity only gets you so far, then you've gotta try
they're different
http://pinopsida.com
At least he's making an effort to see how things work. Pity its ~10 years to late to retract his head from his ass.
Shadus
What? But I was TRYING to steal his music! And now you tell me I may have accidentally got it legally via his own computer? Rats, I'm going to have to go download it again. I hope he's stopped seeding by now.
...after completing that download and finding out how easy it was. He had absolutely no right to download the entire Slayer discography. :D
Def Leppard has got an arm up on the Beatles....err.......
I don't understand all the cries of hypocrisy over this.
Lars downloaded his album because, he said, to verify that it was actually available. Regardless of whether his argument against filesharing is right or not, does this really make him a hypocrite?
Q: would you agree that to get that "spread around" data, you must go to TPB and CLICK on download?
That CLICK moment should cost.
I would gladly pay $1 at that CLICK moment.
Who it goes to, I dont care. Charity, TPB, Hollywood.
It would clear my conscience.
It does have value and Hollywood is missing capitalizing that value.
Some entrepreneur should get paid for that value, charity, TPB, Hollywood.
But like I said before, DVD's should have manditory FENCES like swimming pools.
Without that safeguard, screw hollywood for creating a public nuisance!
the hypocrisy of the sellout is admitted by all except the sellout himself
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
The poroblem is that you havent really "taken" anything. When you copy a file the original is still there and available for the owners use.
Well, that joke went over like a Lead Zeppelin...
Keep up with the times grandpa. They are bigger than Xenu.
"But this one goes to 11!"
I'm a big fan. I have all of their CDs up until when they started nagging about Napster (ReLoad is the latest studio recording and S&M the latest live I own). I have not bought a single Metallica CD since. I have not downloaded anything either. I have never heard Saint Anger or Death Magnetic. I had the opportunity to see them in Denver during the Saint Anger tour and decided against it. Their whole attitude about electronic media disgusts me. The whole rebel act they put forward in their songs is just that then, just an act. When they don't understand an issue and so much as suspect it might hurt the bottom line, they side with the man. Bah.
I believe that file sharing infringes on all money earning parties concerned. The music that was created, was given away and distributed for free. This not only infringes on the distributor that lost income, but the distributor's contract with all other parties in the chain both down to the "customer" and up to the creators was affected monetarily.
This is, of course, ignoring advertising costs. Perhaps one of those shared files or albums will generate interest by the recipient enough that the recipient will actually spend the money to legitimately receive the content. I know I have spent money on albums from music I have received for free.
Who goes to chain Italian restaurants anyway?
There's an Olive Garden right next to my trailer park, you insensitive clod!
Trolling is a art,
Who're the beetles? Are they bigger than Deaf Leopard?
I heard they're bigger than Jeebus.
Congratulations Lars,
Your the only one that downloaded that POS album.
Hatfield's probably the one that seeded it.
Really, after Master of Puppets, who else would.
Looser.
s/could remember/could NOT remember/
That's okay. After all the drugs Ulrich has done, he's not sure either.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
i think that the subtlety here is in the line:
Wow, this is how it works.
which strongly proves that Lars has no idea what he's being such a strong opponent of.
I think you are missing the point. You point 1. is eaxctly the argument the record companies use. They say if there are X downlaods then they have lost X in sales. They are stating that each download is eual to a lost sale. They are say that they *do* know people would have paid for it if they couldnt download it. 2. Again they are not stealing it. They are infringing coypright. Im not apologising for people when I make this point... if we are going to debate this issue then at least state the facts. If they "stole" something they woudl be charged with theft. 3. Is the same as 2. really.
I really couldnt give a rats arse who does and doesnt load Metallicas latest lame album(Im old enough to recall when they were good). The point is we are undergoing a technological shift. Things have changed. CDs and tradional forms of information distribution are dead. As dead as non movable type and the horse and carriage. The body just hasnt hit the ground yet. The current industry will either reform itself to the new situation, die and be replace by those who will adapt to the new situation or attempt to sue and pass totalitarian laws to put a stop to something that is virtually unstoppable.
"Having worked at a music store (chain, not a mom-n-pop)"
Read that part again.
Imagine Olive Garden with a table that has a Pope's head encased in class
The Pope is always encased in class.
So stylish.
Too much sense? ... except for the fact that walking into a brick-and-mortar store, walking out with an album without having paid for it is theft, not copyright infringement.
No unauthorized copy was made. Physical object taken unjustly.
Analogy rejected.
The responses to the parent constitute conclusive proof that slashdot needs to add a -1: Whoosh! moderation!
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Distribution rights are not necessarily songwriter's rights. If they have a publishing company (generally owned by the musicians themselves, if they are smart) they own the rights to the words. It is fairly trivial to set up your own publishing company. But a lot of bands starting out sign away these rights too, not realizing the implications that the future may hold with their decision.
"But this one goes to 11!"
You would have had to buy that in a store to get it and therefore the $18 ripoff that you avoided
I think it is safe to assume that Lars already possesses a legally acquired copy of the album, unlike 99.9% of the others who similarly downloaded it. So he is not breaking any law by possessing it in another format for his own personal use.
But I don't suppose you'll be letting this glaring hole in your argument spoil things.
Metallica own their masters. They also get somewhere in the range of $3 per CD, which is one of the best in the industry. Rolling Stones had a story on it right before St. Anger, but I don't have a link.
You replied to that article, and Lars, without using the word 'douchetruck' once. I salute you.
I refuse to salute him for that very same reason.
Who is this Lars douche and why is he trying so hard? I guess he must be pretty happy, I haven't downloaded a single song of "them" even when it's legal in my country. Although I'm not that sure he'd enjoy hearing what I tell people when they mention "them" or there's one of "their" songs playing.
I hope they jump into a volcano. And in the case of Lars I hope that on the bottom of that volcano theres a wooden sharp pole greased with honey, high enough so that it doesn't burn for a long time but deep enough so that nobody has to hear about him or his pathetic speeches.
Prohint: Saying you can hate them but like their music is like saying you hate bush but enjoy his dance moves. It makes both of you retards. Metallica is lame.
That depends entirely where you download from. Public sites are full of leeches, cappers and slow connections, but on a private tracker I'm regularly pineed at 2.2MB/s which is the most my connection can do. I can get the same from my usenet provider via a newsgroup client and the right tweaking, but not via the web interface and it's more complicated.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Are they bigger than Deaf Leopard?
Is that the next version of OSX? Because if it is, then probably not.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
Alright then.
How does one go about getting movies/videos off the Usenet for free?
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
You have mandatory fences everywhere for swimming pools where you live? Where I'm from, that's strictly a township by township thing.
I see the glass as full with a FoS of 2.
AHH!! Mod parent up!
Did you even watch the video?
I would imagine they gave him a copy of his own album, why would he have to go to the store an buy it again? Of course he never would have paid for it, he probably has crates of them in his closet.
I think they might have been a group way back before Lead Zeppelin.
How fitting... the CAPTCHA is "asinine"
will have to eat at Olive Garden tonight
Why? Did they do something wrong?
There are a huge number of yeast infections in this county. Probably because we're downriver from the bread factory.
Who? Oh, you mean Jeasus.
"This thing does science so hard, you say, 'I've never seen that much science.'" -Sam
Except that if he used bit torrent, he probably is guilty of illegal distribution.
I see the glass as full with a FoS of 2.
I think you are missing the point. You point 1. is eaxctly the argument the record companies use. They say if there are X downlaods then they have lost X in sales. They are stating that each download is eual to a lost sale. They are say that they *do* know people would have paid for it if they couldnt download it. 2. Again they are not stealing it. They are infringing coypright. Im not apologising for people when I make this point... if we are going to debate this issue then at least state the facts. If they "stole" something they woudl be charged with theft. 3. Is the same as 2. really. I really couldnt give a rats arse who does and doesnt load Metallicas latest lame album(Im old enough to recall when they were good). The point is we are undergoing a technological shift. Things have changed. CDs and tradional forms of information distribution are dead. As dead as non movable type and the horse and carriage. The body just hasnt hit the ground yet. The current industry will either reform itself to the new situation, die and be replace by those who will adapt to the new situation or attempt to sue and pass totalitarian laws to put a stop to something that is virtually unstoppable.
Oh I don't think X downloads = X lost sales. First it could be someone who wants a backup. I did it a few times because my car was stolen and with it the originals. It could be because someone had their cd's damaged. If these were the only issues of downloading (or similar issues) then it wouldn't be an issue. You know and I know that people d/l because they want it for free and can get it with extremely low risk. I could care less that the RIAA thinks 1 d/l = 1 lost sale....my point, it's wrong to try and acquire this stuff without paying for it or seeking permission from the owners.
/. agree with this because they like getting paid when they go to work. They don't like to pay for other people's work. How would you feel if your boss said "you know what, you are gonig to work for me, and I am not going to pay you. YOu should be happy I am giving you the opportunity to work for me....btw your work sucks." That is what /. crew say "You suck, and i want your work for free"
I agree that physical media is going the way of the doh-doh bird...but getting paid for your work has not gone the way of the doh-doh bird. The people here at
I do not support "The Man". I also do not support your irrational stupidity
Easily...just like you'd get any other file off usenet for free...provided you have access to a good usenet server.
People have been trading all sorts of files on usenet long before there were any P2P applications...way before they were even thought of.
There is also IRC you can look at too....
Get a good news client...do a little googling...and you'll find out. Take a look at Slyck for a start...look into nzb's and the like, they make downloading off usenet a snap.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dl2qocBpM1U
"Lars congratulates YouTube users for their great versions of Metallica songs. Metallica's new album "Death Magnetic" released September 12th, 2008."
yes. Pretty much everywhere.
A decade ago, the state of California enacted the Swimming Pool Safety Act, which required any new swimming pools to have at least one approved safety barrier, such as a fence, a cover or an alarm on any door leading directly to the pool. It was amended in 2006 to allow pool alarms and removable mesh fencing as safety barrier options, and suction outlets were required to have anti-entrapment covers. It affected all swimming pools and spas that needed permits to be built or remodeled after Jan. 1, 2007.
He's not guilty of infringement for downloading it. He's probably guilty because he probably used bit torrent, and therefore also probably redistributed it to countless others.
I see the glass as full with a FoS of 2.
That's not saying a whole lot, I'm a lot bigger than most Mexicans too but you don't hear me bragging about it.
... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about.
I believe you should l2notassume. I did try a google search except my search was "Does metallica own it's own label". Your's may have been better, but it doesn't mean I did not perform my due diligence.
BTW - not owning the record label does not equal not owning the copyrights.
I do not support "The Man". I also do not support your irrational stupidity
Seeing "Seeds: 1, Leaches: 1" while waiting for it to download.
I mean, how many people had even heard of "Death Magnetic"?
"Its certainly possible to download off of some P2P networks with some clients without sharing anything."
It's also possible for people who don't seed to get anonymous mail bombs.
I mean, anything's possible, really.
I'm still getting over his statement "Wow, this is how it works."
He's figuring this out now? Ooooh, he should really consider taking it slow, perhaps trying out velcro. Or maybe something he has, as yet, never tried: Making music.
less traceable?
i dont know about you but every ISP i've ever had has horrible NNTP retention rates. and now most ISPs are cutting usenet hosting completely.
so, if you want a good retention rate you have to PAY for a 3rd party service. at which point you've handed over you name, address and billing info. i guess it's not "traceable" because they're not tracing you so much as you've just put your name on a list.
just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand!
it's not pirating if you created and thus own the rights to the album...
this is a silly story.
music - http://www.subatomicglue.com
The first rule of USENET is DON'T TALK ABOUT USENET!
Wrong! Let me fix that for you:
"When you P2P and *don't turn off uploading*, you not only take the data for yourself, you also help spread the data around."
Being fully in control of your network and applications you should have the ability (unless you lack the ingenuity) to throttle your own bandwidth. I personally don't accept unencrypted connections and have throttled my upload to 0k/s.
So I contest that, *I*, do not help spread any data around when I P2P.
Wow, but wouldn't that make it harder for humans to evolve to be more intelligent/observant/drownproof? ;)
If he isn't prosecuted for downloading a song he doesn't have rights to, is this grounds for Estoppel if the record company prosecutes others for downloading the song without prosecuting him? Is this fodder for NYCL?
I agree, but because he thinks of himself as a former victim, thinks its ok for him to sort of do it.
All the while, admitting he downloaded illegally a musig file...I would love to see the RIAA knock on his door, and bring him to court.....I would laugh so much!
Lars> Wait guys, I am the one that told you guys to go after pirates, this is MY SONG!
RIAA> Correction, it was your song, it now belongs to the RIAA because of the suit brought against you, we now are going to get justice, guys let's make an example out of him...
"Your honor, I would like to hold Lars responsible for punitive damages of 50 million dollars because he is a public figure, and sets a standard amongst all who listen to his style of music."
Judge>Your request is granted.
Lars> Oh sh*t!
...if he would download his own car?
Okay, guys, we're not supposed to talk about Usenet, remember?
Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
Yes in part, but the contract (which you wont be able to google, sorry) stipulates that they
retain any creative copyrights to the music, therefor anyone wanting to use it would have to pay them not UMG. UMG would just be able to make money off of their own record sales (unlimited if they want) as long as they pay a sum of x dollars agreed upon between both parties.
Technically, Metallica could also sell the same album to lets say PDiddy bad boy productions and ask him to resell, and you could have 2 labels carrying the same album...although I am sure that UMG bought exclusive production rights.
No no no... he didn't "pirate" anything, he downloaded a copy for free. To have pirated it he would have had to do the ripping and uploading of the original copy himself.
I'm so sick of downloaders or "leeches" being dubbed pirates. Odds are if there weren't any P2P software he wouldn't have been able to "pirate" his way out of a wet paper bag. Breaking encryption and re-encoding data into other formats is beyond the ken of your run of the mill computer user.
The definition is being broadened as a legal/litigious means to "broaden the net" for RIAA/MPAA lawsuits. Don't propagate this misuse of terminology... in fact, Slashdot, draw fault with it every chance you get. It only serves to help these associations catch minnows in a net designed for sharks.
I wouldn't be surprised if the real reason he downloaded it is that the released version of the album is widely known to sound like a total piece of garbage due to mixing problems. Fortunately, the Guitar Hero version didn't suffer from these issues, so some kid did their own home-mastering of the album and posted a torrent. Yeah, I actually bought the album. I noticed immediately that no matter what stereo I played it on, it sounded like it was coming out of blown out speakers from 1974. So it appears now that Metallica has turned the tables and is now stealing from their fans by releasing trash for full price.
I have no intention to pay for all the oxygen I've taken from the air during my life. Perhaps you meant "take something that belongs to someone else"? But that still doesn't seem to have anything to do with the article, which was about copying, not taking. Please explain?
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Similar, but much more likely to appear in jokes.
You've heard of jokes, right?
"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato
Recent surveys indicate the total download count for Death Magnetic reached an all time high of 1 today...
So, all those other bands on RIAA labels, who by their association contribute just as much to the RIAA legal budget as does Metallica, do you boycott them as well? I bet you don't.
You only boycott the outspoken and honest. All the other weasels, who want money for their music as well, but play it strategic and don't say anything that might upset anyone, you're okay with them. They sue their customers just as much, it's just that they leave it to the record companies to do it on their behalf, so they don't get their hands dirty.
Lars Ulrich is not the hypocrite here.
Sorry. You'll now have to ask him to make a bootleg copy of the album and buy it off him for a buck in order to feel normal again.
The Internet is generally stupid
Mp3.com lost this lawsuit, as making a copy for your own use isn't the same as getting a copy from another source.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UMG_v._MP3.com
True. That's why it is technically called "copyright infringement" and not "shoplifting". It's also why I used the analogy of walking into a store and taking a cd. Because it's not the same thing as stealing, I had to create an analogy.
Actually there are rights that cannot be sold. A musician keeps the right to "demonstrate" his own music.
Not if he creates it as a Work For Hire, which is almost certain to be the default arrangement for any new musician signing without a sharp enough lawyer.
"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato
Don't download this song, even Lars Ulrich knows it's wrong!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yz-grdpKVqg
You can't take the sky from me...
Lars discovered that Death Magnetic is distorted.
Hmmm... so if I was torrenting at the same time he was, and connected directly to him, and thus downloading directly from a band member, am I downloading legally too?
J
As a member of the band, I highly suspect he had a physical copy of the CD. He just wanted to download it via P2P to "try it out".
If he owned it, what he did would be considered fair use and not a violation of copyright.
Unless his client also uploaded, that is...
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
Literal italian translation is "Basement of Joe's" or "Joe's Basement"
Beppo is slang for Guiseppe,
Italian lesson over for today
Success is not the result of spontaneous combustion, you must set yourself on fire.
Kudos on your signature.
;-)
I can't stand the loosers who don't know when their misspelling some of you're favorite words..
He just 'gifted' himself a downloaded song and under RIAA terms that amounts to maybe upwards of $225,000.00. Certainly would put his ass in a world of hurt trying to explain his way out of it to the IRS.
More like a "BOOM", as it soared overhead so fast it broke the sound barrier..
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
You forgot to mention my favorite part, the American waiters who take your order with an Italian accent!
At least, at the one in Citywalk I've had that happen before. I sometimes if they're want-a-be-actors who are working on their accent, hoping that they'll impress some Hollywood producer!
Too bad only stupid tourists go there!
His logic wasn't right when he used it; why would it be right when you use it? Mister Ulrich already has ownership rights to his own music, and it's fully legal to download music that you own. It would be no more illegal for me to go flipping through my CD case then to download a CD that I own. That's why all the pirates lie and say they're doing that when they steal music, remember?
Believe it or not, not everything Lars Ulrich does is illegal, immoral or even newsworthy.
StoneCypher is Full of BS
Lars probably realized that the sound quality on his 'official' cd was crap, and he'd heard that the pirated version of the internet was of much better quality than they sold to their fans. http://www.rollingstone.com/rockdaily/index.php/2008/10/01/metallica-faces-criticism-over-sound-quality-of-death-magnetic/
The "Score:3 Informative" mod on this post is funnier than the post or its parent.
Too late, he already gave you a single-user license. If you download it again, you're exercising your right to fair use.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
Very pedantic of you. Perhaps I meant "get something for free that somebody produced and is charging for". Notice I used the analogy of taking, and didn't specifically state it was taking anything. I download stuff. I don't hide behind nutjob defenses. It's wrong, but at least I admit it.
His "Wow, this is how it works!" remark would suggest that he has not done things in such a sophisticated way, but merely relied on a common P2P client available instead.
Nevertheless, you make a good point. He indeed could have used such a client and nobody can deny it for certain, unless directly asking himself about it.
Metallica still puts out albums?
I thought they stopped after crap, re-crap and the symphony... (load, reload etc...)
they stole my time back when they were good... now i want that back too.
I never could get the hang of downloading from Usenet. It's hard to find stuff I like, even with the specialized search engines. The file naming is atrocious, and more than half the things I tried weren't complete. Perhaps I should get a pay server, I'm sure retention is much better with those.
I never have these problems with torrents. The Pirate Bay has an excellent search engine, fake torrents are easily spotted (just check the comments) and stuff Just Works.
If he owns a copy, then yes, downloading was fair use.
If the band holds their own copyright, though, he may have legally been able to upload it too (I don't know how that works for joint copyright holders, but I suppose any of them could distribute it – could be wrong, I suppose).
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
There are ways to get a non-traceable one-time creditcard number. The server doesn't care about your name and address either.
Besides, get a pay server outside your jurisdiction and don't worry about it.
sed s/drummer of Metallica/Chuck Norris/
sounds like a good deal!
Also, stealing is a criminal offence, while copyright infringement is a civil matter.
Also, Metallica sucks balls. Iron Maiden FTW!
pete townshend used to go into guitar stores while on tour and walk out with guitars, only to destroy them the same night...
or i could just use bittorrent for free. and as an added bonus i dont have to search for .par's.
just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand!
"Stealing" information is not the same as stealing a physical object that carries information.
If he had some magic copying device that could copy the CD without damaging the packaging (they still need to sell it, after all), they probably wouldn't care. It's his music, after all. Even if they cared, they wouldn't be able to do anything about it, since he didn't steal anything (no, copying isn't stealing!) and he legally possessed the right to copy (I assume – as long as Metallica owns the copyrights to their songs; they're a large enough band that they might).
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
Shhh ...
$ nget /metallica/
Whoops :)
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
But I'm pretty sure they're not bigger than the FSM.
What if I do the same thing, and I do get different results?
Assuming that you're referring to the Bittorrent protocol, that wouldn't work. First, most client use an upload speed of 0 to mean "unlimited". Second, bittorrent works on a quid pro quo basis. You get a few hundred kb of starter data, and if you don't start sharing data with other peers after that, then you *will* receive data...but only at a trickle, since the peers are expecting to get something back from you after sending something to you.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
Seed Pleez!!!1!
On the other hand, at last someone will have listened to their album...
I kid, but I've been just a wee bit bitter since they sued me in the late '90s.
therefore the $18 ripoff that you avoided
It has been 10 since the release. The 18 suggested is hogwash and everyone knows it.
http://www.amazon.com/Death-Magnetic-Metallica/dp/B00192KCQ0/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1236279824&sr=8-1
I admit he is acting like an ass and continues to do so. But do not cloud it up with made up facts. He is doing JUST fine all by himself...
Also in a weird way he DOES have the right to do exactly what he did. Do you?
his insane rants
Is greed a form of insanity?
You can't take the sky from me...
That "BOOM" is the sound of it hitting him in the face... and bouncing right off
Agreed. And many people here refuse to acknowledge that creativity requires time, and time = money. A musician/novelist/filmmaker/coder whose fans refuse to pay for his/her work will have to keep working a day job, and will therefore have less creative output.
It's in fans' selfish interest to toss a few bucks in the hat. It's a vote for more content. (If the artist is still around.)
It only counts if he does it at gunpoint.
The label probably has exclusive distribution rights, and he was distributing it by using P2P.
If my memory serves me well, James sang "...do as I say, not as I do..." (black album?). Now Lars seems to echo that. If Death Magnetic was half as good as anything they released in the 20th century, Lars wouldn't have to resort to such half-baked publicity stunts as this one. Sad, but true.
Seriously, the very concept of wholesale-retail-consumer is obsolete for digital media. Music is not the same kind of product as groceries.
Well, the music isn't, but a lot of people like the physical cd with the nice cover art and insert product. I don't see that being obsolete. I understand lower sales because of all the people who only care about the music, but I don't see physical media completely going away.
What I would really be a fan of is the type of service mp3.com tried offering way back in the day. Buy the cd here, download the mp3s now, and wait for your physical copy in the mail.
Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.
I figured if there is anybody that has a right to download "Death Magnetic" for free, it's me.
I figure if there is anybody that would want to download "Death Magnetic" at all, it's him.
"I have a new album called 'Death Magnetic'. I just downloaded 'Death Magnetic' on the internet to see how easy it was. I was completely floored to see how effortless it was to download my new album 'Death Magnetic'. Did I mention I have a new album? It's called 'Death Magnetic'. It's awesome. Thanks. 'Death Magnetic'"
Do something good for once, put him in jail! God Dammit, Metallica needs a new drummer
Tax Evasion.... Get 'em boys!
His logic is that he is one of the copyright owners, so is entitled to copy it.
I bet he downloaded the Guitar Hero version because the over engineered free CD the label gave him sounded like crap.
Hey, Lars deserve a good copy of the CD, even if he didn't pay for it either.
RTFG - Read The F#$%ing Google!
In the past, I've purchased several Metallica albums, and have attended at least 4 of their concerts. However since their tirade over mp3's and the p2p scene, I'd added them to my "don't pay attention to their new stuff or purchase their new albums" list.
It's kind of sad how Slash Dot's effectively been leveraged as a form of free advertisment for them - until today I couldn't have told you what their newest album was called.
He'll be paying someone to download his music for him.
He may own the copyright, but he certainly doesn't own the bit of plastic it is recorded on.
yet the many file sharers that have no intent(or in some cases the means) to pay for it are thieves?
OK, I am not in support of the RIAA but what you are saying is they can afford the computer, internet connection, and some way to listen to the music (whether burning a CD or using an MP3 player), but not buy a lousy CD?
Then there's the question of author. This sounds obvious to some and strange to others, but just because you're "in the band" it doesn't mean you have a right to claim the song as "yours". The author/composer of the lyrics/song is the rightful owner and truth is niether Metallica nor any band I know of gather up to write a new song, it's almost always one or two members of the band. This/these is/are the rightful owner(s) of the royalties. This is always defined on each album (written by, composed by, etc.) so that there's no question about whom the owner is. Then there's also the question of quota. How many percent of the song does one own? It may sound strange but this is exactly how it works. Upon creating a song one has to define the percentage owned by each party. Let's say I made the lyrics and you composed the music, a 50/50 would sound fair. But what about if I wrote the lyrics and composed the song but you wrote the chorus? This is a common scenario which requires you to define the quota owned by each party. So basicly if Lars did contribute to all the songs in any other way than just performing them it's his right to copy them freely, unless an agreement has been made between the composing parties that allows him to act as such, if not then he just confessed to an authentic piracy crime.
Bottom line is if you presented this to Lars he would most likely laugh at your silly bureaucracy. Perhaps it would then make sense to him why everyone laughs at his.
I am the lawn!
"I sometimes if they're want-a-be-actors who are working on their accent,"
You accidentally a word there.
blah blah blah
> will have to eat at Olive Garden tonight instead of Buca De Beppo.
A stark contrast indeed, as anyone who's tried to organize any kind of group event at both places knows.
Evidently, the key to understanding recursion is to begin by understanding recursion. The rest is easy.
the drummer doesn't
I am an Italian American.
And I must say that Bucca di Beppo, as well as your description of it, hits quite close to the "real thing" seen at many family Easters and Thanksgivings.
>> Standing on head makes smile of frown, but rest of face also upside down.
Source: http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/metallica/articles/story/6959138/money_makers
That's the top 50 moneymaker list from 2004.
Let's stop dilly-dallying and just change "-1: Overrated" to "-1: Disagree" or "-1: Doesn't Subscribe to Groupthink".
Yep, yep I did.
Damn Dyslexia!
Yes it's less traceable.
On BitTorrent all the copyright holder has to do is join the swarm and see who else is in it, take their IP addresses and ask the court to force the ISP who owns the IP to reveal the details of the user using that IP at that time.
With Usenet the only people who can possibly tell who is downloading are the NNTP hosts, and most wont bother even keeping logs. The copyright holder can't just go up to a newsgroup service provider and say "Give me a list of all your users downloading file x", they have to at least be able to show some evidence that user x was infringing their copyright which is easy with BitTorrent/P2P but impossible with NNTP unless they're working with the NNTP providers which makes no financial sense whatsoever for the NNTP provider.
At the end of the day, the copyright holders can get your personal details anyway if they can prove you're downloading. At least with usenet they can't prove anyone downloaded anything unless they're working with the usenet provider and the first court case against a user of a usenet provider is basically going to mean that usenet provider has written it's own death warrant as all it's customers will leave.
Lots of usenet providers even offer SSL support so it's not like your ISP can easily see what you're downloading either. So to sum up, with BitTorrent you have to worry about the torrent/tracker site, everyone in the swarm and possibly your ISP. With usenet, you only have to worry about your usenet provider.
"Ulrich went on to say that he and half a dozen friends were enjoying a bottle of wine at his house and used a file-sharing client (the name of which eluded him) to download the album."
SIX Metal-heads and ONE bottle of wine? Box, maybe, but bottle?
That's because Google got confused with your incorrect usage of it's instead of its. Your's instead of yours is also incorrect, by the way.
I think you are forgetting that Michael Jackson owns the rights to all of the Beatles songs (in a joint partnership with Sony).
He bought the company that held the rights for $47 million in 1985.
-- Dave
up 12 days, 22:30, 2 users, load averages: 993.20, 994.21, 994.56
*makes note to limit user processes...
plus, it was a perfect use of the "I accidentally" meme ;)
blah blah blah
I hear a sizzle.... and smell smoke... don't rack the brain too hard to try to figure that one out :P
I use easynews. Not because I'm afraid of a real nntp client - I was browsing groups back in the early 90s and active on some rec. groups - but because they will automatically decode and provide a preview of the movies. Their global search isn't the best, but you can get what you need if you know the groups. x264 is nice for HD; there are 2-3 active DVD groups, and when all else fails you can wade through boneless. I spend $10 a month for 100day retention and good completion. No, you don't get much download, but the unused Gb roll over so that I've got about a 200-300GB cushion now. I really don't download that much, so it works for me, and I get the occasional porn fix thrown in for good measure.
The downside is that older content is harder to find (though, to be honest, most torrents have an effective shelf life - who want's a torrent with a single (or zero) seed?). The upside is it's damned fast.
Well it was till somebody opened his big fat mouth.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
You can download without sharing, but I doubt Ulrich would be able to figure out how to do it. The default on all the file sharing apps I've seen is to download into a sharable directory.
Free Martian Whores!
http://www.bash.org/?197845
I know that; but they DID have control back in the past when they were still a producing band.
I don't read AC A human right
10$ a month for not-unlimited and only 100day retention? wtf
I use powerusenet and i only pay 15$ a month for unlimited transfer, damn good speeds (max my connection at 2.5MB/s (20Mbps)), and 200 day retention. I gave my referrer link, but could always just take off the referrer info on the end of the url.
on topic: Lars Ulrich - what a complete douchebag. Hes the one who started all this lawsuit business for pirates.. seriously, what a cockknocker.
"Some men just want to watch the world burn..."
No, the industry works by having stars that are 0.1% of the artists talking about how 100% artists are getting ripped off. Lars is among the 0.1% so he won't get touched.
but not raptor jesus.
I figured if there is anybody that has a right to download "Death Magnetic" for free, it's me.
Wrong.
And wrong because unless Metallica is unusual, the copyright on the CD itself is held by the record company, not Metallica (or Lars Ulrich).
There are many stories of bands getting in trouble with their record company because they copied CDs of their own music to sell or give away.
But, if Metallica/Lars do hold copyright on Death Magnetic then they have just given all downloaders an out for this particular content: with P2P, Lars was uploading, and if he holds copyright, then he is allowed to do that, and it would be assumed that he knew that others were downloading from him.
And they are like Led Zepplin...only heavier.
dude.
I know this is really OT, but Bucca de Beppo is an amazing restaurant. I make sure to get the Kitchen seating when I can.
Nah, he would also be stealing from the the companies who create the package material and who do the actual packaging. Not to mention the people hired to run the store itself. They all have to be paid out of the sale of the CD.
Now we see the violence inherent in the system.
I like how people rewrite history here! Metallica sued Napster, because they discovered that someone stole tapes from their studio for a song which they were working on (the song was "I Disappear" from the MI:2 Soundtrack). At the time Metallica requested that the song be removed from Napster, but they refused. When Lars said that this was costing him money he was right. The way Metallica delivers music to their Record Company is that they pay for the recording of the song and then present it to the record company. The fear was that since the song was already out there, the label may refuse it.
Metallica was 100% right. Napster was 100% wrong!
OLD NEWS IS OLD. MJ never bought all the songs, and he sold the rights at least 10 years ago.
(-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
While Zeppelins do fly over your head, they generally don't make a WHOOSH sound.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
We'd better not talk about usenet, or they'll find the usenet main node at 127.0.0.1 and then we'll be screwed!
So for God's sake don't let them know about the server at 127.0.0.1!
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Well it's not the receiving that you'd be sued for anyway. It's the redistribution that they would get six figure statutory damages for, so unless you could argue that Lars gave you a transitive power to give to others, I can't see the theoretical benefit.
Evidently, the key to understanding recursion is to begin by understanding recursion. The rest is easy.
Why would a band member pirate there own album when thay could just go to a store and buy it them selves. It is pretty funny however that a member of Metallica yould pirate there own album. Also he should have that about what his fans might do. They might go out and pirate it as well just because Lars did that.
A kick-ass Italian place with over-the-top paintings and statues. They actually walk you through the kitchen on your way to be seated, to convince you that it's clean.
Evidently, the key to understanding recursion is to begin by understanding recursion. The rest is easy.
Weird Al so totally fucked that one up.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
I meant the seeder/sharer, not Lars.
SYS 64738 NO CARRIER
hilarity of pirating your own music aside,there is just something about an anti-piracy crusader who has never actually pirated before. It's sort of like prohibitionists who have never had a drink, anti-drug crusaders who have never been high, or marrige councelors who are virgins. Their statements ring false.
I think people picked up on that in the past. Piracy may be wrong, but the message coming from someone who hasn't done it first hand rings false.
Hopefully this helps raise the level of discourse all around.
The ______ Agenda
Not true. Unless Lars is the only copyright holder (what about the other band members?) AND solely has retained ALL distribution rights (haven't seen the contract w/record label, but I doubt it), downloading a copy of the CD is just as legally in question as pretty much any RIAA lawsuit. If Lars already owns a copy of the CD, his action constitutes fair-use and is 100% legal. Unless, of course, he used a downloading program which also _uploads_ media. If any uploading took place, he is in violation of copyright by unauthorized distribution -- unless he is the sole copyright holder and retains all distribution rights (very doubtful).
Hope that clears things up.
What could possibly hurt the security of the American people more than giving our own government the ability to hide its
my accessment is that I was freely 'given' the Album directly from Lars.
Wrong! He didn't use bit torrent to get the album. He had a premium rapidshare account, which he won on a pornbb contest, and got that link from warez-bb.
I am going to arrest Lars Ulrich for illegal downloading. He cannot steal his own album... no sire! The RIAA owns the musick. -- future RIAA clown
nobody remains virgin, life fscks everyone...
Yes and before you disconnect, you have to finish sending your final upload statistics to the tracker. You do this constantly during the download process. Just last week I uploaded some 6000 gigabytes in 15 minutes, and I got a download of a good 2.2M/s
Support my political activism on Patreon.
You've heard this, I assume?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WfoccRna6I
You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
When I managed a fast food restaurant, when the owner came into town he would pay for his food. Why? Because my bonus was based on my store's revenues. Even though he owned the food he was paying for, he knew that my livelihood could depend on the $5 he spent for lunch. His five bucks helped pay the rent, wages, etc.
Even though he was one of the main contributors to the album, Lars still needs to recognize that other people's livelihoods are also dependent on his paying for the album.*
*This is all based on the assumption that downloads hurt album sales. I don't personally believe that, But Lars does. His download, even though I don't personally think hurt anyone, is inconsistent with his line of thinking.
With out the success of lead zeppelin, we probably would have never seen megadeath.
i guess it's not "traceable" because they're not tracing you so much as you've just put your name on a list.
So what? Since I'm not making anything "available", what would they sue me for exactly?
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Usenet fucking sucks anyways.
Just for shits and giggles, my sneakernet beats out my 20/20 FiOS connection on Usenet - on an hourly basis. I also get the added benefit of going somewhere and maybe experiencing something interesting rather than just sitting at home.
Usenet is old, and practically no ISP carries Usenet access any longer. Who cares about a service practically dead when there's other alternatives out there like XDC and whatnot?
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
If you haven't changed the default share forder from the download folder (which is the default, and with some apps can't be changed), when you download you're uploading at the same time. When he downloaded that track he was also uploading it.
There are probably more than a few RIAA vicims who didn't even realize that they were uploading. It's a pretty good bet that Lars seeded his "own" song that his record label held copyright to. If so, he infringed his own label's copyright.
Free Martian Whores!
That would be hilarious.
While you are correct, many many proponents of the RIAA claim that copyright infringement is theft which we know is not true but nevertheless, given their standard the analogy holds.
mind you, most music stores won't mind if it was a famous artist
Would they mind if he opened the cash register and took out some money ?.. Inventory is money.. The store had to pay for that copy of the CD, I imagine most stores very much would mind.. regardless who it is.
waiting for ad.doubleclick.net
Who told you my plan to get all my old black and white movies finally downloaded without waiting forever!?
and besides, he's just the drummer: How much could he possibly contribute to the music? :D
"Sir - sensors have detected a statement of reason that challenges our prevailing biases!"
"Take evasive action!"
Evidently, the key to understanding recursion is to begin by understanding recursion. The rest is easy.
Goes to show how many brats there still are. The truth hurts too much.
vcdquality.com is an incredible resource, one of many to help you wade through usenet.
If he grabbed a copy of his cd from walmart and ran out that would be stealing. If he found a way to download it from itunes for free that'd be stealing too. Both of those are theft. Now if he downloads it for free, from a place that doesnt charge, that's not stealing right?
you are a thief.
I prefer the term "pirate", but whatever you want to call me, at least you seem to understand that there are two definitions for "thief" in your dictionary:
1. One who deprives another of property, and
2. One who infringes on the copyrights of another.
As long as you are referring to me in the context of #2, you can call me a mass murderer or a sausage if you'd like.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Do you really think he didn't already have the physical copy of the cd, and that he didnt get that for free?
I don't even need to RTFA to understand how funny this is.
If it was a true free market situation, it would be over saturated to the point where music would be free anyway.
Music, like code, can be free. You can make it yourself. The thing is, we live in a society where people are conditioned to be consumers. They work by day to get money to consume. How many people nowadays do you know who make/produce things for themselves? How many people bake? Grow vegetables? Maintain their own cars? Do their own house repairs? Write their own code? Write their own music? Not many people cook, they just eat microwave meals, fast food and take-away.
This situation is great for us mediocre people who try, for we rise above and appear great amongst the sea of defeat.
Given that a lot of /.ers make a living writing code that is given out for free I think you may want to rethink things if you consider them to by hypocritical.
The fact of the matter is IP law is horribly out of whack thanks to Disney and many others and as a result it is no longer serving the interests of the world at large. People that produce a creative work have a right to compensation, they do not have a right to be compensated for the same work for their entire lives like the current law is written which is totally against the spirit of the initial copyright laws.
Furthermore, the music industry like the movie industry is incredibly wasteful with their spending and so their costs cannot be justified. The cost of CDs are not decreasing and the latest blue-ray video will cost you more than the movie on DVD.
Consumers have shown in both industries that they aren't as interested in paying the prices for which the product is offered. In many cases the product isn't even offered like season 19 of the Simpsons. I can download the entire season without a problem though.
They are slow to get product to the market and people that can provide it for free are eating their lunches, they should get better and just-in-time releases and more to the point, not charge as much for a tv show DVD as they do for a movie DVD.
In short, you claim slashdotters want everything for free and the entertainment people think they are entitled to be rich and wealthy when I can guarantee you that the best creative talent isn't cutting record deals. They are playing in local clubs charging cover and have day jobs. They do it because they love to express themselves, money in return is fantastic, thats why they sell t-shirts and other merch at their events, physical goods which have a justified cost. When you're talking IP there justified cost is way out of proportion.
I am of course not condoning copyright infringement, just stating the reality. In that reality a lot of people will behave differently. I will seek out new music which does not come at a price I'm unwilling to pay, others will download, others will pay anyway.
Isn't the RIAA still offering a bounty for turning in Pirates? You're goin' DOWN, Ulrich!
Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
I'm not entirely sure, but certain copyrights are strictly to the person(s) creating.
And demonstration is defineately one of them. Anybody involved in the production of a movie, or an album has the right to "demonstrate" the final product (the example in law books tend to be a job interview, so showing a movie you worked on as part of a job interview is something that cannot be taken away. Neither can "public performance"). This is a personal right that cannot be sold, just like one cannot sell oneself into slavery.
The only way you could make this stick (and the record company would have to sue Lars first, this is not criminal law), is to claim not just that he downloaded it, but that he knowingly distributed it too others (which is -apart from the knowingly- indeed something most filesharing apps do).
I hadn't.
Now I merely wish I hadn't.
Except for the fact he probably gets free CDs of his own music so he'd never have to pay for his music legally. The same goes for games. Do you think developers pay for their own creations?
Nintendo has (or at least had at some point) a game library of all the their titles so even the lowliest of employees could play Nintendo games without every having paid for them.
Most everyone else downloading music/software aren't in their position so yes it does make a difference when they download it. The only stupid thing Lars potentially did was help seed the album to others.
> Besides...getting it off the newsgroups is less traceable.
It sure is! You only have to sign up for a binary newsgroup service, supplying them your credit card info and identity details.
So what ? What does this prove ? I can't believe this has got any air-time. He holds the rights to the music so he can never be held liable for copyright infringement. No story.
6 terabytes in 15 minutes - No, you didn't do that at all. If you are going to post on a geek forum, at least try and do a modicum of research on bandwidth first.
For good usenet experience you need to pay - for the server and for the nzb searching.
I feel really bad for Lars.
First, he had to suffer the financial losses from all this p2p stuff, and now that he's publicly admitted to it he's going to have to pay for an expensive legal battle against the RIAA.
I mean, unless the RIAA doesn't go after him. But a high profile music person like him admitting this in a highly public venue? Not prosecuting him would be tantamount to the RIAA admitting their side is not logical & internally consistent...
but have you considered the following argument: shut up.
On the other hand, by stealing the CD you just saved someone else from gouging their eyes out and driving a rusty fork into their ears. ABBA indeed.
Homonyms are fun!
You're driving your car, but they're riding their bikes there.
It's like breaking into your own house to see if it can be done. You are an idiot if you even care about the legality of it.
Jesus Puras, the rally driver? I never realised he was such a big name outside of Spain.
I've read through almost all of the copyright laws and I don't remember seeing anything that says that acquiring cannot be a copyright violation. The reason downloading is safe and uploading isn't is more logistical than legal. For one, you have to show that you knew ahead of time that the content was copyrighted and that the person sending it to you is not authorized to do so. That's quite a bit harder since you can't check the content before it's downloaded and you have no idea that the content wasn't created by the person sending it to you. Only after you've downloaded could you determine that. Also, it's a lot harder to gather evidence against someone downloading than it is against someone uploading. It's relatively trivial to find someone offering content, download it and see if you're the copyright owner. As the copyright holder, it's a lot harder to send someone your content without it being authorized by the copyright holder.
But it's my understanding that if you willfully download something you know to be copyrighted from a source you know is not authorized to distribute that content, you've violated copyright laws. And if you become aware that content that you've downloaded came from a source not authorized to distribute that content and you do not delete it, you're also in violation. But it's not incumbent upon you to figure out whether the distribution was authorized, so it's a lot easier to download without breaking the law than it is to upload.
Didn't you get the memo that Lars is a special case? Ok, perhaps 'helmet special', but special all the same!
Steve's Computer Service, Hobbs, NM
So did he just admit to a felony? I mean, it would be in no way legal for him to do it. Target for the RIAA? Or can anybody go to the police and press charges?
I would think that if I own a CD (meaning I actually purchased it in a brick and mortar building) then I have full right to download it off the net because I own a copy of that album. Just as I have the right to make a backup copy of said album to protect my investment. Why therefore would Lars not have it in his legal right to download it off the web? The article doesn't state it, but you have to believe that the label gave him a copy of his own CD, and therefore he owns the album. He owns at least one copy of said album and therefore should be able to download a digital copy of said album to his PC. Just as he has the right to rip it from CD to .MP3 and store it on his PC.
If your Zeppelin makes a *whoosh* sound, it might be time to get the parachutes out.
Napster Bad!!!!
You can't take the sky from me.
Get off my lawn
Don't bother downloading.
In order for Lars to be able to download it from the web, someone would have had to buy the album, bothered to encode it, and then upload the whole thing in the first place.
Yeah.. Like THAT would happen.
I believe the commonly used expression for this situation is "Whoosh".
What else he has downloaded?
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
This sounds like viral advertising to me... Hey, did you guys know Metallica has a new album out called Death Magnetic? I promise, THIS one doesn't suck.
I heard one of the songs from it on the radio. It sounds like some band trying hard to cover old Metallica.
Hey Lars, download some Clutch and listen closely.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Once you start down the dark path forever will it download your destiny.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
The second rule of Fight Club is do NOT talk about Fig-
Whoops, wrong movie.
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
giganews + newzbin + hellanzb = win.
It's not about fate, it's about character.
there be no shelter here, the frontline is everywhere!
I'm going to seed as much Metallica as I can so no one actually has to shell out their own money for Metallica albums. Metallica has been making shitty music for decades and it's time to put an end to it!
So Ulrich's logic is that he never would have paid for this album in the first place and therefore it's ok for him to download it ... yet the many file sharers that have no intent(or in some cases the means) to pay for it are thieves?
Have you heard Death Magnetic? No one should pay for that pile of crap, not even Lars.
"He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
I'm willing to bet that having an actual famous artist in your store would generate more revenue than what they actually lose in that CD, even having a "Lars Ulrich stole a CD from here" note on tabloids would be good for bussiness.
WoW are these guys sad are what? Metallica used to stand for something...hmmm...let me think....Metal up your ass yeah thats it. Now they are used as a joke if you still listen to the junk they put out.
I will be willing to bet if this CD does bad which I am sure it is they will be right back pointing a finger at this and say they are killing us. Where as they do not have the brain to understand that they suck now.
Quit stereotyping. Jesus is the tallest guy I know.
Why is it that when you believe something it's an opinion, but when I believe something it's a manifesto?
The Who?
...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
something and then talk back to us.
Read radical news here
He doesn't own the distribution rights, so he's still stealing from the label.
Everybody seems to think I'm lazy I don't mind, I think they're crazy
So Lars has been bashing the technology and waited until now to test it out. Wouldn't have been more acceptable if from the start he had used the technology he was bashing and had full knowledge of what it was. I think he would have been more credible had he said "I pirated music" from the start and showed that he understand what was happening.
It sounds to me like he is admitting that up till now he had no clue what people were doing with his music unless they were buying it on CD.
I'm not a lawyer, but I'm given to understand that under Work For Hire, your employer is not just the copyright holder but actually the legal author of the work.
See http://www.stopworkforhire.com/site2/why-work-for-hire-hurts/
"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato
Laaaaaaaaa aaarrr rrrrrrsssss
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
I doubt that's a correct assessment. Artists who sign with major labels often don't own the songs they will write or the recorded performances they will make during the time they're under contract. Without knowing the particulars of Ulrich's contract I can't be absolutely certain what legitimate copyright claim he has on "Death Magnetic". But there's a good chance Ulrich isn't a copyright holder on that album. Which means that contrary to the /. and Torrentfreak headline, this album is likely not "his own album" it's Metallica's label's album. And Ulrich cannot license works on which he isn't a copyright holder. So Ulrich is not licensed to upload a copy of those recorded performances to you or anyone else.
Digital Citizen
It is good to boycott all the RIAA labels and artists to help send the right message. But we don't know what the grandparent poster really buys. But we do know that even if the grandparent poster is being hypocritical here they don't have anywhere near the publicity or market power Metallica does. It isn't news to learn that some otherwise unknown /. poster isn't acting in accordance with their stated dislike. It's quite a convenient PR blow to learn that a long-standing opponent of file sharing has likely committed copyright infringement. That admission poses a threat to the image record labels try to perpetuate when they have artists like Ulrich tell their tales of woe to the US Congress, the public, or continue to engage in propagandistic hyperbole like calling file sharers "pirates".
I'd rather give my money to distributors that treat their customers and the artists well. So I do just that.
Digital Citizen
Computers aren't that smart, if I tell it I did 6TiB it gives me everything I want as fast as I want plus the asian chick in the back seat of the corvette.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Yes, that was his point.
I very much wish my mod points hadn't expired yesterday! Well done!
That's a ridiculous argument.
Lars, as a member of Metallica, owns the copyright on the album. Thus, he can't pirate his own material because he inherantly has the right to copy it no matter how he does it.
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
subject says it all.
Actually, no. His label doesn't own the copyright. Metallica does. Actually, Creeping Death Music, which is a corporation owned by Lars and James.
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
No, no. *higher* than Jesus.
If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
My guess is that his agent or lawyer would pay for it afterwards, just to be sure, but yeah, he'd likely do something like that for publicity.
And the guy behind the counter wouldn't mind if he recognized him. But then, that's just me being somewhat realistic here.
If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
If you do want to pay...there are ways of doing that anonymously too. One time CC's...send money orders....etc.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Since he broke the copyright law and has admitted to it, why doesn't someone just do a citizen's arrest on him.
Done.
If there's a God in heaven, he'll get named as a defendant by his own law team. I'd die a happy man.
Possession or contraction, asshole. "It's" is clearly possession, therefore valid. If s/he had typed "Metallica" instead of "it", the apostrophe rules would be obvious to even you ("Does Metallica own Metallica's own label" vs "Does Metallica own Metallicas own label").
Ahhh, well played sir, I'm with you now. :-)
I checked, and unfortunately I had removed the bit in my profile about the fact that I've been boycotting the RIAA since...well hell, I don't even remember now. Plus, I have a very special place in my heart for Lars...and by "my heart" I mean "in my toilet." This story leaves me with mixed desires, but none of them cause me to think that an artist (or even Lars) taking something they created themselves qualifies as stealing. So, yeah. Comments under yours about sum it up.
Except that the possessive of "it" breaks the apostrophe rule, dumbass. "It's" is the contraction for "it is", "its" is the possessive in question.
English has some stupid rules and spellings, it's its biggest weakness.
Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
Except, in this case, I didn't take the file. I set the file on a Xerox(R) machine, pressed the big green button, placed the file back in the cabinet, and took the copy I just made.
I don't feel bad about using the toner and paper in the copier, either, because the owner of the copier put up a sign reading "Free copies, these files only."
I can only, reasonably, assume that the owner of the machine, having placed such a sign above it, has the right to authorize my copying of the files held in his filing cabinet. If he does not have that right, it is he who has run afoul of the law.
You really should read the applicable laws, you might find them interesting.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
I hope he was. And I hope he torrented it. In that case I downloaded the album from him..
Thank you Lars. I feel much more comfortable now knowing that a artist shared his music directly with me.
That being said. I call bs on the holier then thou attitude of the article. These guys are musicians, on the road constantly surrounded by lots of people who eat and breathe music. I'm willing to bet anything that one would find shitloads of pirated music on their laptops and ipods..
Life starts at the end of your comfort zone.
Who said anything about measuring height?
Starbucks, Harbuckle of Breath.
fyi it's a bush quote.
Starbucks, Harbuckle of Breath.
sorry fyi it's a nixon quote. I only wish we could pin it on bush
Starbucks, Harbuckle of Breath.
You'll need to use an ISP that still has a fully operational newsgroup server (including binaries groups), with decent retention.
In the US these are virtually non-existent these days. So you'll need to pay 10-20 bucks a month to use Giganews or some other pay server unfortunately.
My ISP still has proper newsgroups with all groups including binaries, and 200 days retention (which is basically equivalent to the pay servers). But I'm not in the US. And even in my country, my ISP is in the minority these days. Synching all those huge binaries groups every day simply costs ISPs too much bandwidth with very little payoff (since most people don't use/know about Usenet).
If you take something without the intent to pay for it, you are a thief.
"Theft n 1. (Law) The act of stealing; specifically, the felonious taking and removing of personal property, with an intent to deprive the rightful owner of the same; larceny.
Note: To constitute theft there must be a taking without the owner's consent, and it must be unlawful or felonious; every part of the property stolen must be removed, however slightly, from its former position; and it must be, at least momentarily, in the complete possession of the thief."
(Webster's unabridged)
Doesn't sound like downloading's theft to me.
In a surprise turn yesterday, Lars Blowrich admitted that he was dl'ing his own song via p2p when he suddenly fell off of his couch and discovered that he had double jointed hips, thus becoming the first Dutch born American sellout to successfully tea-bag himself while pirating legally copyrighted materials...................
I am no longer interested in taking over the world, I just want a modest corner of the Solar System
Even Metallica's own band members don't want to pay for their crappy music
The Record company owns the copyright on the 'Recording'. The music/Song is owned by the writer/s.
Which means if you record a song written by someone else you don't own the copyright on any of the material involved.
The 'signing' of rights over to labels actually stopped in the early seventies. BUT even then a lot of the artists got out of the contracts and got their rights back by suing over what's called an 'unfair contract'.
Unless you are talking marketing rights, which is another subject all together.
Only this is far, far worse because it involves the Internet.
Exactly, because, when you shoplift from one store, then it is just this _one_ store. But when you do it on the Internet, then it is like stealing for EVERY store on the face of Earth!
I believe you should l2grammar and l2writequeries.
I don't feel bad about using the toner and paper in the copier, either, because the owner of the copier put up a sign reading "Free copies, these files only."
Yes, but when the owner puts a sign up that says "these copies aren't free" (DRM), you complain about that too. You can't have it both ways. I think I have the solution. Make it a criminal case and not a civil one. Since you've convinced me you haven't harmed the artists in any way, since all you've done is taken a copy, we need to punish you on a criminal charge. Society has laws to punish behavior we think is unacceptable, and getting something for nothing when most everyone else around you has to pay for it is one of those unacceptable behaviors. Yeah, of course I'm exaggerating, but it makes my point clear.
And BTW, what in the world are you talking about, the owner putting up some sort of sign? In your analogy, the only thing I can come up with is the P2P site is saying use my copy machine all you want. But in that analogy, the P2P site is NOT the owner of the content, thus shooting a giant hole in your logic. When I was in college (pre-Internet) we weren't allowed to photocopy books from the library due to copyright laws (some fair-use exemptions). That really kills your analogy. Just like the owner of the copier when I was at college, wasn't the owner of the books that I wanted to copy, so they had no right to let me copy them for free.
"Thief"
noun ( pl. thieves |ÎÄ"vz|)
a person who steals another person's property, esp. by stealth and without using force or violence.
Doesn't sound like downloading's theft to me.
Sounds EXACTLY like P2P to me. (OSX Spotlight Dictionary)
Now do you understand why it's called "intellectual property"? Hint: so that when you copy it without the owner's consent, it can be classified as theft, because it is something the artist OWNS...property. Notice in this definition, it doesn't say "take" because the word take infers the owner no longer has it when you take it. So "steal" is indeed the proper term here, because you can steal from somebody even without taking any physical property from them.
Like I've said, I use P2P, as most of you do, but stop fooling yourselves with your utopian defenses. What you are railing against is the perceived over-zealous prosecution of the RIAA which pisses us all off, since they are rich and we aren't. Rally against that all you want, but don't try to fool anybody that you are only moving ones and zeros around and information wants to be free.
Given the understanding of copyright they've displayed - and the fact that it was what, 10 years ago when they famously started railing against the evils of filesharing. If it took Lars 10 years to actually take the step of looking into it for himself, I'd just guess taking the step of securing the copyrights to their music would be too much work and require more initiative.
Vote Quimby.
Hence they're bigger.
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
Don't forget the quaint and rustic pictures of naked men in the men's bathroom. I prefer Maggiano's pinups, thanks.
With the first link, the chain is forged.
Comcast doesn't offer USENET access :(
If you like Lar's music, you can't scrounge up twenty bucks like he does when he want's to buy the new Miley Cyrus cd?
I accept that you're creating a hypothetical situation to make a point, but that's just a little bit hard to imagine.
Now that I think of it, if you're leeching, then you're not "making available", so according to the RIAA's legal position you're not actually violating copyright. Or at least you're not doing anything they can take you to court over.
Does that make sense?
What am I missing?
No, no. eldavojohn YOU are WRONG. since Lars downloaded it for free and 'justifiably so', I also tagged his DHT and took his 'FREE' copy so I am fully entitled to have a copy of this and any of the other albums Lar's also downloaded that day.
Jeruvy
Actually, the premise that most P2P sites get by on is that the original uploader of a work owns the content they are sharing, thereby giving the P2P site the right to distribute the content, as well. Further, when you're involving bittorrent, the P2P site isn't distributing the content, but an original work - a list of people who have the content.
I don't have to own something to be able to legally authorize someone to copy it; I can be given the authority to do so by the owner or an agent thereof. My only legal requirement is that I have reasonable belief that the person who has given me such authority is legally allowed to do so. Again, this is the premise that most P2P sites get by on.
And this doesn't apply to bittorrent search engines and trackers, as they are, again, distributing their own original works, in the form of a list of people who have the content; bittorrent search engines and trackers do not distribute the actual content.
Further, it is not the copying that is considered damaging in a copyright case, it is the distribution of those copies. This is why your college library did not allow you to copy from books; they would be distributing copies. Nothing, legally or morally, is stopping you from buying your own copier, checking the book out from the library, and copying it yourself; yes, this falls within current copyright laws and is perfectly legal. If the publisher sued you for doing this, you would prevail, provided that you did not distribute the copy you made.
Once again, the owner of the content is not the only entity that can legally authorize reproduction of a copyrighted work. I own a substantial amount of copyrighted works, I have several agents who are authorized to copy those works and to authorize others to do so as well. Does this mean they own the works? No, I still own them. Does this mean they legally can put them in a cabinet, next to a copier, and hang a sign above the copier that says "Free Copies, These Files Only"? Yes. Are the people who take advantage of that offer legally or morally in the wrong? No, they received permission from someone whom they had reason to believe was allowed to provide that permission.
I'll sum it up another way: In my previous paragraph, had I not actually given the owner of the copier permission to copy, or allow copying of, my works, I could sue him. I could not, however, sue anyone who took advantage of his offer. Well, I could, but I would have no grounds on which to prevail in the case and the judgment would be for the defendant.
Even worse, you just equated DRM to a sign saying "These copies aren't free" and that could be no farther from the truth! DRM is a sign saying "Warning: You're about to pay for something that you can only use with devices we allow, when we allow, where we allow, how we allow, until we decide to revoke that right or go out of business. We may simply decide to take your money and run."
Get your facts straight, read up on the applicable laws, then reply intelligently, so I don't have to restate the same scenario 5 different ways to get my point across. Thank you.
Society has laws to punish behavior we think is unacceptable, and getting something for nothing when most everyone else around you has to pay for it is one of those unacceptable behaviors.
I don't know how I missed this little gem the first time around.
I work in a store that sells, for $14.95, an item that amounts to little more than a stick picked up off the ground and placed in the track of a sliding door.
Are you telling me that if, rather than working for 3 hours to afford this item (after taxes are removed form my paycheck, and, oh, sales tax on the item), I simply go outside and find an appropriately sized stick laying on the ground, my behavior is unacceptable?
I mean, most everyone would have to pay for that item and I just got one for free, right?
Not really free, though; I did 30 seconds worth of work, rather than 3 hours. Just like I can do 30 seconds of work and copy a CD (that, say, I already own, provided there is no DRM) to MP3 format, rather than working for 3 hours to buy it in MP3 format, because I know how to, while most people would have to pay.
You weren't really exaggerating, so much as just plain wrong. What was your point?
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
ehm... not sure why this posted as A/C... this was me
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
I simply go outside and find an appropriately sized stick laying on the ground, my behavior is unacceptable?
Something tells me when you go on a P2P server, you aren't downloading an "appropriately sounding song" as a substitute for the real song that you otherwise would have to pay for.
Did I say I was?
I was responding to your comment, which was unrelated to P2P.
Oh, wait, I did say I was, and yes, an "appropriately sounding song" as a substitute for the song I would otherwise have to pay for (or rip and tag) does sound about right. While I can rip it (as in my example), often it's more convenient, and quicker, to download it, as it is already tagged. Oh, and, would I have bought those MP3? Didn't I just explain to you that I could have legally ripped them from the CD sitting on my shelf?
If you care to counter my actual argument, please do so. If not, bugger off.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
You are talking about ripping from CDs and I'm talking about downloading from P2P. I have no gripes with you ripping something you rightfully own, but that's not what this article or discussion thread is about. Lars Ulrich didn't say, "so I ripped our new CD to my computer today, and it was really easy!". He said he went online and downloaded it. Please try to keep up with the conversation.
While I can rip it (as in my example), often it's more convenient, and quicker, to download it, as it is already tagged.
Please try to keep up with the conversation.
Yes, please do. If you can't make a valid, or at least truthful, argument, please, refrain from making one at all.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Pedantry is justified when the matter one is being pedantic about is at the very heart of the dispute.
So, if I start charging for the oxygen my houseplants produce, you are a thief if you don't pay me?
You said: "If you take something without the intent to pay for it, you are a thief." As taking is not analogous to copying, your analogy is false.
See, this is where I disagree with you. You assert that downloading is wrong, but don't give any reason why this would be, apart from a false analogy. Nice ad hominem, thought.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
It's wrong to the extent that courts have interpreted laws that say so. That doesn't mean I don't think it is wrong, only that I am able to understand that a nutjob defense doesn't make it legal for me to do something illegal.