I'm not suggesting that you should feel sorry for anyone. I was simply pointing out that they are actually representing interests far different from (in fact, directly opposed to) the ones they would have the newsmedia believe they are championing.
Note also that following the Metallica case, there was a lot of scrambling around on the corporate side of the music industry to make sure it couldn't happen again. (*ahem* work-for-hire *ahem*)
The problem here is that nobody 'throws away' the rights to their songs when dealing with the major labels as you suggest -- they have no option but to hand them over from the beginning. It simply isn't the case that anyone chooses to fork over their ownership rights in exchange for a bit of extra cash; unlike in most other publishing industries, that choice doesn't exist, and under the current model, the big-five have had such a chokehold over distribution that there simply hasn't been much anyone could do about it. But now there is something that can be done about it, and that is to explore the new distribution methods that are opening up, which many artists are beginning to do and many are coming out in support of online distribution and peer-to-peer trading precisely because it can benefit both the artists and the consumers, both of whom have been bullied and abused by the traditional recording industry cartel. Metallica on the other hand has a vested interest in upholding convention, and therefore their efforts can not be construed as being representative of musicians as a whole.
Oh, and regarding the musician/coke thing -- I wasn't aware that we were suddenly living inside an 80s rock video. Silly me.
I'm thinking Dr Dre and Metallica were paid by the RIAA to pretend like they don't like MP3 stuff.
I'm not sure about Dr Dre, but Metallica doesn't need to be directly influenced (paid off) by the RIAA in order to share the RIAA's opinion -- unlike other musicians, Metallica's interests are identical to that of the RIAA to begin with. Metallica actually owns the copyrights to their songs (though it took a court battle to win those rights), and Lars "Napster Bad" Ulrich runs a record label of his own. This is why all of Metallica's pissing and moaning under the guise of the 'persecuted artists' is so misleading and frustrating. They are in the priviledged position of enjoying record company rights and profits - that is to say that they actually make money from their own record sales instead of having it scooped up by the majors - and are not at all in the same boat as the other artists out there.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not suggesting that you should feel sorry for anyone. I was simply pointing out that they are actually representing interests far different from (in fact, directly opposed to) the ones they would have the newsmedia believe they are championing.
Note also that following the Metallica case, there was a lot of scrambling around on the corporate side of the music industry to make sure it couldn't happen again. (*ahem* work-for-hire *ahem*)
The problem here is that nobody 'throws away' the rights to their songs when dealing with the major labels as you suggest -- they have no option but to hand them over from the beginning. It simply isn't the case that anyone chooses to fork over their ownership rights in exchange for a bit of extra cash; unlike in most other publishing industries, that choice doesn't exist, and under the current model, the big-five have had such a chokehold over distribution that there simply hasn't been much anyone could do about it. But now there is something that can be done about it, and that is to explore the new distribution methods that are opening up, which many artists are beginning to do and many are coming out in support of online distribution and peer-to-peer trading precisely because it can benefit both the artists and the consumers, both of whom have been bullied and abused by the traditional recording industry cartel. Metallica on the other hand has a vested interest in upholding convention, and therefore their efforts can not be construed as being representative of musicians as a whole.
Oh, and regarding the musician/coke thing -- I wasn't aware that we were suddenly living inside an 80s rock video. Silly me.
I'm thinking Dr Dre and Metallica were paid by the RIAA to pretend like they don't like MP3 stuff.
I'm not sure about Dr Dre, but Metallica doesn't need to be directly influenced (paid off) by the RIAA in order to share the RIAA's opinion -- unlike other musicians, Metallica's interests are identical to that of the RIAA to begin with. Metallica actually owns the copyrights to their songs (though it took a court battle to win those rights), and Lars "Napster Bad" Ulrich runs a record label of his own. This is why all of Metallica's pissing and moaning under the guise of the 'persecuted artists' is so misleading and frustrating. They are in the priviledged position of enjoying record company rights and profits - that is to say that they actually make money from their own record sales instead of having it scooped up by the majors - and are not at all in the same boat as the other artists out there.