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.
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
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 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.
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
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!"
"Buca De Beppo" ??? What the heck is that? An Italian pedophilia clown?
Who're the beetles? Are they bigger than Deaf Leopard?
Real men read Slashdot articles at -1, bottom up.
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.
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...
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.
They're bigger than Jesus.
...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.
Actually the headline is technically correct.
Since Lars and the band perform the song(s) and probably have some rights to the song(s)
Precisely: some rights, but not all. Metallica signed an exclusive distribution contract which grants complete control over distribution of these particular recordings to their label, and since the copy produced by downloading wasn't authorised under the terms of that contract it is indeed a pirate copy (note that if he wanted to give away a physical CD, it would be taken from stock and billed to the band as a promotional expense). The fact that he co-wrote the music makes no difference, except that it might also be a breach of contract.
The same applies to published authors, BTW. That's pretty much what "published" means: your work in someone else's hands.
Photographers are slightly different, as its relatively rare for a photographer to sign an exclusive deal with a gallery that extends beyond the duration of an exhibition. In general, they retain all the rights to their work unless it was commissioned.
But please, let's not let common sense get in the way of people justifying not paying performers for their work.
Common sense and copyright are mutually exclusive. That's why so few people understand it.
(Disclosure: I'm a published songwriter/musician, formerly signed to Warner, BMG, Universal and a number of smaller labels, currently working in television production. I'm probably the last person who would try to justify not paying performers).
Blank until
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
The first rule of USENET is DON'T TALK ABOUT USENET!
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.
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
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.
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.
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.