Posted on 05/16/2018 6:48:15 AM PDT by Mariner
In 2000, Metallica famously sued Napster for copyright infringement. The heavy metal outfit not only asked for its entire catalog to be removed from Napster, but requested that about 330,00 users who had downloaded their music be banned from the platform altogether. The legal action shook the music industry to its core and drew sharp criticism from the band’s loyal fans, many of whom felt betrayed.
Now, some 20 years later, Metallica’s lead guitarist Kirk Hammett maintains that they were right to take legal action against Napster. He points to the evolution of the music industry as proof that they acted prudently and were even ahead of the curve in terms of protecting the value of their music. Plus, at the time Lars Ulrich really needed that gold-plated shark tank pool installed by his bar.
“The whole Napster thing – it didn’t do us any favors whatsoever. But you know what? We’re still in the right on that — we’re still right about Napster, no matter who’s out there who’s saying, ‘Metallica was wrong,'” Hammett recently told Swedish TV show Nyhetsmorgon (via Rolling Stone).
“All you have to do is look at the state of the music industry, and that kind of explains the whole situation right there,” he added. In many ways, Hammett has a strong point; music’s worth is no longer measured in the same monetary way all thanks to its digitization.
What’s more, streaming platforms have also diminished the sound quality of music. “There was a time when the streaming thing was kinda weird, and it’s not that great of quality – I don’t care what anyone sounds about modern streaming, all these ‘bits’ and whatnot. It’s never going to sound better than vinyl,” Hammett explained.
(Excerpt) Read more at yahoo.com ...
It was their property and it was stolen from them.
It drives me insand that millenials think they don’t have to pay for music. To me, downloading a song illegally is no different than walking into a store and shoplifting. It costs money to produce a quality album.
Artists only receive .1099 for every song downloaded. So if you spend. $0.99 to download a song, The artist only receives about 11 cents. Now divide that by however many members are in the band.
Please pay for music.
I think if you owned the records and other media of songs then obtaining a digital copy is not stealing.
I buy only albums.
Why kids settle for the sh!t sound of digital downloads is baffling to me.
It’s unlistenable.
And the Vienna Philharmonic doesn’t have a bunch of their stuff on Spotify.
Most of what music I buy, I don’t have much of a choice but to pay.
I buy mostly vintage TV show and movie soundtracks when they come around.
No
Music is free and always should be
Unless it’s LIVE
I’ll pay 20$ tomorrow guys see real live musicians play
But that’s it
It’s just ENTERTAINTMDNT
most of these musicians are egotistical aholes
you can legally make a single copy of music you have purchased.
but you cannot legally give it to anyone else.
Totally agree with you.
It was the way they went about it back then that pissed everyone off and led to even more piracy. They had a right to be pissy about it, but man did they really get pissy.
“Music is free and always should be”
Ludicrous.
Dave Mustang was on everything I ever cared to listen to.
” but man did they really get pissy”
They went after the end users, those who downloaded.
You know, the thieves.
Entirely appropriate.
And every band successful enough to actually get a CD/Album deal thanks them to this day. As do all of us who want higher art to be accessible.
If these guys can’t get paid, they won’t produce it. They’ll be plumbers instead.
Eventually the music industry caught up with my basic "give them what they want and prosper" capitalistic instinct, stopped suing, and started making big cash with streaming and digital downloads.
right or wrong, ever since Metallica sued Napster, it didn’t matter what they wore, or what makeup they bought on, or how long their hair was, nor how hard their riffs were, they were just bankers and businessmen to me from then on, and no amount of rebellious a lyric can change that perception to me.
His spider chords are cool and take time to master.
But that is all music is, a business.
Sure it is sometimes memorable or entertaining, but it is just a business, especially for the groups that “made it”.
Napster baaaaaaaaaaaaaad
I’ve been dabbling in recording video game playthroughs and posting them on YouTube.
I’ve been notified a few times that a particular segment includes copyrighted music,
and I am not allowed to monetize a playthrough that contains that segment.
That has more to do with the music and the playback devices. Digital music is not inferior to vinyl. Just the opposite. Mechanical reproduction cannot and does not fully recreate the original sound because of its physical limits.
Studies have shown that you can trick people who prefer vinyl because it's "better" into thinking a digital track is vinyl, by distorting the sound.
If you think MP3 offers superior sound, to either vinyl or CD, more power to you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.