Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
 ·Site5.com
 ·AT&T Midwest
 ·Comcast
| reply to Jaime
Re: Metallica Bad
said by Jaime  :
Pissed you off? Didn't like that they wanted people to not take their songs for free?
I agree. Seems that song writers and musicians that stand up and publically say they hate file trading are blacklisted. Kinda stupid if you ask me being as that the people downloading music were stealing from them. Kinda like the fox blacklisting the farmer while it was stealing his chickens. 
--
My Domain
Nightfall's Hockey and Life Journal |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| said by Nightfall :
Seems that song writers and musicians that stand up and publically say they hate file trading are blacklisted.
You're right about this... and I'll respect any artist that doesn't want their stuff traded... except for Metallica, who, when they were nothing back in the early 80s, wanted people to trade copies of their music... just so that other people would find out about them and buy the albums and come to their shows. I think its somewhat contradictory for a band that made its money by doing this to whine when people still trade their tracks online.
Besides... Metallica is just like every other 80s act trying to make a comeback... they're all washed up and need to retire.
--
Saying that Microsoft has a monopoly in Operating Systems because one is too lazy to learn a different OS is like saying that Ford has a monopoly in cars because one is too lazy to find a Honda dealership. |
|
Speedy8
Premium
join:2002-08-22
Alliance, OH
clubs:
| reply to Nightfall
Yeah I can see both sides of the argument, and I'm not on either side. What they did doesn't bother me, since it doesn't affect me at all, and sharing the files after all IS illegal. But on the other side it's not like I don't download songs, but I DO in fact own all of Metallica's albums. I also own 12 CDs worth of bootleg concerts in MP3 format, but metallica actually doesn't mind bootlegs. Not to say I'll buy the new album if I don't like it, but if I do I just might, you get a lot of stuff for the $13 I've seen it being preordered for. |
|
Jaime
Premium
join:2001-06-03
Huntington Beach, CA | reply to pnh102
Trading with your buddies and family is a bit different than trading with hundreds of thousands of people, don't you think? |
|
Cougar311
join:2002-07-18
USA
| reply to pnh102
Yea I remember the first time I heard them, I got a Copied Cassette tape of Master of Puppets and I must have listed to that thing straight for 10 days. I was like WOW! This band rocks and after that i bought every Tape and CD and went to all of their Shows and then when the Napster thing came about and they bitched, I lost faith in them... Oh well mayby they can grab the new Generation, which is generation Z right?  |
|
nowayhuhuh
@65.170.x.x | reply to pnh102
rumsfeld sucks |
|
nowaynope
@65.170.x.x | reply to pnh102
rumsfeld is lame |
|
HardwareLust
Subaru WRX Maniac
Premium
join:2002-01-02
Harrisburg, PA
clubs:
| reply to Jaime
You're skating on thin ice there, buddy. The application of common sense during yet another completely juvenile and pointless "Napster v. Metallica" argument is dangerous thing to do around here. |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
·Comcast
| reply to Jaime
said by Jaime :
Trading with your buddies and family is a bit different than trading with hundreds of thousands of people, don't you think?
I'm not debating that the act of sharing copyrighted works without the consent of the copyright owner is illegal. There is no question that this is illegal. The means by which the material is shared and the number of people you share with also doesn't change the fact that the act of sharing in itself is illegal.
Metallica's approach, though, encouraged people to share their stuff with their friends, who would then share it with their friends, and so on and so forth. If someone did that with Napster, the end result would be similar to what would happen if thousands of people copied Metallica's stuff and distributed it to all their friends by hand. Either way, lots of people would have copies of their music. I just think it was hypocritical for Metallica to be OK with one form of copyright infringement but not the other, that's all.
--
Saying that Microsoft has a monopoly in Operating Systems because one is too lazy to learn a different OS is like saying that Ford has a monopoly in cars because one is too lazy to find a Honda dealership. |
|
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
| said by pnh102 :
Either way, lots of people would have copies of their music. I just think it was hypocritical for Metallica to be OK with one form of copyright infringement but not the other, that's all.
For once we agree.... partially. I am still no convinced it's copyright infringement. I have read copyright law time and time again and it doesn't show any solid indication that sharing music, that doesn't generate revenue or profit, is illegal. When you start selling it or making money from it is where you have the problem. That's what got Napster blasted. Remember much of what the RIAA says is what they claim is law. Even with the NET act sharing music is still legal as long as it's under a certain monetary value.
As far as Metallica is concerned they endorsed distribution of their music as long as it's not for profit. Even though copyright law pretty much says the same thing they reinforced it. Lars going back on that, most likely caught up in either greed or propaganda put forth by the RIAA, pretty much throws his entire claim out the window.
--
Love Science Fiction? www.spacestationzoom.com |
|
