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
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'.
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.
"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?!
"Fuck Metallica." Damn groupies. Thats your solution for everything.
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.
For some reason this summons up images of Darth Vader trying to cram a cookie through his face-plate thing.
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.
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.
They're bigger than Jesus.
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
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.
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.
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.
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 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.