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.
"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
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...
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
they are now considering the pirate theme.
NOW? Hetfield's been peppering his singing with "Yo-Ho" for so long, I don't know why there's no parrot on his shoulder yet.
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
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.
Thanks. Now I imagine James singing about Free Credit Report Dot Com with his pirate hat, and Lars behind him listening to the music he pirated on his iPod.
That's a long way away from the kill 'em all days. It is very sad.
Zhrodague.net - I do projects and stuff too.
Fuck Metallica.
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.
It's the natural progression of all music acts. You start out struggling to survive, then develop and perfect your unique sound, then sell out, then really sell out and alienate any loyal fans you may have had who liked your unique sound (which you also destroy), and then you endorse companies with misleading domain names. Just be thankful the Beatles broke up when they did, or it'd be a Hard Day's FreecreditreportDotCom.
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
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.
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....
"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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Metallica Rocks, Pirating is wrong, and You suck.
Lars?
Arr! The laws of physics be a harsh mistress!
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.
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'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.
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.
Per Clark Howard, anyone who wants a free copy of their credit report should instead go to annualcreditreport.com. That's the official site that's sponsored by Equifax, Experian, and Transunion.
I have no connection to either site but honestly, freecreditreport.com annoys the hell out of me with their advertisements and they have faced government action several times in the past because of misleading advertising. So, I can't say I'm eager to see them succeed and if one is mentioned then the real thing should be mentioned also IMHO.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
They're bigger than Jesus.
It doesn't really require knowing how file sharing works to oppose it. The end result -- people who didn't purchase your CDs ending up with what is, in effect, a copy of the CD -- is fairly clear, and it certainly violates current copyright law.
Being familiar with how the file sharing is actually done is only really necessary if you want to incorporate it into your business model or you want to effectively sue file sharers. (In the latter case, if you're competent and pursuing a civil case, you say to yourself, "Oh. This is going to be tough to prove in court.")
...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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
they're different
http://pinopsida.com
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
it was so slow because he was seeding a folder "good stuff, save for next year's album" to a thousand apt fans at the same time.
I'm aging rapidly, I bought a new game and had no idea if my machine was good for it.
You're clearly missing GP's point. The point is that the RIAA wants to call file sharing and infringement the exact same thing as stealing a disk from a store. If that's true, and it's ok for Lars to 'Pirate' his own music, then it's also ok for him to walk into any music store and walk out with one of his CDs, because it's the exact same thing.
So here's the valid choices:
A. Piracy is theft, and since Metallica owns the rights to their own stuff, it's ok for any of them to pirate any of their music or walk into a store and grab one of their CDs.
B. Piracy is theft, but it's not ok for Lars to walk into a music store and grab a copy of his own disk and walk out without paying for it, therefore pirating his own music is also not ok, and the RIAA has to sue him and demand the same fines from him that they demand from every other "pirate".
C. Piracy is not theft, therefore since Metallica owns the rights to their own music, it's ok for Lars to pirate his own music even though it's not ok for him to steal a disk from a store.
There are no other options.
There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
Who? Oh, you mean Jeasus.
"This thing does science so hard, you say, 'I've never seen that much science.'" -Sam
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.........
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.
"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.
The first rule of USENET is DON'T TALK ABOUT USENET!
Wow, but wouldn't that make it harder for humans to evolve to be more intelligent/observant/drownproof? ;)
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
And grammatically speaking, shouldn't "The Who" have been, "The Whom" ?
Yeah, that sounds rock'n'roll..
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
The real question is: Did you ever use anything that came before Napster? Ratio-ed FTP, crappy personal websites with the filenames obfuscated, Scour Media agent...napster is only crap by todays standards. It was like night and day in terms of usability and selection. Which is why it got attacked. It made the process too easy, esp for novices.
D: Piracy is a crime executed at high seas, by bearded men that resemble a vague mixup of Johnny Depp and Keith Richards, wearing a parrot and a golden earring. People behind computers may infringe copyright and dream of one day going to Somalia and to board an supertanker using nothing more than a grenade launcher and a couple of AK47's. And a boat.
That "BOOM" is the sound of it hitting him in the face... and bouncing right off
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)
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
I believe the commonly used expression for this situation is "Whoosh".
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
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