Lars was right...

About Napster? He was. But the thing that drives me crazy about it—and I'm not even a huge Metallica (or Lars) fan—is the way his original argument got so massively misconstrued. It got framed as being all about greedy multimillionaires who'd lost touch with their roots. But for them, at least, it was really about artistic control.
On July 11, 2000, Metallica drummer Lars Ulrich read testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee accusing Napster of copyright infringement. He explained that, that year, Metallica discovered that a demo of "I Disappear", a song set to be released with the Mission: Impossible II soundtrack, was being played on the radio.
Click to expand...

“With each project,” read a press release from the band, “we go through a gruelling creative process to achieve music that we feel is representative of Metallica at that very moment in our lives. We take our craft — whether it be the music, the lyrics, or the photos and artwork — very seriously, as do most artists. It is therefore sickening to know that our art is being traded like a commodity rather than the art that it is. From a business standpoint, this is about piracy — taking something that doesn't belong to you. And that is morally and legally wrong. The trading of such information – whether it's music, videos, photos, or whatever — is, in effect, trafficking in stolen goods.”

“Our beef hasn't been with the concept of sharing music; everyone knows that we've never objected to our fans trading tapes of our live concert performances. The problem we had with Napster was that they never asked us or other artists if we wanted to participate in their business. We believe that this settlement will create the kind of enhanced protection for artists that we've been seeking from Napster.”

For smaller artists, the pinch is far more acute. “Remember too, that my band, Metallica, is fortunate enough to make a great living from what it does,” Lars told a Senate Judiciary Hearing in July 2001. “Most artists are barely earning a decent wage and need every source of revenue available to scrape by.”

Although, ultimately, guitarist Kirk Hammett has acknowledged that Metallica achieved little with their crusade, looking back during a 2014 Reddit AMA, there was a hint of vindication for Lars. "I wish we had been better prepared for that shitstorm that we found ourselves in,” he wrote. “I was stunned that people thought it was about money. People used the word 'greed' all the time, which was so bizarre. The whole thing was about one thing and one thing only – control. Not about the internet, not about money, not about file sharing, not about giving shit away for free or not, but about whose choice it was. If I wanna give my shit away for free, I'll give it away for free. That choice was taken away from me."
Click to expand...

I remember watching it play out in real time, and watching his earliest interviews. As the quote up above said, he acknowledged trading tapes himself as a young fan, and knew that similar behavior had helped them early in their career. It was the fact that unreleased outtakes were being traded that initially drove their rage, and I don't blame him one bit.

Obviously, the horses have all left the barn and what's done is done and all that. But still.
 
We have a lyric regarding illegal downloads that says "Even Lars Ulrich knows it's wrong...(and you can just ask him!)"
 
Which leads me to ask, "Who in their chain of studio people uploaded those tracks to be traded?" I mean...someone had to have done it & did Lars & Co. go after those folks?
I don't remember hearing about that.
 
Cmdr. Ross said:
Which leads me to ask, "Who in their chain of studio people uploaded those tracks to be traded?" I mean...someone had to have done it & did Lars & Co. go after those folks?
I don't remember hearing about that.
Click to expand...
I didn't hear about it either, but it stands to reason that if they went after Napster, they also tried to find out where the leak sprang from internally.

But, I mean...these kinds of leaks have been a thing since at least July 1969, when what's generally considered the first major bootleg—Great White Wonder, a collection of unreleased Bob Dylan recordings, some of which were later released as The Basement Tapes—hit the stores. Since then it's been a constant problem for artists, some of whom care more than others. My favorite record store growing up was shut down by the FBI in the 80s due to selling bootlegs, so it's not like going after those who distribute the bootlegs (many of which I paid way too much money for and absolutely adored!) is a new tactic. It's just that Napster and its successors were able to do it far more efficiently and with a far wider reach.
 
GretschedHive said:
I didn't hear about it either, but it stands to reason that if they went after Napster, they also tried to find out where the leak sprang from internally.

But, I mean...these kinds of leaks have been a thing since at least July 1969, when what's generally considered the first major bootleg—Great White Wonder, a collection of unreleased Bob Dylan recordings, some of which were later released as The Basement Tapes—hit the stores. Since then it's been a constant problem for artists, some of whom care more than others. My favorite record store growing up was shut down by the FBI in the 80s due to selling bootlegs, so it's not like going after those who distribute the bootlegs (many of which I paid way too much money for and absolutely adored!) is a new tactic. It's just that Napster and its successors were able to do it far more efficiently and with a far wider reach.
Click to expand...
Good point & well said.
 
Push pull stroke said:
But I don’t necessarily know that there is a “right” or “wrong” on the Napster issue.
Click to expand...
Of course there is!
If someone makes something and legally attaches a price to it, it isn't right (morally or legally) to take it without paying. It just isn't.
Technology has zero to do with it. The thing that bugs me the most is that while most musicians have seen their living standards plummet, the original pirates are either extremely well paid board members at tech companies, or already multi-millionaires. They sold the public a lie that it was an attack against the 'evil' record labels, then they did a deal with the labels that left musicians scrabbling for pennies for the last 15 years and for the future unless we can redress the balance.
 
GretschedHive said:
It's just that Napster and its successors were able to do it far more efficiently and with a far wider reach.
Click to expand...
Neither Napster or The Pirate Bay were about bootlegs though. It was ALL about buying one copy of a very popular record, then uploading it so everyone could access it free. That is 100% what damaged musician's incomes, not the odd leak of a demo or live bootleg.
 
Chris Whitten said:
Neither Napster or The Pirate Bay were about bootlegs though. It was ALL about buying one copy of a very popular record, then uploading it so everyone could access it free. That is 100% what damaged musician's incomes, not the odd leak of a demo or live bootleg.
Click to expand...
It did take the music industry several years to catch up to the idea that physical media was becoming obsolete, though. I'm not defending piracy per se. There's a reason that a technology company (Apple) now make huge amounts of money out of online music purchases as opposed to a record company - because the record companies were incredibly slow to adapt and didn't make their albums available in a convenient online format for a long time.

The iTunes store opened in 2003. MP3 was available in 1995. The technology existed to open a web store long before 2003 but nobody did. 192 Kb/S MP3 is more than good enough for the mass market. So why an eight year gap?
 
Chris Whitten said:
Neither Napster or The Pirate Bay were about bootlegs though. It was ALL about buying one copy of a very popular record, then uploading it so everyone could access it free. That is 100% what damaged musician's incomes, not the odd leak of a demo or live bootleg.
Click to expand...
To add. The CEO(?) of spotify doesn't even play an instrument and makes 100x more than most musicians, whilst paying them mere pennies per play.
 
It is obviously both a legal and moral issue, but it's not simple.

In the age of cassette tapes sharing was the norm with kids and when this stuff started happening there was no easy legal access. Record stores were closing, ordering things with credit cards and certainly online was not the norm as for many it was considered unsafe by so many. With movie and TV later release dates outside the country of origin was certainly a thing. People wanted to pay, but couldn't and didn't want to wait.

There are also different attitudes.

Every time I went to a Michael Landau show, probably coming down to him not really having a big name as a solo artist and anything increasing interest would be good, it was announced that recording and filming was not just legal but encouraged. IN any case, going to an actual show and having the most amazing guitar tone right in your face was sort of the point.

There are more shows now and more people sharing the pie. If you really like a band you can get their CD at the show and there are quite a things you can do creatively to make things unique to your audience.

Spotify came and that sort of works, but obviously we can discuss if it's run fairly. There are certainly many things that could be improved in many areas with that thing.
 
Seems to me that being a musician in 2022 is better than it has ever been. You can create, produce, mix, and distribute your music from home. No longer does one need to send endless demos in the hope some record executive (who also probably doesnt play an instrument) decides you have the "it" and signs you.
One has total control of the rights to their art. I feel that is priceless.
 
That’s why I won’t use Spotify or any streaming services.
 
bearblastbeats said:
relevant

Click to expand...

To be fair my opinion of Spotify has risen as a result of this video, I'd assumed that only the massive artists made money as a result of the volume of streams they get and everyone else was scratching around for the scraps. The example of independent artists making a living
and paying the bills on modest stream numbers was illuminating and for them it could be argued that they've got better circumstances now than in the previous heyday of physical media.
I still buy physical CDs in support of artists but I'm not sure how much longer I'll be doing that. I was bitten by 2 bands who released extended versions of their albums after I'd shown my support by paying for their CDs mere weeks beforehand and was still awaiting delivery. Plus the fact that my home CD player has finally given up the ghost and my current car doesn't even have a CD player makes my gesture even more symbolic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top