Jump to content

Do you think Metallica was justified in suing Napster?


Zierro

Recommended Posts

I don't know whether this belongs in OT or MM because it's an opinionated discussion but it deals with music, so mods can move it if they find it more appropriate there.

 

 

 

It's really a question of if they are more of a band or a business. If you are in it for the money and not the fans then you are in it for the wrong reasons. Metallica wasn't like this at first. At first they were punks and wanted to play music that would inspire an audience much like themselves - much like how they looked up to Black Sabbath when they were kids.

 

 

 

They were punks with the [bleep] you mentality obviously. It's quite ironic how a bunch of punks would do something so business-oriented as suing. Especially since they were suing their fans - their supporters out of all people.

 

 

 

Now, I love Metallica as a band and this doesn't effect the way in which I appreciate their music at all. But when it comes to certain artists I can only give my respect on a musical level instead of a personal level. Just like Eminem. I'm not really fond of Marshall Matters - I'm fond of the music. There are artists who I give all respect to though. (Kurt Cobain, Maynard, etc.) They do a very good job of keeping their attitudes consistent with their style of music.

 

 

 

My disliking of the band members of Metallica didn't last forever though. Lars claimed he regrets being the most hated man of rock n' roll and they reverted back to their original style of fast-paced solo-sufficient metal songs by releasing Death Magnetic (which I was actually extremely skeptical about before it came out). But all in all, I don't think anything justifies a true rock band to sue their supporters. It's a contradiction to who they are or who they were aiming to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank god Lars is shutting up about the Napster deal nowadays. That was probably one of the worst music news ever from a really good band. Suing fans over illegal downloads is probably one of the dumbest moves anybody could make.

safari20hat11.jpg

 

We should euthanize anyone who lacks the capability to contribute to society in any way.

Please don't elect this man for president in 2012

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd think it was justified legally. You wouldn't really buy their music if you could get it for free, and that hurts them.

 

It's a bit better of a reason than "It won't hurt them, they're super-rich rockstars", I think :lol:

 

Don't know enough about the business to make a full judgment, but if it came out of their pockets to make their albums, then yes, justified.

 

 

 

Though the whole business of suing people for huge amounts over this is a bit absurd. With Napster, it was at least the company that provided them (I think), going after individuals for downloading songs is a waste of resources.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Lars should stop whining like a puke-[wagon] little baby and spend his time expanding his drum beats to something different than the...oh...i don't know...hi-hat? He fails as a drummer and as a band member.

phpFffu7GPM.jpg
 

"He could climb to it, if he climbed alone, and once there he could suck on the pap of life, gulp down the incomparable milk of wonder."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saying they sued their fans is a bit of a stretch. They sued a peer-to-peer service.

 

 

 

I don't really blame Metallica for doing what they did. You might take it as an attempt at profiteering by minimising losses as much as possible, but there is the principle of the matter to consider. I know if someone was freely distributing my copyrighted work I wouldn't be happy about it. They have a right to their material, and they were justified in suing.

 

 

 

Mind you, I do download music occasionally. If all those artists sued peer-to-peer services and stopped me from freely acessing their material I wouldn't be so arrogant as to complain about it. I've been getting their material for free, so I don't feel I have a right to compain should that happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel he was justified in the lawsuit, but he didn't really think about it enough to realise how disliked he would become over it. It was a landmark case though, which will probably be used as an authority for similiar lawsuits against such companies.

 

 

 

I'm still a big fan of theirs though (saw them in London a few weeks ago), their latest album made up for the abysmal one that was St Anger. :P

( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

RIP Michaelangelopolous

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like others, I feel he was justified.

 

 

 

I think we can all admit to downloading music at some point. We choose to aquire it through illegal means, so when it bites us in the [wagon], we can't complain.

 

 

 

Honestly, Metallica and alot of other bands are both a band and a business. They use it as a method to earn money, hence the business, providing us with a service, which we are supposed to pay for.

 

 

 

A band is not a business when they freely distribute all their work through downloads. The point of a business is to earn money. The bands do that by enteraining us.

 

 

 

So really, I agreee with warri0r45 in full. If someone was illegally obtaining my copyrighted work, I'd be annoyed too. Which is one of the reasons why I actually buy my CDs now.

swordfinalqr7.jpg

Denizen of Darkness| PSN= sworddude198

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Lars should stop whining like a puke-[wagon] little baby and spend his time expanding his drum beats to something different than the...oh...i don't know...hi-hat? He fails as a drummer and as a band member.

 

 

 

I agree that he isn't that great, but St. Anger was definitely quite a piece of work. It's the song that got me into Metallica and ultimately metal so I give that song a lot of respect for drawing me in like that.

 

 

 

I know if someone was freely distributing my copyrighted work I wouldn't be happy about it. They have a right to their material, and they were justified in suing.

 

 

 

I don't think I feel the same way about this. I see music as a necessity to life. Yes, I really do. I'd probably end up killing myself if I ever went deaf (don't hold me to it, but that's how important music is to me). I'm not trying to say that you don't value music as much as me, but it's one of the only things in my life that I have to hold onto. Music fights depression, loneliness, hopelessness, you name it. I'd even venture to call it a medicine. Music should be a medium of communication to inspire or influence the audience rather than something that's generated in a machine-esque fashion, bought and sold. Music should be the concern of humanities, not economics. Music should be treated as art, not as stocks.

 

 

 

I also don't really enjoy the idea of intellectual property. Bands do deserve credit and they do deserve an income for the work they put into making it, but I there should be a line and I feel that Metallica crossed it here. The second you release an idea out into the world, it is not yours anymore - it is the world's. Besides, some other person's creation probably inspired you to put that idea out there so it's not like you should be considered absolutely responsible for it - the world helped you create that idea. (The key to creativity is hiding your sources.) Do you deserve recognition? Yes. Do you deserve profit? Yes. Do you own all rights to that material? No.

 

 

 

If all those artists sued peer-to-peer services and stopped me from freely acessing their material I wouldn't be so arrogant as to complain about it.

 

 

 

I don't know if that was directed towards me or you are just speaking generally, but I have bought all of their albums except a few and didn't download any illegally. This thread is more of a discussion than a rant. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Lars should stop whining like a puke-[wagon] little baby and spend his time expanding his drum beats to something different than the...oh...i don't know...hi-hat? He fails as a drummer and as a band member.

 

 

 

I agree that he isn't that great, but St. Anger was definitely quite a piece of work. It's the song that got me into Metallica and ultimately metal so I give that song a lot of respect for drawing me in like that.

 

 

 

I know if someone was freely distributing my copyrighted work I wouldn't be happy about it. They have a right to their material, and they were justified in suing.

 

 

 

I don't think I feel the same way about this. I see music as a necessity to life. Yes, I really do. I'd probably end up killing myself if I ever went deaf (don't hold me to it, but that's how important music is to me). I'm not trying to say that you don't value music as much as me, but it's one of the only things in my life that I have to hold onto. Music fights depression, loneliness, hopelessness, you name it. I'd even venture to call it a medicine. Music should be a medium of communication to inspire or influence the audience rather than something that's generated in a machine-esque fashion, bought and sold. Music should be the concern of humanities, not economics. Music should be treated as art, not as stocks.

 

 

 

I also don't really enjoy the idea of intellectual property. Bands do deserve credit and they do deserve an income for the work they put into making it, but I there should be a line and I feel that Metallica crossed it here. The second you release an idea out into the world, it is not yours anymore - it is the world's. Besides, some other person's creation probably inspired you to put that idea out there so it's not like you should be considered absolutely responsible for it - the world helped you create that idea. (The key to creativity is hiding your sources.) Do you deserve recognition? Yes. Do you deserve profit? Yes. Do you own all rights to that material? No.

 

 

 

If all those artists sued peer-to-peer services and stopped me from freely acessing their material I wouldn't be so arrogant as to complain about it.

 

 

 

I don't know if that was directed towards me or you are just speaking generally, but I have bought all of their albums except a few and didn't download any illegally. This thread is more of a discussion than a rant. :)

 

 

 

Really? I thought that album/song blowed hardcore.

 

 

 

OT: They were right. If someone was stealing my content I would sue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Metallica is a business. They stopped with the metal attitude once they decided that they could become entrepreneurs. I think Lars successfully managed to alienate a number of Metallica fans with his business attitude.

 

 

 

All bands, no matter how indie / punk they are, need to make at least something off their music. It's a sad reality, because I believe that art of all forms shouldn't be pioneered as some sort of cash-cow. Art is a form of expression at its very fundamentals - certainly no tool to use to earn money. I believe that art should be a free thing. You cannot and should not put a price on expression.

 

 

 

Bands like Metallica make me feel sick. Why does a bunch of middle-aged crybabies get garnered with such adoration? Don't people realise that they're simply cashing in and releasing any half-arsed attempt at music just because it nets them all a cool million or so? They are a [bleep]ing PRIME example of everything wrong with music in today's world. I've got nothing against plenty of changes of direction (actually, I welcome this whole-heartedly) but when you're trying to appeal to new fanbases and you've not even mastered the said style of music, then you know that there's a big problem with the band as a musical entity versus a business. Couple this with Metallica's records being a major offender in the 'loudness war,' [ see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war ] then you know that they're not releasing stuff because they're passionate about what they create.

 

 

 

So, to sum up: seeing as Metallica exists to leech off their fans anyway, they were not justified.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would be nice if we could go back to the days when music was more than a method of making money. When it was just some guys playing the instruments as a form of expression, however, the illusion of "talent" stops many.

 

 

 

No matter how crap they seem to me, I'll still give bands that play for the fun of it, and not for profit, respect. Unfortunately, those are in the decline, with the music business becoming more lucaritive every day. As soon as there is a band which offers all their music for free as downloads, and work regular jobs (sure, they'll release less, but its the principle of the matter), then I'd consider giving them a listen, even if it isn't my type of music, maybe I'd even donate something to give some support, for their effort and the basis that they're doing it because they enjoy it. As soon as it become about making money, you're not making music, its just a new business venture. That being said, I do actually buy CDs now rather than download.

 

 

 

While art is a form of expression, its changed over the years. Now you can pretty much throw some paint on a canvas and voila, you've got modern art. I don't want to find some obscure [bleep]ing meaning from some random splatters of paint. Give me a Picasso or something over this crap any day.

 

 

 

I suppose now the art world is getting more to what music should be. A way of expressing yourself (albeit, alot now are just WTF? moments and look like a random splattering of paint).

swordfinalqr7.jpg

Denizen of Darkness| PSN= sworddude198

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Metallica is a business. They stopped with the metal attitude once they decided that they could become entrepreneurs. I think Lars successfully managed to alienate a number of Metallica fans with his business attitude.

 

 

 

All bands, no matter how indie / punk they are, need to make at least something off their music. It's a sad reality, because I believe that art of all forms shouldn't be pioneered as some sort of cash-cow. Art is a form of expression at its very fundamentals - certainly no tool to use to earn money. I believe that art should be a free thing. You cannot and should not put a price on expression.

 

 

 

Bands like Metallica make me feel sick. Why does a bunch of middle-aged crybabies get garnered with such adoration? Don't people realise that they're simply cashing in and releasing any half-arsed attempt at music just because it nets them all a cool million or so? They are a [bleep] PRIME example of everything wrong with music in today's world. I've got nothing against plenty of changes of direction (actually, I welcome this whole-heartedly) but when you're trying to appeal to new fanbases and you've not even mastered the said style of music, then you know that there's a big problem with the band as a musical entity versus a business. Couple this with Metallica's records being a major offender in the 'loudness war,' [ see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war ] then you know that they're not releasing stuff because they're passionate about what they create.

 

 

 

So, to sum up: seeing as Metallica exists to leech off their fans anyway, they were not justified.

 

 

 

That doesn't prove metallica only exist to leech off their fans. That's a massive stretch if you ask me.

 

 

 

You could take the view that they go for loud albums because they're purist businessmen and want to outcompete other artists for peoples money, or perhaps they just want to sound "metal" by recording their albums as loud as they can. A kind of "spinal tap syndrome", if you like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You could take the view that they go for loud albums because they're purist businessmen and want to outcompete other artists for peoples money, or perhaps they just want to sound "metal" by recording their albums as loud as they can. A kind of "spinal tap syndrome", if you like.
That's probably a better way of wording it. I do think that they're a past-it band that's trying too hard to recreate former glories; and for me, that's something you shouldn't try to do. No matter how much I like/loathe a band, it's always irritating to see them burn out on a bad note of trying to recreate their brighter early days. This isn't true of all bands; for example, King Crimson has gotten more amazing as time has passed. I can't believe a band from the 1960s sounds like they do now.

 

 

 

Maybe I was a little too hard on Metallica in what I posted. But that aside, they represent a lot of things I don't like in moden music. (I don't want to call music an 'industry'. It should not be one.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would be nice if we could go back to the days when music was more than a method of making money. When it was just some guys playing the instruments as a form of expression, however, the illusion of "talent" stops many.

 

 

 

No matter how crap they seem to me, I'll still give bands that play for the fun of it, and not for profit, respect. Unfortunately, those are in the decline, with the music business becoming more lucaritive every day. As soon as there is a band which offers all their music for free as downloads, and work regular jobs (sure, they'll release less, but its the principle of the matter), then I'd consider giving them a listen, even if it isn't my type of music, maybe I'd even donate something to give some support, for their effort and the basis that they're doing it because they enjoy it. As soon as it become about making money, you're not making music, its just a new business venture. That being said, I do actually buy CDs now rather than download.

 

 

I've always said this: if I can get enough money to get by: a house, food, and some accessories, then I would be glad to make movies for free or the cheapest I can.

"The cry of the poor is not always just, but if you never hear it you'll never know what justice is."

siggy3s.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.